Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Friday, April 1, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.
J. Patrick Coolican
Sun archives
If you care about the future of our country and our community, I implore you to watch the riveting documentary about education reform, “Waiting for Superman,” which was recently released on DVD. Invite friends and family and neighbors and host a discussion after you watch.
Wednesday night I watched it with Dr. Ken Turner, special assistant to new Clark County Schools Superintendent Dwight Jones; teachers Shirley Webb and Marc Hechter, and Zhan Okuda-Lim and William Johnson, students at Valley High School and Las Vegas High School, respectively.
“Waiting for Superman” was made by Davis Guggenheim, a progressive filmmaker who also directed the documentary about Al Gore and global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
“Waiting for Superman” has excited education reformers for its stark portrayal of a failing education system and the role of teacher unions in that failure.
With its tough portrayal of unions, the film has drawn praise from conservatives — some genuinely interested in education, others rank opportunists.
Here are some facts — and a key question — that come out of the movie:
• We spend increasing amounts of money on education per student but aren’t getting better results, with per-pupil spending in the United States having increased from $4,300 per student in 1971 to more than $9,000 today (adjusted for inflation). This is obviously not as glaringly true in Clark County, where we spend $7,842 per pupil — with cuts expected due to the budget crisis.
• Certain children are condemned to terrible schools and never given much chance in life (although we don’t play a starring role in the movie, many schools in Clark County would fit in this category).
• A few schools, sometimes but not always charter schools, have shown tremendous results in tough neighborhoods — in some cases outperforming their suburban peers — which can usually be attributed to outstanding teachers and administrators.
• If children, including poor and minority children, can be taught at those select schools, why can’t we achieve the same success everywhere?
The film is told with poignancy as families struggle to achieve a good education and make it to college.
Among the most film’s most compelling data points:
• A top-notch instructor teaches three times the material of a bad teacher in an academic year. To put it another way: The good teacher imparts a year-and-a-half of instruction during a single school year, while a bad teacher teaches just one half year.
• If we were to eliminate 6 to 10 percent of our worst teachers and replace them with merely average teachers, we would suddenly have one of the best education systems in the world, rather than lagging near the bottom of industrialized nations.
What conclusions are we to draw from these facts?
We need to reward the best teachers and dump the worst. In most other professions, merit is rewarded with better pay and benefits, and failure is punished with termination.
Keep this in mind: As progressive commentator Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress has pointed out, it’s incorrect to say we don’t have merit pay for teachers. We do pay teachers different salaries, but based on extremely odd metrics for merit — longevity and advanced degrees in education, which don’t seem like good measures of performance.
So we need to build incentives into our pay structure to reward performance. (The question of what constitutes good performance is a knotty one and would have to be perfected over many years. It would seem to include some mix of standardized test score successes and more intangible measures.)
We also need to part ways with the worst teachers. By now, the stories of barriers to firing based on performance are legendary — in Illinois, one in 57 doctors and one in 97 lawyers lose their licenses, while one in 2,500 teachers loses his credentials. Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval and Democrats in the Legislature have introduced legislation on this front.
That the teachers unions would protect their members isn’t notable — that’s the job of a union. But their Democratic allies should recognize — and many, including President Barack Obama have — that obstructing reform is a long-term policy and political loser.
Education reform is impossibly complex, too complex for a 111-minute film, and “Waiting for Superman” is imperfect, so it’s worth bearing in mind a few additional facts:
• Per-pupil costs have risen over the decades largely because teachers were so badly underpaid in the past. Female teachers were also victims of gender discrimination; men were paid more because it was assumed they had to support families, while women had husbands. As the film notes, this is why teachers unionized. They have a right to celebrate and defend that legacy in the face of an assault from Republicans whose long-standing goal is to destroy not just public employee unions, but all of organized labor. Finally, given that such a small number of teachers — 6 to 10 percent — drag down our whole education system, it’s worth noting that most teachers are doing a good job, or at the very least, are committed to their students and crave the tools to get better. Enough teacher bashing already.
• Charter schools are no panacea: As Richard Kahlenberg recently noted in Slate, the most comprehensive study of charter schools to date found that charters outperformed regular public schools 17 percent of the time and performed worse 37 percent of the time.
• Michelle Rhee, who is highlighted in the film, is something of a flawed hero. She resigned as superintendent of Washington, D.C.’s schools after three years, just a few months after the film hit theaters. Rhee, who recently visited with Sandoval, was a deeply polarizing figure, reviled by many parents, and some of the successes she achieved appear to be illusory. USA Today reported recently, for instance, that a school that achieved remarkable improvements in standardized test scores almost certainly did so by cheating.
• The story of another hero of “Waiting for Superman,” Geoffrey Canada, is also more complex than is portrayed. Canada is trying to transform a 97-block area of Harlem with an intense focus on its children, from the womb through college. His effort is inspiring, and incredibly well-funded, as The New York Times reported last year. The cost of his charter school is $16,000 per pupil, supplemented with much more out-of-the-classroom spending on such things as health and dental care, asthma treatment, after-school programs, investment in parks and playgrounds, healthy meals and trips given as rewards to good students.
Last time I checked, our community had little of that, and given Sandoval’s budget of what he calls “shared sacrifice,” what we do have will be cut. That’s in addition to teacher pay cuts and a reduction in overall education funding.
The narrative arc of “Waiting for Superman” travels with five children as they await the results of a lottery — a literal lottery — that will determine if they get into top-flight schools.
The technique is manipulative, almost annoyingly so, but also deeply affecting. I’ve seen the movie three times, and each time during the final scenes I’ve felt a rush of emotion, from sadness to anger.
That so many children, especially here in Clark County, face such unfair odds, is an outrage.
See Tuesday's Sun or check back online for a transcript of the conversation that followed the movie screening, as well as Coolican's column on the subject.
Coolican’s column appears Tuesdays and Fridays.
CORRECTION: Clark County spends $7,842 per pupil. The story originally reported the number was $5,035. | (April 11, 2011)
one thing is crystal clear...
brain sandoval ain't superman...
brian sandoval is a complete and total fraud...
he cares only about his next job...
he could frickin care less about the children of nevada...
he just wants to be able to put on resume that he didn't raise taxes...
even if that means kissing mining's @$$...
it's a frickin joke...
look boys and girls...
brain sandoval is the son of mexican immigrants...
when recently asked if he was concerned about racial profiling...
he said that he was not because his kids "don't look hispanic"...
hello!!!
wake the eff up people...
the guy is a complete and total fraud...
he has no moral compass...
he cares only about his career...
and sadly he is more than willing to inflict irreparable harm on the innocent children of the state of nevada...
BRIAN SANDOVAL IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD!!!
Yeah, right.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31...
Mr. Coolican:
I am having trouble reconciling your math with the CCSD. Per pupil spending for one, in terms of sources of funding. I am a bit slow in the math department most days and haven't had my coffee this morning, so I may have missed something. Can you show us how you arrived at your numbers?
The last time I checked the Clark County School District's website, the general fund operating budget for the 2010-2011 school year is $2.13 billion, with basic per-pupil state funding at $5,035 and per-pupil expenditures at $7,842.
Per-pupil expenditures include funding from federal programs, special education, and class size reduction. The district receives revenue from various sources including:
29.0% Local sales tax
21.9% Property tax
36.9% State funding
6.6% Government services tax, federal support, other
5.6% Opening fund balance
http://ccsd.net/news/publications/pdf/CC...
When it comes to students this old adage is certainly true: "Garbage in, garbage out". Blame teachers all you want but it's the PARENTS who have authority over the darlings the great majority of the time, and many parents are rank failures. Nonetheless, get rid of any and all bad teachers, too.
Finally some coverage on the REAL ISSUE: K-16 is BROKEN AND MONEY WON'T FIX IT. Education REFORM is so desperately needed. Let's stop talking about how we can spend more money on teachers and CUT FUNDING on pension plans, administrators, electronic toys for administrators, over heating and over cooling of buildings. ELIMINATE WRAP AROUND SERVICES--we are NOT going to support ILLEGALS cradle to grave just because teachers think they know more about social services than any one else. Illegals and dependent Americans are NOT entitled to everything they want or need--unless they work for each and every thing.
Hey Cool Dude, how do the EXPERTS IN EUROPE manage to GRADUATE so many and they can read and write? Could get you a prize if you come up with real data that even "educators" can digest. Educators just want to argue about money, not about educating our children.
OK do the math--whatever per pupil funding you accept, multiply that times 100,000 ILLEGAL STUDENTS IN NEVADA. The 140,000 illegals stealing jobs from our 99ers....
Cooligan, aside from the budgetary mistake which Turrialba already covered, charter schools are not some uniform entity.
1) Not all charter school laws are created equally. Nevada has some onerous laws that make compliance difficult and expensive (500 page application and the 7 people at the Charter Agency at the Nevada Department of Education claim to have 0 copies of those applications on electronic storage). These rules also ties the hands of charter schools discouraging or making difficult some much needed innovation.
2) Most studies, including (I believe) the one on Slate, don't account for the fact that most charter schools set up shop where an alternative school is needed most. That is, they set up shop in low-income areas that typically have a high percentage of minority students. One study I saw compared public schools and charter schools in the DC metro area. The problem was that most of the charter schools were set up in low-income black neighborhoods so comparing them with schools in the white upper-class suburbs was unfair.
Caroline Hoxby (see below) addresses some of the mistakes found in the report cited in Slate and suggests they've underestimated the number of successful charter schools. She also notes that variances in charter school regulations are not accounted for. That said, the report cited by Slate does in fact note that charter schools for low-income students do in fact tend to do quite well for their students relative to their peer institutions.
3) Caroline Hoxby, now an economics professor at Stanford, shows that apples to apples comparisons in areas with seemingly good charter school laws can demonstrate that charters do in fact outperform traditional public schools. In New York City for example, attending a charter school from K-12 significantly increased a Harlem child's chance of graduation and also significantly reduced the achievement gap between the poor Harlem students and the wealthy Skarsdale students (upper class students). http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterscho...
The Boston Foundation found that charter schools in Boston outperformed traditional public schools and the union run "Pilot Schools" (the union alternative to charter schools) http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/...
Great comments. "Waiting for Superman" is now on the shame list for misrepresenting the facts and Michelle Rhees is under scrutiny for cheating that occurred on her watch. Teachers are not the problem. Student behavior in the classroom is a problem no one wants to talk about and if rules were enforced by the administration of schools teachers might actually be able to get down to the job of teaching and not just policing unruly students. If a parent has to take time off work to attend required parent/teacher conferences often enough the behavior would stop.
Our governor is no Superman. He hands his mining friends, the BILLIONAIRES, $4.2 BILLION in tax deductions . . . and that is supposed to improve schools?
He hands the bill to Nevada's K-12 students in the amount of $300 each . . . and that is supposed to improve schools?
He wants to reform me and every other school teacher around, while I take a 16% cut in pay and benefits. . . and that is supposed to improve schools?
More and more students in each classroom to the point where the fireman will be involved because the fire codes will state there are too many in the given area . . . and that is supposed to improve schools?
The only thing the governor's proposed plan and his budget has done is sink education in Nevada, we are 51st in the nation . . . and EVERYONE is wondering why we are failing?
I can tell you money isn't the cure for everything but a kicked dog is not going to take it long, before it's going to bite. Teacher and students are getting tired of being handed the bills --- while mining billionaires are allowed to cart of Nevada's natural resources by the BILLIONS. I'm pissed off.
Chunky says:
Another excllent story by Mr. Coolocan!
It doesn't matter who is in office; if we don't have the money there has to be cuts or they have to raise taxes. The majority voters made their decision in the last election who and what they wanted.
If the numbers from the film are correct, throwing money at education is not the answer. Chunky has maintained all along that the good teachers and administrators need to route out the bad ones. Unfortunately, they are shielded by the union or colleagues who are unwilling to stand up for what is right.
Reward our teachers based on performance and results with incentives that give them an opportunity for parity in pay with other professions. Hold administrators accountable as well. Empower all of them to hold parents and students accountable for their work. Returning some teeth to discipline back into the classroom wouldn't hurt either.
That's what Chunky thinks!
Aside from looking at CCSD's current budget figures and dividing by the total number of students you can also look at the U.S. Department of Education data which goes back to 1959-60 school year.
In 1959 Nevada spent $4,372 per pupil (average daily attendance) by 2007-09 we spent $9,015. This does not include debt repayment or capital costs but it is adjusted for inflation.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/t...
If you want the figures using "Fall Enrollment" which provides a larger population of students then you can view that data here, however it only goes back to 1969-70: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/t...
It is tough to look at the cost of many public schools without doing a lot of digging. I have seen where districts have moved a lot of infrastructure costs out of the budget to make the per pupil costs look more reasonable or even wanting. And there is recent study from the Foundation for Educational Choice that highlights some positive data for voucher programs. (The name would imply that the group does have a pro-voucher slant, if you missed it.) Nine of ten studies that used random assignment of students showed that vouchers improved outcomes. Eighteen of nineteen studies on the impact of vouchers on public schools showed that public schools improved with the other showing no impact. The benefits of voucher programs are sometimes large but generally modest but that programs are also often very limited in size.
Like with so many things that we do, we need to be better consumers and that means being better informed and making better choices. This applies to education but also to many other things including elections.
The movie was filmed for the producers/authors' self-aggrandizement, under the guise of educational reform. I could make a movie and highlight the good things happening at schools -- following five, 10, a 100 families, or even more. As in any research, we can find many studies to support our claim for just about anything -- pro or con.
The point is, power corrupts. Those running education are beholden to many gods and not to whom it is truly for -- the children and the future. Everyone who works in education should have a shared vision and look at it with a single lens: children. As we all know, this is next to impossible.
Human beings are basically selfish. True missionary spirit only exists in saints. Heroes have their selfish reasons. So do philanthropists and do-gooders. There truly is no selfless act, save giving one's own life to save another. Mothers occupy a distant second place, but their numbers are dwindling. Our society has corrupted that which was once sacrosanct.
Education, just like any system that exists in society, cannot be reformed until we reform ourselves. Meanwhile, those who are affected by the bad things happening suffer while those who are greedy smile, but hey, this too shall pass. Students fall through the cracks, society slowly crumbles, then from the ashes the phoenix will rise, and things will look better again. We hee; we haw; some quietly, some loudly, but good things will happen again as they always do.
Mr. Coolican:
To be clear, I was wondering how you calculated the reduction from the $7800 during the current academic year(if indeed you used this as a benchmark) to your estimate for the next academic year. I was interested in what sources of funding were going down and to what extent to reduce spending by 25 percent or $2,000 per student?
My math is wrong $7,800 to $5,000 is a $2,800 reduction per student or almost 36%. This would be equal to approximately the state contribution.
You should have inserted the word "would" before after the word "we" "we would spend $5035 per general education student"
"This is obviously not as glaringly true in Clark County, where we spend $5,035 per general education pupil -- with cuts expected due to the budget crisis."
How does one get good management? Pay them more.
How does one get good teachers? Pay them less.
This is the essence of the "cut education" argument: inconsistency to the point of irrationality.
It is very clear that underfunding education will be destructive, yet the opposite is claimed. This technique, also called "Spin" is used many Wingers in their arguments.
Nevada is last or near last on education spending per pupil and that is the issue, not the dollar amount. Nevada has NEVER thrown money at education.
However, if education is cut, there will be a large number of websites pop up with many thousand links that describe to the World how this State treats it's children and the disadvantaged and the bottom line is, that will also affect the Casinos and companies that consider moving here. Isn't that right?
"What conclusions are we to draw from these facts?"
Coolican -- how about 1) the amount of money spent on schools doesn't equal even an adequate education, and 2) teachers should teach, not be social workers. Good article!
Turrialba -- good math lesson! How about factoring in the pay of the district superintendent -- you know, the one who's so incompetent he needs someone else to pay a cool million to study the district's budget?
Another point your post raised is no funding appears to come from the feds. So why is there a federal Dept. of Education?
I keep coming back to the fact I started my formal education in a 3-room rural schoolhouse with all 8 grades in it. Obviously bare bones by today's standards, yet it was better than my children's by the time they finished high school in the late 90s. Maybe that's because my first grade teacher introduced me to the value of reading. You know, books.
"Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." -- John Adams "A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law," from "The Works of John Adams" (1851) volume 3, page 462
The $5,035 is probably the "Basic Support Per Pupil" which is a combination of some of the state support and some of the local support. If the local support taxes falls short on their end, the state government promises to back fill the lost revenue with revenue from the state general fund up to the basic support. That is, the state ensures they receive at least that much but the almost always have several grand more.
The operating budget differs from school district to school district but it uniformly excludes debt repayment and capital expenditures. Excluding capital expenditures if the the revenue used was from a loan or bond revenue is excusable because that is technically paid back over the course of several years in the debt repayment category. That said, capital expenditures also appears to collect tax revenues to pay for certain improvements and machinery year in and year out so that money should not be excluded if spent.
With the extremely high numbers of ERASURES on the DC high-stakes exams, it appears that some of purported gains in that district are fictional.
But one thing that Patrick R Gibbons has not repeated on this blog, though he usually mentions it, is the false belief that a better educated instructor does not a better teacher make. In fact merely the face of the suggestion invites incredulity.
If true, then the notion of undereducated teachers leading the classes out of the cave would lead to less and less educated personnel, rather than the top performers, steeped in practical and experienced involvement in the profession.
The other oft-repeated lie is that after 5 years, teachers do not improve. Again, this notion is despicably erroneous and destined to suffer a similar demise when standing in the light of day. Old teachers are not necessarily good, but neither is the fresh graduate. Successful outcomes arise from the interaction, not the age, though age may play into the interaction. As a high school senior, I recall the youthful figure of the student-teacher, her short skirt and heaving cleavage much better than her inputs into class discussion, and one can easily imagine similar occurrences with this age group, their motivations and DRIVE.
Good teachers don't come from any one group, and they don't get good because of what they learned or know, but still we must find a way to select criteria for establishing successful traits to celebrate and compensate. Tossing the deadwood ought not be so challenging. Ask the kids what they learned. End of discussion.
I honestly think there are so many factors it is unfair to even try to explain it all in a film. To me the biggest problem in schools are the kids that go home to a family that doesnt care. The dont do their work at home and then come to school and disrupt the classes. Teachers cant do anything about it. In a private school they just kick them out of school so the others can learn. But in public schools they are stuck with them. So its easy to blame it all on teachers or not enough money but in reality there is so much more including parents being involved in their childs education. The ones that are involved their children get a good education no matter where they go to school. Quit complaining about the schools and take some responsibility for making sure your child gets a great education in the class room and at home.
Right on VC.
Without a home and a loving family to direct the kiddo from the get-go, chances are slim to none.
Vocabulary and math are clear indicators of this well-established truth. The kid reads, writes and adds at 4; the kid succeeds. If not, then it's a probation/parole officer's task to explain how to do life after picking up the pieces following imprisonment, and all the years spent disrupting progress of mates in the schoolhouse. Wasting away is the best they can do. Tragedy and history.
KillerB also likely benefited from passing on to younger, less talented kids what he had gleaned. That exercise benefits as the quality of mercy is not strained, favoring the benefactor as much as the released.
One's own words explain what the theory tries to do, but it forces the cognizance to take on the roots of who one is and to whom one speaks. They call it 'peer tutoring' now but it was the way our one-room schoolhouse worked at the circus where I grew up, on the road, with Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth!
"Waiting for Superman" is nothing more than anti-public-school, pro-privatization propaganda. Diane Ravitch found plenty of holes in this "documentary" last fall...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives...
And this video asks more questions on the real motives behind this film.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/1/wa...
We need to look at the reality of our underfunded schools to fix the public education crisis in Nevada, NOT indulge in any more magical fairy tales promoted by movies like "Waiting for Superman".
Mr. Lamy you are off topic but yes much research shows that
1) where a teacher is educated doesn't appear to make a difference to their students (that is student achievement doesn't seem to be effected by where a teacher is educated). Being state certified or not also didn't seem to have a statistically significant impact on student achievement.
2) Teachers don't improve after 3-5 years (3 years for most everything 5 years for reading). That is student achievement under the teacher continues to improve for the first 3 years then flatlines. In other words the typical teacher sees their skills peak after 3-5 years.
In fact, Melissa was kind enough to bring up a Harvard study by Dr. Paul Peterson on this subject thinking that it disproves my assertions http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/MeritPay...
It however confirms everyone of them both the literature review and in the conclusion. You can see my remarks at the bottom of this article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar...
Mr. Davey,
Diane Ravitich has been debunked as well, most notably for her cherry picking of data, even cherry picking the cherry picked data.
CREDO for example, praises charter schools for low-income students suggesting they do in fact tend to do better than their peer schools.
Ravitch also carefully ignores dozens of apples-to-apples studies that show charters out perform public schools when you take into account the fact that charters are more likely to set up in low-income districts. Here is just one such study http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterscho...
PS, while the AFT initially liked the idea of charter schools they quickly distanced themselves from the concept and attacked it relentlessly (along with the NEA). Both have tried to kill charter schools by limiting their exposure and regulating them to death when outright opposition fails.
Haha. Patrick Gibbons from NPRI now attacks Diane Ravitch when she's uncovered the truth about privatized education, but the radical righties had no problem encouraging her when she thought charter schools had promise. He attacks Ravitch for doing her homework, but doesn't mind Michelle Rhee's cheating in DC.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2...
Charter schools and private school vouchers may seem like "easy solutions", but they don't really solve anything.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-o...
http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2010/06/1111...
The amount per pupil is wrong. Look at the "behavioral" schools accountability reports. Those schools have an average of 75 kids. They spend $34,000 per student. That is 2.5 million for one school that has kids who most likely do not want to be there. They are there because they are having behavioral issues and are habitually truant. Throwing more money does not work. The teachers need to be able to teach not babysit the children. Parents do not care anymore about the education. On top of that, there is much more information that the children have to learn. Why are they in school for so little time? My school hours were 7:30-2:35. That was 7 hours. Today, the kids go to school 9:00-3:11. That is only 6 hours. More stuff is being crammed into their heads in a shorter amount of time and the class sizes are crazy. I spend a lot of time at night reviewing and helping my children, as I should. Most parents don't or have no clue what their kids are learning. Money is not the answer, it goes deeper than that.
"Mr. Lamy you are off topic"...
Hey PAT!!!
Didn't know YOU were setting the agenda!
Must be gittin' BIG BRITCHES out there at the OK Coral, with all them Wranglin' & Ropin' lessons, eh?
How about that article yesterday, Pat...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralston...
Heck, Ralston said YOU & YERS Propaganda Campaign was a real LOSER!
"---Public employees are not hated. Quite the contrary. This is quite the empirical proof of the failure of a certain "newspaper" and conservative think tank to demonize them. Epic fail, as the youngsters say."
EPIC FAIL, PAT!
Your Anti-Education Propaganda Campaign, Pat...
NOT WORTH THE VIRTUAL PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON.
You might wanna pay attention out there at the Wranglin' Wranch... Ever thought about punchin' dowgies fer a livin', Pat?
At this juncture, the bottom line is all that needs to be addressed. That being said, Nevada education has ranked the worst of the worst in the nation long before the budget issues and looming cuts.
For a long time, the pattern and practice in Nevada education has been...everybody makes money ...and has been making money ...again, since well before the budget crisis, at the expense of Nevada youths' education and progress.
With all Nevada's resources, high tech schools and facilities and recent expansion due to population ...outside of ineptitude and corruption, when other states' education achieve successes without the resources available to Nevada ...what other excuses can there possibly be?
Granted, unforeseen national,geopolitical, and economic events extenuate current circumstances which are impacting every state but...
USDOJ already knows this ...if the 'money' were to be followed, ineptitude and/or corruption resulting in Nevada's poor education stats, is all that remains for the long period.
Where there's a will there's a way ...but everyone has to work together.
Despite the current budget dilemma, there are some proven cost effective alternative to pull Nevada education out of the pits and to the top.
We've done some research on cost affective alternatives:
Links below:
2011:The Nevada Budget and Crisis In Education How do we fix this?
How do we fix this? Part 1 http://bit.ly/fjuWbr
How do we fix this? Part 2 http://bit.ly/fQS5z5
How do we fix this? Part 3 http://bit.ly/fPbWkD
How do we fix this? Part 4 http://bit.ly/frAmMN
DaveScottshow 3-30-11 A candid discussion on Nevada Education #nved #nvleg and politics http://bit.ly/hFrpTP
Well then, the solution has been been made perfectly clear by Mr Patrick R Gibbons - fire teachers after five years of service and fetch fresh blood because as any fool can plainly see the old fuddy-duddies can only get WORSE, sucking up all that tax-payer garnish. This way we'll surely encourage the best and brightest to invest in ten years of study so they can serve for 5 unless they aren't any good to begin with.
And that will of course be revealed by their student success the first year in the classroom, the longevity of Mr Gibbons' teaching career until he was 'let go' for being under-qualified, in addition to other issues he chooses not to discuss.
Great thinking Mr Gibbons. We shall be forever in your debt for such stellar logic, realistic presentation of perfectly sound reasoning and unqualified accusations about the purview of topic.
Pat,
Go back to skool, dude.
Get a degree in something practical!
Limbaugh, Hannity, Glen Buck, are all college drop outs. The teabags and people over at the "sue-happy" Newspaper are for ignorance and for ending free education for all.
The private schools in Europe are run in accordance with strict government standards and supervision by the way.
Gibbons would do well to take a philosophy course. OOps too late. They don't offer them now.
Oh well, maybe garbage recycling. Composting toilets are a big hit.
How about something futuristic like electricity from wind machines, solar water heaters, or doggie droppings into flowers?
How 'bout equine bags for keeping the road apples in one, easy to catch spot - call it NPRI/Western Wranglers - make'em out of wrangler jeans - labeled No Poop Right Inyerway.
My per pupil number came from the district and is a "general education" number. Special education and English as Second Language students are more expensive and push up the average. These numbers are, admittedly, very hard to pin down.
Why aren't there any comments in the column from the others who say the film? Why do we not hear their voices? Why only Cooligan's? Did they not subscribe to the same innuendos as Cooligan? What was their opinion of Michelle Rhee? How did they feel about teacher unions only negotiating wages? What solutions did they offer? Why Cooligan, why?
No matter how much we spend, if parents don't take an active role in their childs education, things will only get worse. Kids are very gullible and it doesn't take much for street thugs to impress them with the life of easy money (selling drugs, robbing people, etc). If the parents don't step up to the task, we as citizens need to make a strong statement with regards to protecting ourselves, since a lot of these kids will turn to a life of crime.
Just out of Curiosity, Mr. Gibbons, What salary do you think is fair for teachers? What benefits do you think are fair and equitable for the position they hold. What protections should they have against being fired without cause. And what is the criteria you suggest for promotion and advancement.
And don't try and spout your "research." Give numbers and answers - if you have the stones...
It is funny to me that Gibbons is trying to chastise people for being "off topic" and call out Diane Ravitich for "cherry picking" information.
HA!
0/10 Mr. Gibbons. You sir are the undisputed KING of the cherry pickers.
Let's face facts folks, Mr. Gibbons is a paid shill for the same circle of jerks that created the "Waiting for Superman" agenda. He'll never acknowledge that on nearly every level, the arguments made in "Superman" simply fall apart.
Let's look at the blatant cheating and test score manipulating in the D.C. schools that were led by Sandoval's new buddy (and certainly advisor) Michelle Rhee http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/03/30/h...
the fact that 83% of charter schools perform at the same level or below public schools, with 46% demonstrating no difference from a public education and a whopping 37% performing significantly worse than public schools. http://credo.stanford.edu/
The tea party cabal represented by Gibbons also point to Europe as an example of both student achievement and per pupil spending, however Mr. Gibbons has never addressed the assessment of "education analysts in Europe who have believed, and recently asserted that teacher training and education has a direct impact on student achievement:
"The policy paper emphasises the close links between a high quality initial teacher education, the attractiveness and status of the teaching profession, and the quality of the education provided to pupils and students at all levels of the education sector."
http://www.atee1.org/news/3/european_tea...
The fact is that Gibbons is paid to push an agenda that is both anti-student and anti-teacher. If he and his masters had their way, students would have to compete to get into quality schools (The Lottery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery...) and those who didn't get in would be subjected to underfunded, overcrowded and poorly staffed schools.
Also remember that Gibbons alleged "expertise" in education comes from a half year experience substitute teaching secondary history and a half year experience as an uncertified, untrained substitute special education fill in teacher in Virginia.
The guy is a hack and a fraud who does nothing more than copy and paste other people's work.
Mr. Davey,
That LA Times opinion article is a load. Kipp and Green Dot most certainly do not screen their students. They are forbidden by state law from doing that. In fact, like traditional public schools charter schools must accept all students regardless of race, sex, disability, religion or even aptitude.
As for the other stuff on charters when doing apples to apples comparisons, that is randomized studies (students apply but are selected through open lottery) we see charter schools do very well in some areas, even superior to traditional public schools).
http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterscho...
http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/...
http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/march... (I was looking for the Hoxby/Rockoff study on Chicago charter schools but this will do)
and for good measure I'll toss in highly respected newspaper articles on the subject,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12535851...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/educat...
Charter schools are not a silver bullet but in some areas (perhaps due to good state law instead of bad state law) charter schools produce statistically significant results like higher student achievement and higher graduation rates. That said, there seems to be more overwhelming evidence to support vouchers than charter schools ;)
Mr. Lamy,
Don't be ridiculous, I never said fire teachers after five years. I said their skills plateau after five years. Earlier I had suggested ending the 14 year long step increase system because it makes no sense to keep paying teachers extra money long after their skills have plateaued. Instead shorten the system to 5 years and provide significant bonuses for top teachers.
Please have the decency to comprehend my point rather than attacking strawmen.
Keystone,
See above, I provided far more than just the Credo study. The Credo study itself has come under fire for statistical mistakes http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterscho...
That said, the Credo study notes
1) state laws on charter schools are all different and that can be playing a role in the differing outcomes between states
2) charter schools for poor kids do very well compared to public schools for poor kids
3) charter schools do as well as public schools for less money
As for the Lottery, it seems you're unaware how this works. Since charter schools are not allowed to select their students they must allow all students to enroll. If there are more students than spaces they must open a lottery. The reason lotteries exist is because there are not enough seats at charter schools relative to demand. The reason there aren't enough charter schools can be many. For one state regulations can be onerous - in particular Nevada is a nasty state to try and set up a charter school. Unions have also fought long and hard to neuter charter schools, make them difficult to start, and hold them back from innovating. The union also encourages state boards to delay or deny applications for the flimsiest of reasons. Of course, the reason is to reduce the available supply of charter schools to keep students, and thus funds flowing to their own coffers.
Mr. Cooligan, when comparing national figures we shouldn't exclude spending in Nevada and not exclude those same figures in other states. That is exactly what happened in this article. See, NCES on this subject http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/t...
As you can see, while Nevada spends well below average we spend much more than you showed here, thus much closer to the national average than your figure leads readers to believe. You'll also notice how much spending has increased in the last fifty years.
Cmon,
Bad teachers get $0
Great teachers $50,000 to $70,000 (depending on subject) plus bonuses taking them above $100,000 for extra students.
Just a question here for Mr. Cooligan.
Are our schools really failing in Nevada or are we all getting caught up on averages?
Sounds like a stupid question but maybe it deserves to be investigated. Maybe it is the demographic our of students and if you applied a skew for all the students that are ESL to pull them out (this makes the assumption that ESL students are not going to be able to match "scores" (since federal tests are probably made for students that are fluent in english) of life long english speakers.
If this is true, and the percentage of students in our system that are ESL is high, might it be that our students actually perform well when I pull all the data of ESL students from the mix?
Should I assume CCSD should match up with MA, MN, CT etc. without making the adjustments?
What is the percentage of ESL students in the system? Are teachers doing a great job on most kid's yet getting evaluated on the overall average?
Here we go again. ONE MORE TIME: It is not the teachers' fault! Teachers have become the scapegoat for all the failures of society - powers-that-be, administrators, and all you out there quoting research this and research that. YOU ARE ALL SCRATCHING ONLY THE SURFACE. YOU ARE SIMPLY LOOKING FOR AN EASY TARGET BECAUSE YOU ARE NO MARKSMEN. Try to go deeper.
It is not the teacher. I have students and parents whom I love and they make this all worthwhile. I kill myself teaching students who do not care! They don't even care to read questions during tests. They simply check the first box they see. I know it. I watch them do it. Those tests do not measure students' abilities. Water cannot be squeezed from a rock.
All your solutions are palliative. Not one of them works. You have been spouting the same things over and over and expecting different results. That is INSANITY!
Try to go deeper.
-LOOK AT THE PARENTS AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THEIR CHILDREN.
-LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY AND SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO OUR CHILDREN.
-LOOK AT OUR STUDENT RECRUITMENT - WHO WE ARE TRAINING TO BECOME TEACHERS.
-LOOK AT THE CURRICULUM FOR TRANING TEACHERS.
-LOOK AT OUR RECRUITMENT PROCESS - WHO WE ARE RECRUITING TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN.
-LOOK AT THOSE WHO RUN THE SCHOOLS.
-LOOK AT ADMINISTRATORS WHO SUPERVISE TEACHERS.
After you have done that, tell me what you find, then you can BLAME ME for the failure of educating children.
Until then, GET OFF MY BACK!
Gibbons
You know as well as I do that the Hoxby critique of the CREDO study was thoroughly debunked and her arguments eviscerated to the point she was forced to publicly admit that she had committed a series of statistical errors that conveniently countered the Stanford findings. Again, you choose to cherry pick information instead of presenting the whole picture. This is why you are a fraud.
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CREDO_...
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/memo_o...
Addressing #2 above, you know as well as I do that per pupil funding and non-curricular support play critical roles in determining the achievement and student outcomes at schools - both public and private - that teach mainly poor students.
Outside factors such as availability to healthcare, homelessness prevention, nutritional support and parent outreach play critical factors in determining student outcomes. Public and private schools that address these issues see dramatic and sustained improvement in outcomes over schools that lack such programs.
Unfortunately you and your financiers have traditionally shied away from addressing the non academic social issues that impact both communities and schools. Maybe if the conservative agenda in this country turned away from corporate welfare and focused more closely on the socio-economic issues facing schools we could improve ALL schools, not just the ones that politicians and philanthropists hand pick.
Your blanket statement that "charter schools do as well as public schools for less money" is also false to the point of absurdity. As the Stanford study demonstrated, almost 40% of charter schools do a WORSE job educating their students. In fact, the US Department of Education has stated that in the five states it has used as case studies into charter school education, the charter schools were out performed by traditional public schools.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/...
Also, you bet that teachers largely oppose charter schools. At the end of the day, the introduction of a charter school into a district typically means that traditional classrooms will lose funding that is already in short supply as charter schools for a select few students siphon off money. Schools across this country are already working on a shrinking funding stream. It is only logical that school boards, teachers associations and taxpayers like me are largely opposed to taking more tax dollars away from our established, if flawed, public school system to benefit pet projects for an incredibly minuscule number of students. It just doesn't make sense financially.
I have no problem with privately funded charter schools. Have as many as you want. However taxpayer funding for what amounts to experimental education for a few isn't equitable. I'm fully aware of how a charter school lottery works, I simply don't agree with the process or the very concept of one. It seems to me that parents and students in school systems that employ the lottery system are being set up for huge disappointments. This isn't like buying a scratch off at 7-11. Parents build the lottery up as the ONLY way that their kids will get a quality education. Instead of implementing best practices across the board, charter programs turn education into little more than a prize for the lucky few. What kind of mental impact do you think losing such a lottery has on those not picked? How many of those kids end up placing real value on their "typical" education?
Not many I bet.
Skills do NOT plateau after five years. No teacher laminates their lesson plans. No year is ever like any other year as no group of learners is ever even remotely similar.
An experienced teacher has a granary of corn, Pat, and fields over the hills ripening. You have nothing because you couldn't HANDLE it. You will NEVER get what it is.
It is absolutely NEVER about research with hard numbers; it absolutely IS about the little tiny fires in those little tiny minds trying like the DEVIL to find how they fit, where they are strong and how to get by without showing their stupidity.
Analyzing in the dark and belching your sorry numbers, statistics, and your theories may be fun, huh? but those things have zero relationship to what REAL teachers do. They pick up the chunks of manifest humanity, fix and empower in ways that do NOT appear on your screen.
Gmag nailed it, Pat. DO something. Idling away your time here blabbing senseless crap about something you know so little about is boring to those of us who happen to take a moment's gratitude from the experiences in the lives we have impacted. More numbers, theories and completely unrelated and nonsensical meanderings do not make you anything but a kibitzer. We don't need that. We need experience and integrity. You have nothing to offer to this discussion.
Kids in the charter school where I taught were mothering, pregnant and homeless. They had been discarded and banned from public schools because of drugs, booze, fights, threats guns, parole and probation officers and jail time.We wrote every day. 100% of them found their strengths; 100% passed the Nevada State Writing Exam. The BEST schools in the state NEVER get 100% of anything.
It happened because of one person willing to look into the little things and find the big stuff, the fire in the soul. Now what do you know about this universe?? You know nothing because the heart is the chief feature of the functioning mind. You're brassy and bold and lost in this world.
Keystone,
It was 46 percent are no better than existing public schools and 37 percent were worse. Those 46 percent are doing as well as the public schools but with only 70 percent of the cash.
The report also noted that performance of charter schools varied based on state regulatory environment.
I quote from page 6, "However, charter schools are found to have better academic
growth results for students in poverty.
English Language Learners realize significantly better learning gains in charter schools.
Students in Special Education programs have about the same outcomes."
Like I said, CREDO acknowledges that charter schools do a good job for low-income students.
Continuing to page 7 they write, "It is important to note that the news for charter schools has some encouraging facets. In our
nationally pooled sample, two subgroups fare better in charters than in the traditional system:
students in poverty and ELL students. This is no small feat. In these cases, our numbers indicate
that charter students who fall into these categories are outperforming their TPS counterparts in
both reading and math. These populations, then, have clearly been well served by the
introduction of charters into the education landscape. These findings are particularly heartening
for the charter advocates who target the most challenging educational populations or strive to
improve education options in the most difficult communities. Charter schools that are organized
around a mission to teach the most economically disadvantaged students in particular seem to
have developed expertise in serving these communities. We applaud their efforts, and
recommend that schools or school models demonstrating success be further studied with an eye toward the notoriously difficult process of replication."
There is also disagreement with comparing individual students in charter schools with the overall results from "like schools" that is schools that potentially feed into the charter school. This is an inferior model to the randomized studies done on Chicago and New York but far superior to the models done by the AFT and NEA.
Get your myopia checked, people. There might be a cure for it!
Mr. Lamy,
"It is conventionally believed that on-the-job teacher training is effective, because students learn more from teachers with additional years of experience, especially in the first two or three years (for a review of the early literature, see Rockoff 2004, p. 2). But as Figlio (1997) points out, many estimates of effectiveness returns to on-the-job training (years of teaching experience) may be upwardly biased because the estimations do not account for the probable attrition from the teaching force of less effective teachers (Clotfelter et al. 2006; Rivkin et al. 2005). Even these studies find few positive benefits from experience beyond the initial years, however. Rivkin et al. (2005, p. 449) conclude that "there is little evidence that improvements continue after the first three years" of teaching, Clotfelter et al. (2006, p. 28) conclude that the "benefit [to fifth graders in North Carolina] from having a highly experienced teacher is approximately one tenth of a standard deviation on reading and math test scores," but admit that "roughly half of this return occurs for the first one or two years of teaching experience."
"To avoid selection bias, Rockoff (2004) estimated effectiveness returns to experience on math computation, math concepts, vocabulary and reading comprehension in two New Jersey school districts after conditioning on teacher fixed effects. He found marginal returns to the initial years of experience--overall, the linear effect varies between insignificant and .07 standard deviations, depending on the subject--but little in the way of additional returns after five years, except, perhaps, in reading comprehension. He did not estimate experience effects beyond eleven years of teaching."
- Dr. Paul Peterson, Harvard University (page 7)
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/MeritPay...
PS Keystone, from your USDE source,
"In five case study states, charter schools are less likely to meet state performance standards than traditional public schools. It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor. The study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools."
The reason why they can't make a determination as to the effectiveness of charter schools is because the studies don't build an apples to apples comparison. For one, charter schools are more likely to serve low-income students and minorities than rich white kids...this source also points that out.
Finally Keystone it seems you don't understand the true concept of a public education. The concept is not to fund a particular type of school but to fund the education of a student. Where the learning occurs shouldn't matter.
Opposing charter schools on the grounds that your school loses funds as kids depart is basically, well, its just self serving.
PS, lotteries exist because there is greater demand for charter school services than there are charter schools. The answer is not to eliminate charter schools but to rapidly expand the service.
Ya see, Pat? All you do is quote crap. This is garbage. It is not related to what happens, to the reality of experience in classrooms. But the water will roll off your back because you're a duck, not a teacher, not a resource and not at all concerned about achieving greatness in another civilization around the bend.
You're bound and determined to resist honest dialogue and to appear a smarmy intellectual dealing at life an arm's distance away. That is why you could not succeed in schools. They need people, not position statements or quotes from researchers.
You have the integrity of a fly.
An Appeal to you Mr. Gibbons:
Instead of using your time quoting all these 'facts' from your research, redirect your efforts and study what really helps a student succeed. PLEASE. You appear to have the capacity to recall information, albeit all to support your claim. Try the unbiased approach and do the research. See what you will find.
Try it. When you are satisfied with what you find, post it. Maybe you can convince me of your arguments. For now, you are simply blowing HOT AIR!
YOU TOO, Turrialba!
How about we start with a state curriculum which for years has been "a mile long and an inch thick" that paled in comparison to 48 other states?
Yes, this is what has happened in this state for years. Teachers have been complaining about the NV state standards for years! At least since 1997 when the legislature decided they needed to be rewritten and formed a "council" to "improve" education in NV. What a crock!
There were more math standards for 4th grade, than there are days in a year (not school year, a YEAR)
Now, let's add to that the test that is used to assess and compare states. They use NATIONAL STANDARDS to tests all students. National standards that far surpass what NV teachers have had to teach. So, yes our students won't score as high, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TAUGHT IT- by state standards!!
(Example: 4th grade national standard: 2 digit by 2 digit multiplication; not a NV standard - we only do 2 and 3 digit by 1 digit.... but it's on the NAEP. National Standard: 2 step word problems with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division; NV standard is only involving addition, subtraction and multiplication- division is not included.... but it's on the NAEP)
Finally, we have been listened to. So yes, there are major education reforms coming. All standards are changing, we are finally coming into line with the National Standards- starting in August.
No, that's not a whine, it's fact. I'm not complaining, I'm stating fact. Our standards have been in the crapper; but teachers don't decide standards.
We'll finally have meaningful standards, but no teachers to teach them, too many students per class to have meaningful conversations to promote understanding and application, and no money to buy the added materials to address the new standards.
The National Standards actually do encapsulate the kernels well; they provide rich targets thoughtfully worded and easily approachable from numerous routes with a variety of activities for multi-variate students. They are a piece of work.
Nevada's standards pale, especially the earlier versions.
But the point is well made that given workable standards, we have few clothes, worn shoes and improbable ways to adequately raise the efforts needed to bring about addressing these golden targets.
We have classes of 40 or so, with attendant discipline issues, loads of papers, angry parents, frustrated kids and few resources, not the least of which is time to deliver lessons in a shrinking learning environment where mayhem and frivolity tend to overrule decency and respect for improving skill.
Without some increased parental input, too many students arrive completely unprepared to accept responsibility to accept challenge, take direction and discover their power to enable themselves to take advantage of our best laid plans to achieve a proficiency identified by these standards.
Compared to a Connecticut class of 20, a Nevada class of forty is about five times the distraction and 20% as diligent. We will frustrate ourselves to the brink trying, and we will succeed in part only.
Longer days, year long school, peer tutoring, staff tutoring, clubs (as in Chess, Solar, History, Latin, etc.; not as in what one would use to pound out a home-run - an Ash or aluminum swinging thing) could shore up some time and attention shortcomings, but then the energy levels of the teachers would take a hit, so to speak.
Saturday classes have often left a sour taste similar to discipline for as long as I have been in the classroom, but it may be time to revisit this opportunity as a celebration of the best, the Saturday aces, the weekend warriors and find a way to recognize superb accomplishments from the week with honors, music, games, fanfare and food, rather than drudgery and review.
I volunteer weekly at my children's public elementary school. In the time I've spent there I've observed one important aspect of producing a well-educated child and it has nothing to do with the teacher, the staff or the administration. It has everything to do with the parent. The kids who show up on time, are ready to learn because they aren't exhausted from staying up all night, have their homework completed and are there with the mindset that school is a place to learn and behave are going to succeed no matter what their skill level of learning. No teacher can control what comes into each classroom. A teacher has to take the hungry, tired, sick, undisciplined and unruly and teach them in the time given and hope that what they have taught will be retained when the same tired and hungry child shows up the next day.
Are there bad teachers out there? Yes, just as there are bad bosses, bad co-workers and bad people. I can count on one hand the number of "bad" teachers I had growing up. The great ones far outnumbered the bad ones and from what I've seen that is still true today. I've spoken with many teachers regarding the subject of merit pay and not one has spoken against the idea. What they are against is merit pay based soley upon standardized testing. How can a group of tests measure all that a teacher has done in a classroom over a year? In my former job I was eligible for a merit bonus each year. The bonus was determined by the achievement of goals that were set at the beginning of the year. Goals that were written by myself and my boss. Goals that pertained to what my job demands were during the year and included factors like budget limitations, the opportunity to attend classes and seminars to increase my skill level, taking advantage of leadership opportunities and creating new programs. Why shouldn't our teachers merit pay be based upon a similar process? Give the teachers the chance to set their own goals given the grade level they teach and the area in which they teach in. Let the school administration, school district area superintendent and other teachers at the school add additional goals for each teacher. Include standardized test scores but only make them a part of the process. Use this process to reward good teachers and help remediate bad teachers.
Ms. Augstin, quoting Harvard and Stanford professors is blowing hot air?
Mr. Lamy, the research gives us a big picture view on what works and what doesn't. Basing your assertions on your personal experience teaching in the classroom gives you anecdotal evidence and may or may not reflect what goes on in other classrooms in other cities in other states or in other countries.
Dear Mr. Gibbons:
As I said Mr. Gibbons, there are a number of proposed knowledge out there to support our claims - pro or con. Just because they are professors (Yale, Stanford, or Harvard) does not mean anything in the real world. There are too many variables with which to contend. I know I have a doctorate degree. We depended so much on these "experts" and education is still in the muck. That is why all researchers never say "beyond a shadow of a doubt," about their findings. They recommend. They talk about implications. They ask for further research.
What I am trying to make you see is there is a real world out here. Set aside your opinions and look at the real world beyond your gilded environs. PLEASE. Visit schools. Talk to teachers. Talk to students. Talk to parents. Talk to administrators.
Private schools, public schools, charter schools, vouchers. These are very minor elements to help a child succeed. Find out for yourself what makes a child tick, and then advocate for those issues. Without that knowledge, you are simply blowing HOT AIR.
I hate for you to waste your passion on shallow advocacy. You have a voice. I do not. I am a mere peon of the ruling class. I am not asking you to give up what you consider sacrosant in your life. I am simply asking you to look deeper.
Sincerely,
Nancy Agustin
Teacher
It's too bad, because the film made a lot of good points, but there were some exaggerations. Anytime one "fact" presented is debunked, an entire premis is thrown out.
Bottom line, in my opinion...not all teachers are equal performers, but the contracts treat them like equal performers. I read a post from one user the other day on these forums, but outside of that, literally every teacher that I've talked to has acknowledged that there are terrible teachers in every district. I think anyone that's graduated high school in a large city has experience with bad teachers. I also know there are some outstanding teachers that exist. Teachers that literally changed my life. I'm working with a few of them in the district right now on a project. These people should not be compensated the same as the poor performing teachers, they clearly go the extra mile. Not only are they passionate about their profession, they have the ability to turn that passion into positive results. So we clearly need to define data that allows us to identify the good and bad teachers. Rather than poke holes in insignificant information, or focus on petty theories that have already been addressed (Rhee involved in "cheating" in DC...really guys? Do you really just regurgitate whatever unsubstantiated rumor/accusation is offered as long as it supports your agenda?), we need teachers and administrators to get involved with designing a system that identifies the best and worst. I think any rational person will agree that parents play a vital role, and that's another thing that needs to be addressed, but we can't play this game of chicken, waiting for the other problem to be addressed before agreeing to budge on one end, while the performance of the kids suffers.
We can't just finger point (parents, administrators), pass the buck, etc. We need everyone to acknowledge that they play a role in the quality of the education system. That means parents preparing their kids to be open to learning, and valuing education at home. That means administrators respecting teachers, and eliminating any bureaucratic red-tape that's preventing progress from taking place, and doing their jobs by supporting teachers and offering constructive criticism. That means teachers allowing us to dump the underperformers and reward the great performers (this should also apply to administrators). Stop blaming NCLB, stop blaming poorly designed tests , and take ownership that you are part of the solution, and that some of you are part of the problem. I'm really begging you, as a parent whose only agenda is to make sure we have the best schools possible. Unfortunately, that also means that crooked politicians have to realize that real reform is going to take money. Yes, money is wasted now, but the reform ideas that you support require money, and that money can be found if you look at ridiculously outdated .
improveLV:
Your concern is worth responding. Here's the unvarnished truth. BAD TEACHERS CAN BE FIRED. The administrators know it. However, it takes a lot of work. You see, the law protects teachers with 'due process.' In private businesses, due process is not heard of. They fire people simply from 'sneezing' because the boss simply does not like him. Unfair, right?
In government entities, due process is in place. It is just. It is fair. In schools, it is firmly in place. Before a teacher can be fired, certain legal requirements must be met. The union did not set these requirements. The law did. These requirements require the following due process:
*Principal observes teacher in the classroom and make notations. Observe again and again. When improvement is necessary, principal asks teacher to a conference.
*First conference. The teacher has a conversation with the administrator - citing required improvements. Administrator allows time for teacher to improve. Administrator provides assistance through mentoring, attending classes, etc. Principal continues observations, taking notes - improvements and non-improvements.
*Second conference. Teacher explains. Principal takes notes. Asks teachers what she needs to improve. Principal provides those - mentoring, materials, etc. Gives time to improve.
*Third conference. If no improvement is seen, principals prepare a write up. Gives more support where necessary. Gives more time for improvement. May ask assistant principal to observe. May ask team leaders to observe. Without any observable improvements, the disciplinary action begins.
The process involves tenacity, undersanding, fairness, and strict compliance with legal requirements as to documentation, time elements, circumstances, and the like.
If the principal follows the legal requirements of due process, the case goes forward and the teacher can be fired. Our legal department have a vast experience in these cases and knows what a judge would consider a "good cause for termination."
Here's the problem: Principal and administrators are pulled every which way on any given day at school. Many principals and administrators would rather do the "turkey trot" or the "lemon dance" rather than go through all the rigmarole of due process.
There is where the problem lies. That is why we still have turkeys clucking around the district.
I had a proposal earlier in this thread, but then again, it appears we thrive on trivialities -palliative solutions to problems. So we continue wallowing in muck until we begin to wise up.
You are a parent. Gather other parents. Make your voices heard - WE ARE FED UP AND WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
Margaret Mead said: "Never doubt that a group of concerned citizen can make a difference. In fact it is the only one that ever has." Go on and good luck.
Good Evening Nancy.
Ms. Agustin,
As I stated, the research provides a big view that anecdotal evidence does not. The research also tries to take into account all sorts of variables that anecdotal evidence cannot. My personal experience and your personal experience are anecdotal. There is a good chance that what we experience is completely different from what others experience and that is why this research is necessary and important.
But I have done classroom observation, I have interviewed parents and teachers and principals and administrators, I even taught for a year in real public schools (and I have the white hair to prove it).
Gibbons,
You SUBSTITUTE taught. You are not a real teacher. You have no formal training as a teacher. You have no grounds to claim any expertise as a trained teacher. If you cared at all about educating students, especially the critically needy students in special education, you would have recused yourself from entering that classroom due to your complete lack of competence in that field.
You are a fraud for claiming any expertise in education based on your EXTREMELY limited background in public schools. Tens of thousands of Clark County teachers - real ones, with exceptional experience in one of the most challenging classroom environments in the country - laugh at you and your claims of proficiency as an educator.
You are a fraud and a liar, and anyone who considers hiring you for any purpose based on your "experience" in public education is either a fool or complicit in your agenda to undermine public education.
Patrick, you spoke of schools in Oregon and the culture there. You have never set foot there. Your research is digested for you, offers handy bites and implies an understanding which you do not have. Without some actual understanding of what that culture is (and one year in one class - 1/2 in History and 1/2 in SPED) hardly qualifies as experience or scratches the surface) there is simply no way your words have any value, quoting Harvard or Princeton til the cows come home. As you said, you were let go because you simply are not qualified to teach; you do NOT have the background
Yet you seem quite willing to asperse those who are qualified and who have devoted their energy to becoming even more effective.
Your points are hollow, vacuous even. Suggesting (and repeating) that teachers do not improve over time is a case in point. Now your references to Harvard may impress YOU, but Pat, it is not credible. A plumber gets better, a carpenter, an architect, a surgeon. Does the task of discovering the strengths in children not seem an issue with so many opportunities to develop that the improvement range might be a considerable gradient?? Or is the task so simple that the teacher merely says words, plays games and children learn? Your constant dependence on the veracity of your fluffy research cream serves to delude you.
As Dr. Agustin has suggested and I buttress here, the world needs smart people to be ENGAGED in growth; your oft-denied acceptance of the fact that teaching is difficult to do and can be improved when we learn to improve our methods and materials flies in the face of reason and serves as a detriment. Help, Pat; stop hampering, hindering and hamstringing with your holy research
Don't get me wrong; research is the big picture. My experience is back-dropped with the experience of so many others. And the research in education directs learning improvements; medical schools redefined their curricula in the 70s with valuable research that redirected EVERYTHING. And the results proved quite impressively improved. I worked in that mission and others too. I know how the beacon of new light, fresh eyes and reflective analysis can further our goals. The need is for attention to what works; your denial of a rational acceptance of results is speaks to your drive to repress understanding, not to engage it.
Good teachers learn to teach by teaching and learning; your opinions and obfuscation of the realities of the noble profession serve no one but your wealthy dogmatic masters. And you know it. That's why they pay you to post them. Whores do what they do for money; teachers, for the next generations.
Mr. Coolican, there is a word for a film like Waiting for 'Superman': propaganda. You, like so many others, have no problem spouting off about something about which you know little. And you call yourself a journalist? I no longer do; you have lost all credibility with me. Anyone who could be so easily swayed by a propaganda film without doing the actual work of informing himself is not very impressive as a member of a newspaper staff.
You may have noticed that the film was not nominated for an Academy Award. Why? Perhaps it's because propaganda is not good filmmaking.
Pat yourself on the back for promoting the anti-labor agenda of the richest, who now see a massive, untapped, new revenue source: obtaining government money to run privately-owned schools. That is why No Child Left Behind was created, in my opinion (and others'), and that is what the current sport of teacher-bashing is about. Obviously, if you have a brain you can figure out that teachers are not miracle workers who can create little test scholars out of kids who don't show up, don't do homework, don't have the raw materials, etc. But if you have no integrity, you will blame teachers, anyway.
Teachers' unions do not keep teachers from being fired; they allow them due process. They make it so administrators and others (like school board members who share religious views with each other) cannot dismiss teachers without good cause. Perhaps this misleading message of union villainy from the film is another reason it was not nominated for an Oscar.
Your leap onto the teacher-scapegoating bandwagon is reprehensible. Your recommendation to feed the beast by spending money to rent or buy this film is regrettable. Guggenheim, among the elite himself, is a patsy for those who want to stick their dirty hands out for government money. I guess if you have trouble thinking for yourself and can let others sway you so easily, you can call an elitist like Guggenheim a "progressive."
Charter schools will have poor oversight, and their owners will be corrupt. You will see large campaign contributors earning school contracts, etc. There have already been a number of revelations about charters, such as the KIPP link someone posted, not to mention the corruption in L.A.
Are you really as lacking in critical thinking skills as this column makes you appear? Perhaps you ought to do what nobody seems willing to do -- talk to those of us who work in classrooms day in, day out, and year in, year out. That 's the sort of thing that people who work for good news organizations do.
Better yet, perhaps you ought to go teach for a while before you opine about education any further.
Incidentally, what you refer to as "bad" teachers may simply be inexperienced ones. Experience counts for a whole lot in education. But those who attack teachers don't want to say that, because they want to bring in a bunch of cheap newbies.
I am a much better teacher than I was at first, and I improve yearly. But those who run charters are going for profit, and they will go for cheap teachers, which means inexperienced teachers. It will be a mess, and a fiasco. The government will not have the time or the will or the money for adequate oversight.
Your column does not speak well for this publication. If only we could have one good daily instead of two crappy ones, perhaps there would be a little more hope for this city.
I've never read your column much, and I certainly never will. You show yourself not to be gifted in either critical thinking or in a journalistic work ethic.
Someone mentioned "garbage in, garbage out" as it pertains to teaching. It also pertains to newspaper columns.
By the way, perhaps you'd like to expound upon why my kids did so well in public schools, and got such a good education out of them -- one for which I did not have to cut checks. Heck of a bargain. Hats off to their many hardworking, effective teachers.
I could do your job -- and I bet I could do it a lot better than this column indicates you do it - but I bet you couldn't survive mine for a semester (if even a month).
One more thing: statistics are hugely manipulable. They sound like they make good arguments, but they don't; they make for good manipulation. Suspect all of them.
Mr. Gibbons:
Respect of my elders is a trait my Pa instilled in me. I don't know how old you are so please understand I mean no disrespect. I am a teacher and always act like one, regardless the venue. I see students with potentials and I hone in on them. There are very few in this forum.
Yes, research is valuable, but they are not absolute truths and are not infallible. They offer implications and we use them as advisories. Yes, we value experience. We hire people with fat salaries based on their fat experiences. We use experience to problem-solve, but there is a missing link that we often neglect -- the fact that the players are different. Those are the variables I wanted you to investigate.
The first three years of teaching are eye-openers; something akin to "They didn't teach me that in college!" The next two years, you begin to "see the light." You might say, "I can do this!" Or, "This is not for me." And, you get out to become rich somewhere else. Unfortunately, many stay trying hard to make it, and others stay because they do not have the drive to go somewhere else.
Back to the topic. I wanted you to come to school and stay longer and become involved -- really involved. That is when people start telling you like it is, not what you see. That is when you get accepted to the "cult" and you begin to see the light. That's when your assertions become believable. That's when people in this forum begin to show you some respect. You should go on and get a PHD. With your tenacity about research, you will be good at it, and perhaps make some real difference in education. We can use your talent to advocate for education. If you cared.
Your first assignment: Read - The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, and Schools That Learn. They are all by Peter Senge.
'sup Turri. Sharpening knives? Good morning.
Nancy:
You make an excellent point about the first five years of teaching. It was that way for me and every single other teacher I know.
It boggles the mind that anyone could think that only in education do people simply plateau and are unable to grow and get better at their jobs.
Keystone,
You're so closed minded you refuse to even listen or attempt to comprehend what I'm saying. This has become tiresome.
I've already provided you left-wing, right-wing and academic evidence that the teacher certification and training process provides no advantage to certified teachers over uncertified teachers. Actually teaching in a real classroom makes me a teacher just like any other. I had the same job and the same responsibilities just lower pay.
I already told you that I was originally hired as a full-time history teacher until the district realized I was not Virginia certified (I had no idea you needed certification) and because of No Child Left Behind they could not emergency certify me in time to comply with the law.
I worked the job of a real teacher. I created my own lesson plans, my own lectures, presentations, quizzes, attended parent teacher conferences, met with the special-ed teachers to help with IEPs. Heck, I even created interactive games so students could understand why certain historical events like switching from barter to coins had such a huge impact.
I was paid $9.25 an hour for my work 7:20 am to 1:50 pm but not a penny more for my time writing lesson plans, tutoring students after school etc. Unlike a full-time teacher at step 1 who would have earned $27.35 per hour for the same work over that same period of time.
My students signed a petition to keep me, their parents signed a petition to keep me, my peers in the department wanted to keep me as did the principal. However, a person with an "education degree" not an actual history degree came back second semester from a long term illness and the district, wanting to keep me as an employee, moved me to special education were regulations on certification were more relaxed.
That teacher that came in was fired at the end of the semester (after it was revealed that this teacher was so incompetent they shouldn't have been teaching in the first place. For example, my students later told me he showed them videos about medieval castles while they were supposed to be learning about the French revolution). The teacher that replaced him was fired after being sent to prison on charges of possessing child pornography. So much for your precious teacher certification and training.
After just 1 year I realized how dysfunctional public education really was and a lot of it had to do with bureaucracy an top down control. I left after 1 year because I had seen enough (and I wasn't going to go to school for 3 more years to get a stupid and meaningless certification).
I'm not sure if your demeanor here is due to your ignorance or due to the fact that you're simply a partisan wingnut (perhaps both), but I'm done talking to you thanks to your habitual personal attacks and flagrant misrepresentation of my work history.
Patrick:
Your disgust for the certification process is justified. Not too many teachers respect it either. NCLB made many teachers lost their job. They have been teaching the subject for years, but were cut because they don't have the required certification. The idiocy is systemic that is why it is extremely difficult to reform education. Until someone visionary and not beholden to any demigods entirely razes the system, it remains the way it is. That is not the fault of schools, and certainly not a just cause for reviling it or entirely dismissing it as irrelevant.
Public schools have to contend with federal laws, state laws, department of education directives, politics, parent organizations, religious organizations, local governments, and every imaginable creature who thinks they need to have a say. As a government-funded entity, schools have to answer to all of them. It is the wildest balancing act if there ever was one. Thus, mistakes are made, often and many. Add to that, the politics of the selection process of who should run the whole show and who their minions are, the system gets more and more Byzantine.
What can we do? I proposed it earlier in this thread. Go back to basics. Everything else is bandaid. Bandaids don't work on deep wounds. Public schools wound is as deep as it gets.
By the way, to one and all: Let us elevate this forum into something respectable.
There is really no need to be calling each other names. That is entirely not good form.
SadSack: Elevate the forum by keeping your posts brief. Few bother to read the rambling diatribes.
$90K a year for part time work is TOO MUCH FUNDING. Might be tolerable IF WE WERE GETTING ADEQUATE RESULTS. Also unacceptable: 4,000 administrators in CCSD. 17 students per licensed staff, 10 students per employee--Since so many, often "educators" are unable to get from class size to number of employees: this means for a class of 34 students, there are 2 teachers (or teacher and administrator) PLUS ANOTHER 1.4 FTE employees. UNACCEPTABLE.
Are there any teachers (in this forum, seems the good educators don't bother here) who are not so SELF ABSORBED and ENTITLED that they CONSIDER THE STUDENTS rather than their compensation?
Student BEHAVIOR is a problem because they are BORED. Try holding their attention by TEACHING.
Nancy,
First off, I appreciate your response and the tone of your response.
I didn't read every post here before commenting. Mostly because I noticed a lot of Patrick's comments and responses to those comments, and I assume the conversation eventually turned into an argument about Patrick's history and his agenda.
I've read the post that I think you're referring to. I understand why you feel the way that you do, because teachers do seem like they take the brunt of the criticism. Of course that's because we've all had experience with teachers and you're on the front lines. the reality is that every layer is part of the problem. We as parents, crappy politicians (and they all are), lazy administrators, and yes, there are some bad teachers. I'm glad you acknowledge that. We need to address every layer. I think it starts with administrators and teachers, since it SHOULD be the layer that we have the most direct control over.
I understand (at a high level) the process for eliminating a "bad" teacher. I think there are a few problems...administrators don't care enough to really fight to get rid of them, the process is very subjective and there's not enough solid data/results used in the process (which will always result in an argument over whether or not the administrator is qualified or correct -- an attorney's dream is to exploit that gray area), and the list of good causes for termination seem more focused on legal issues, instead of performance issues. the system is more concerned about fairness to the person accused of being a bad teacher than it is about the kids that are potentially getting a crap teacher and education, when that should be flipped. The fact that teachers have this powerful union, with legal services backing them up, is likely why the focus is on adults and employment, instead of kids and their education (which should be our primary concern).
I think we can use data to help to expedite the process, and offer reasons that are closer to being indisputable, and minimize the legal proceedings. All of this subjective nonsense is garbage, especially when we have solid data, it's just a matter of everyone coming together to identify patterns that can help to identify good and poorly performing administrators and teachers. The union leadership isn't interested, and I doubt the politicians or administrators are interested, because it takes away some of their power. It would no longer be a matter of who wins a debate, it would be closer to a black and white, right and wrong solution.
roseanrose, are you, or have you ever been, a teacher?
I just re-read my post...please understand that I'm not anti-union, and I'm definitely not against the members of the union. I do question the leadership of any special interest group, and I'm certainly opposed to a lot of the red tape that was created as a result of union contracts.
Was a teacher of post-secondary education. Have also been involved in reviewing K-12. Been in literally hundreds of class rooms.
The educational discourse is very informative and provoking, but why all the personal fouls, attacks and disparagement, can we just stay on topic. I don't think writing (talking) about one another is what this blogg. is supposed to be about. Can we just play nice? I accept general points posted, of poor performance by institutions and their personnel without having to besmirch them individually, as with this article which isn't even about the CCSD. There is no need to stoop to mean spirited levels that block discourse, regardless of opposing view.
Now get back after it and don't demoralize each other.
Thanks Gunslinger. Some people have miserable lives so I just pity them. Poor tormented souls.
Well I just learned a bunch of very cool stuff about my gig - from a geezer of 82 years. This guy leaves his water heater off all the time until he wants some hot water. Then he flicks the circuit breaker and waits 24 minutes and shuts it off. (He's timed it!) Then he jumps into the shower and gets wet, turns off the water and lathers up and then rinses. Total water usage 2-5 gallons. Then the dishes, washing of things that need hot water.
The fridge sits at the lowest level of coolth and the ice cream is soft - "so it's easier to spoon, and it tastes better!"
With similar energy saving tactics and strategies, this fella uses about 3 kwh a day for a total utility bill of about ten bucks a month. Looks good, feels good and stays healthy.
His waterfront property is worth well over $3 million and his taste in art in exquisite. It just goes to show ya that even though we may age and learn as we go, there is always more to learn from the lessons life can offer, Pat.
Certification is a top-down process aimed to eliminate those without the proper skills and training. It may be cumbersome and appear not to have value if you see the role of teachers as such a disposable and meaningless undertaking that may appear not to function well.
It can function better with better trained people with skills you may choose to pursue if you find the next generation any more appealing than the billionaires currently funding your posting career. Good luck with school! I had fun, especially teaching in medical schools in Europe and Asia. Public schools are good training grounds, but as Dr. Agustin has made clear, it takes several years to actually recourse and redirect with a constantly changing group of learners.
JPC: We spend a lot more than that per pupil--unless you're limiting it to General Fund amounts.
So Gibbons is pissed off because a school district canned him for lacking the minimum qualifications required by law to be a real teacher.
Imagine that, a job requiring new employees to demonstrate minimum proficiency in their field by presenting documented qualifications through recognized credentials. I wonder if any other careers have similar requirements for credentialing?
Doctors? Yes
Lawyers? Yes
Engineers? Yes
Cops? Yes
Paramedics? Yes
Firefighters? Yes
Nurses? Yes
Pilots? Yes
Practically every profession requires some sort of licensure or credentialing to demonstrate qualifications to work, yet Mr. Gibbons, an untrained novice who had no training to teach thinks he should have been paid just as much as someone with a bachelors degree specifically focused on education. The arrogance is mind boggling.
You know what careers don't require licensure or credentials? Blowhard. Political operative. Opinionist. "Policy Analyst." That's right, anyone can label themselves an "expert" as Gibbons does and get paid to spew their biased opinions around, undermining the careers and hard work of tens of thousands of people, as Gibbons does with teachers.
Some of you may not like the fact that I continually point out Gibbons' fraudulent and deceitful claims of expertise in education, however it is absolutely vital to the conversation that everyone understand that this man is no expert. His background is not in education, it is in politics. His motives are not altruistic or genuine, but are in fact purely political in nature.
It is also terribly ironic that Gibbons claims exception to personal criticism, when he has no problem at all invoking personal attacks against his opponents, especially on his personal blog where Jon Ralston is a regular target.
Mr. Gibbons, if you don't like being criticized for fraudulently claiming to be an education expert, STOP CLAIMING TO BE ONE. I will never stop pointing out the fact that you sir are nothing more than an intellectually dishonest hack who regurgitates the work of others - often lacking any context - to forward a flawed political agenda.
You will never have a leg to stand on by claiming that the 50 college credits required for you to work as a substitute teacher make you a competent educator. You aren't. You weren't in 2004 and that is why you no longer work in education. Keep that in mind before you criticize anyone who has actually put in the effort to become a real teacher.
Since when are teachers the only ones allowed an opinion? Frequently takes someone standing outside to clearly see what is going on in there. Actually, those inside are considered to have A CONFLICT OF INTEREST and ARE NOT LISTENED TO. Some of the posters here have in BACKWARDS AGAIN. Clue in: you might want some of the taxpayers, analysts, public on "your side."
Keystone6:
I am of a like mind as you for the most part; I find your brash commentary of P.R.G. annoying. I don't recommend removal of your posts because they have other points that are outstanding and spot on. I too am opposed to most of P.R.G. positions, rants- if you will, but I need not "kick it up a notch" and spiral off topic to make it about him or me. I am not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves when accosted, just not making it some sort of Jerry Springer circus.
I guess, now you will not want to play with me for saying so, but I am only saying this because I like to read your posts. I want to hear from everyone not only the loudest, bully, hum, who can't allow for open views. Diatribes are a good read; multiple postings and humorous topic oriented posts break me up too.
Nancy:
Mostly sharpening pencils awaiting the source of Mr. Coolican's numbers. I suspect I shall be disappointed.
I see you have been kicking Mr. Gibbons around yet again. He needs to ratchet it down a couple of notches.
roseanrose, we're all allowed to have an opinion and to express those opinions, it's the approach that's the problem. Too many people believe so strongly in their OPINION that they're not open to new information. Opinion is not fact, and I think we all (including me) need to remember that. In my OPINION, your approach doesn't encourage dialogue, I think you're picking a fight. I honestly usually ignore your posts, along with Birdiedreamin. You're just too extreme and closed-minded, and your posts are just so negative and vindictive. Maybe you're just fed up with dialogue and you're bitter after years of trying to improve the system, but I haven't given up. I think the existing entities have a role.
Even just as a parent, I get offended when you say that teachers are overpaid. It's one thing to say that their benefits are out of whack with the rest of the workers in the country, or the district itself is a black hole of waste, but it's another to say that, no matter what you do, how hard you work, or what kind of results you produce, you're overpaid right now, so don't expect anything more. Those aren't productive comments, and if that's how everyone felt, there's no way in hell we'd convince the best and the brightest to become teachers.
I get paid probably more than any teacher in the district, and I know damn well that their jobs affect the community a hell of a lot more than mine does. It's a terribly difficult job in which to do well, and that's why I think it's so important to recognize & reward the top performers and dismiss the bottom performers. And to use measurable, objective data to identify each group.
My apologies to Mr. Coolican. I see he did respond to my question yesterday. His per pupil number was from the district and was a "general education" number. He stated that Special education and English as Second Language students were more expensive and pushed up the average.
I need to check these numbers out. In order to push up the average cost up from the general education average to per public average, the numbers must be astounding
GunslingerA10,
Frankly I don't believe my posts regarding Gibbons are at all off topic. In Gibbons we have a man who has repeatedly tried to inject himself into the debate surrounding education in Nevada by claiming an expertise in the subject matter that simply doesn't exist. He and his masters at NPRI are openly trying to manipulate both public opinion through forums such as this one, and public policy through the manipulation of politicians.
I think it is absolutely vital that an individual such as Gibbons be accurately represented and accurately portrayed. He tries to play himself off as being an expert in a field in which he worked essentially as a temp for a single school year. Yet he portends to be intimately knowledgeable about the intricacies of the job to the point that he has tried to make a career of criticizing legitimate teachers.
Let me put it in these terms for you. I assume by your screen name that you are either an A10 pilot or ground crew member. Imagine a history major who has no prior experience flying or servicing aircraft coming into your squadron, fumbling around for a year and then leaving because he says the CO is a bad officer. Would you believe that same guy four or five years later when he starts claiming to be an expert on combat aviation? Would you give him any credence when he tries to tell you that you are a bad aviator or a bad aircraft mechanic?
Of course you wouldn't.
So why should anyone here buy into a word that Gibbons says regarding education? We shouldn't, and I intend to continue to point out that a fraud is attempting to manipulate education policy in this state.
Angel Wings, a poem about a kid without glasses
He was fourteen and rantin
And ragin', roamin around the room
When I handed him his very first copy
Of Soldier of Fortune magazine.
I flipped open to page 79
And starred around a classified line
Bold with my new blue Flair pen.
"And what does it say between the stars, Leroy?"
"Stars? I see angel wings.
Mr. Lamy, you make good angel wings.
They're happy and they're strong from flyin all night long -
Strong blue angel wings in a sky of grey"
Get paid to SEE the world
Call our TOLL-FREE line today
We'll help you plan your getaway.
SEE the world and get PAID!
Angel wings, blue angel wings by proxy
Smilin bright and floatin in Leroy's blue eyes.
Angel wings, blue angel wings by proxy
Hangin fire in Leroy's grey skies.
With all due respect for Gibby and his billionaire bosses funding the posting career that we witness regularly on this rag, keystone6 has a valid point about veracity, integrity and accuracy that can not be denied.
Patrick R Gibbons is a paid poster, an imposter and a poster child of the well-positioned powers that want to defund education at the peril of the children of this state.
The constant references and quotes are based on political, not philosophical, grounds; the intent is to discredit and demean teachers, public education and those little souls whose lives depend on our empowering youth to make something of their lives other than car-parkers, cashiers or bar-maids for the casino industry.
I applaud the stand-up caliber of keystone to stand firm in the middle of the arch, to brave the pressures to yield, and to remain steadfastly opposed to something that clearly has its conniving ways of grating on the integrity of the common good - the blasphemy of the self-appointed purveyor of truth, according to NPRI/Western Wrangler/wet-behind-the-ears failed teacher and self-proclaimed policy expert.
As a teacher in the district, I'm always concerned about changes to the schools, the school system and school funding. This year has the potential to be nothing short of catastrophic - for schools, for staff and especially for students. I have gone to every meeting, every rally and every public input session to make sure that our students don't get shortchanged by our government.
Please, just stop. Stop demonizing the schools and the teachers. We, as a whole, are doing the best with what we have. Some are ineffective, but there are also some bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad bus drivers. Many simply do not understand what we are dealing with.
I had to respond to a comment, just to help put things in perspective. One post claimed that most of the behavioral problems that teachers complain about stem from boredom. I will agree that SOME are caused by students that are advanced beyond the work being offered. But, that is the exception. Some students don't care, others simply don't want to be in school.
On Tuesday, one of my students was tried and convicted of a felony. He was placed on probation. He returned to school (yes, you read that right, returned to school) on Thursday and lasted less than a full period before fighting with another student, which resulted in both being suspended and wide-spread disruption. Which part of that behavior is my fault? Which part of it is because he's bored?
And just for the record, behavior and opportunity schools - where teachers are dealing with the most difficult students in the most difficult circumstances- receive LESS funding than any other school in the district. They don't qualify for per-pupil spending. Staff is paid, utilities are paid and the school receives what basically comes down to an "allowance" from the district. There is no money for books, supplies, or anything else that could be used to "entice" students into the educational process. We are not asking for awards, we are not asking for bonuses. We are just asking that you let us continue on our current shoestring and not make it smaller.
So again, we are not the enemy. Teachers WANT students to succeed. That is why we go to work every day and keep trying. Demonizing us because we get health insurance, which isn't even as comprehensive as the average casino worker's, isn't going to do anything. Please stand up and fight with us, not against us.
Turri:
I really do not wish to kick anybody. Everyone has potentials although some of them are misdirected. C'est la vie.
I am doing this for only one reason: Teacher Advocacy. The reason for all these attacks is ignorance and I try to mitigate that through honest answers and an invitation to visit my classroom or any school.
At times, it feels like a futile attempt because people all ready made up their minds as to how they want to perceive schools. And, that's fine too. What really makes me sad is the loss of civility. Why are people so angry? And, why is it necessary to call names?
This forum feels so much like a classroom! We should know better, we are all grown-ups, for heaven's sake.
I talk to you and a few others even if we are of different opinions because you have always been civil. Thank you for that. You must have had good teachers. I am sorry for the others. They must have had bad teachers! Touche. (Sorry I can't find the accent button for the 'e.'
@ roseannrosannadanna...
"Clue in: you might want some of the taxpayers, analysts, public on "your side."
Clue in: MANY, MANY taxpayers, which are the public, (obviously, helllooo!) are on "the side of" the teachers.
"Anal-ists doo what they doo. Anal-ize.
That's nasty, in my opinion.
You strike me as an amateur Anal-izer.
Pat, on the other hand, is a real PRO!
Good Morning Nancy:
You do bring civility to this site. Some days we are in dire need of it.
Nancy:
Let's test an assumption. Lots of talk here and in another column (editorial) about "bad" teachers. The prevailing assumption is that there are "bad" teachers that cannot be rooted out due to tenure.
As a teacher, in your professional judgment, what percentage of teachers employed in your school are "bad" teachers?
Is that number representative of CCSD?
Turrialba, no one is kicking me around...especially since I'm the one pulling out research to back up my points. The sad thing is that you agree with me on most every issue, but you're too busy pretending to be a moderate to get people on the left wing to like you to admit it.
Mr. Lamy, I have no billionaire bosses paying me to do this. I've always done this because its fun. Why are you here? That said, I'm not attacking teachers, I'm providing evidence that teacher training and remuneration is done in ways that are not supported by the evidence. You are unwilling to accept empirical evidence, even if it comes from mainstream academics...
I accept evidence. I actually even DO research, discovery and reflection of costs, results, causes etc. I worked for several years redirecting a consortium of medical schools to upgrade their curricula with tremendous results.
You, on the other hand, remain steadfastly attached to the political powers that have you spouting unrelated and unreasonable dogma ad nauseum. Look at the comments about your blabber, buddy. I am not alone in this view.
It's too bad; you're probably not a bad guy, just kinda stuck.
More on the impact of teacher certification... (from a left-wing source, the Brookings Institution)
http://jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com/20...
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/~/m...
Mr. Lamy,
I've seen you dive away from evidence that does not support your opinion dozens of times. You run to personal attacks more often than not. And yes, people will agree with you but that is because they're behaving just like you.
As I've stated, most of your objections have to deal with me as a person, not the actual evidence I present.
Attacking people for who their employer is (in this case its not even an issue), is also a logical fallacy. Are teachers automatically wrong for supporting tax hikes because they work for government? Couldn't we see that as self serving as you see my work as self serving?
Is it possible that people have their own opinions or reached their own conclusions absent the opinions or conclusions of their bosses?
Or is it as you believe...in which case Academia is left-wing because the academic bosses are left-wing and they only hire people who agree with them...
Think about this for a moment. The bulk of your attacks can be thrown right back at you and we'd get nowhere in these debates.
Another source agreeing with many, many, many points I've made on here: http://www.tilsonfunds.com/Personal/TheC...
It is from the Democrats for Education Reform a group of Democrats that don't want to be beholden to the teacher union any longer and want real evidence based education reform.
If you have an hour of free time this morning I suggest reading through this it is mind blowing.
I'm a little too busy doing taxes for geezers today to deal with petty crap, Pat.
Plus I have a bunch of property that needs fences mended, kids and neighbors and wonderful learning opportunities bellowing in the fields ruminating and plopping more methane than meets the sky.
Have a good day and try to get away from the keyboard long enough to see this universe as something besides a place to launch vitriol. Debate can be debilitating if it ends up with more debates over the hill. Peace out.
What's up with trying to put people into "left wing"/"moderate" boxes? This isn't a right or left wing issue, or it shouldn't be. It's impossible to come up with any type of solution to the problems in education if it's looked at through the lens of political ideology.
petty? I'm just asking you how you think academics get their jobs to demonstrate that your line of personal attacks is logically fallacious... I'm just hoping you'll stop the personal attacks and deal with facts. I'm not sure how that is petty at all....
Turri:
"As a teacher, in your professional judgment, what percentage of teachers employed in your school are "bad" teachers?"
In my school. NONE! My principal and I made sure of that. We provide mentoring day in and day out. That's my major responsibility and I make myself accountable for it. If we had to be tough, we do without hesitation, but with respect. You see, a good leader initiates change with involvement of those who need to change. If it comes from them, change is most likely to take root. I am not blowing hot air. Come to my school, ask any teacher or any support staff you see on campus. Ask them by my name. Call my principal.
The district? I have no clue. It is a futile exercise to find out because numbers, which you guys loved to quote so much, are meaningless here. I doubt if any of those who decide about the budget even read this forum.
I am a peon of the ruling class who has no voice and whose only strength is putting letters together into words and sentences, trying very hard to make sense. My mission is not to move mountains, but to explain why things are the way they are and why we need to go back to what really matters in education - CHILDREN and the future. No one cares about them anymore.
Let's advocate for rebuilding families, because really - whatever little mending FEW good teachers do with children every day, is unraveled right after school when they begin their trek home. They see graffiti, they see muck on TV, they listen to garbage they call music, they see what their parents and other grown-ups do.
You see, you guys talk about stuff that are beyond anyone's control but the garbage we call leaders. Does it change anything? NO. Money. Money. Money, ad nauseam.
We need to go back to basics. HOW CAN WE HEAL FAMILIES? Do you have statistics for those?
As of right now, all I feel is HOT AIR!
Nancy
If we are to frame the educational debate in terms of whether or not test scores should be measure of success, then, yes, many charter schools will measure up. Test scores are a poor measure of student achievement, by the way.
http://tinyurl.com/22pv77c
It has been acknowledged that charter schools are not a magic bullet, but are they doing anything that remarkable? Much like public schools, charters have a spotty record. In fact, one of the most celebrated, and oft-cited, studies on the topic (out of NYC) turned out to have serious flaws.
http://tinyurl.com/4xvxato
There are other problems with charters as well. KIPP, for one example, enrolls fewer students with disabilities, fewer students who are English language learners (that is, they have limited proficiency in English), and experience high rates of attrition in the middle grades (6-8) without replacing many of those who leave. They also cost more per pupil that local public schools do since they receive more federal funding per pupil.
http://tinyurl.com/3m3fug9
One more thing for Mr. Coolican: "Waiting for Superman" bashes teachers unions and gushes over what the schools in Finland have been able to achieve. Here's the thing about Finnish schools. The teachers are 100% unionized; the gov't keeps class sizes small throughout; and the students spend less time per day in school.
http://tinyurl.com/4a9ek3g
When the budget is finalized, it will be decided by the Governor with "suggestions" from the Legislature. If a decision cannot be reached, a special session is not necessary. The State can operate on Executive Order of the GOVERNOR. We elected Governor Sandoval to CUT SPENDING.
The Legislators are aware of this. Yes they are having hearings so the little darlings (students) and "educators" can stomp and scream and have their tantrums. AFTERWARDS, the Legislators will deal with the reality of numbers, provided by the Economic Forum. If we all pretend that all "educators" are effective and deserving we can ask for increased funding BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET FUNDING INCREASES.
In past bienniums they have cut many state agencies into the flesh while preserving K-16. Can't be done any more. Legislators must CUT K-16 whether anyone likes it or not. Even if they eliminate all "discretionary" state spending, K-16 MUST BE CUT.
So I gather that you think because I REALIZE THE FACTS and understand numbers, finances, accounting, budgeting..... that YOU THINK I CAUSED YOUR PROBLEMS? Ah, you might want to see a counselor real soon--while you still have health care, before you're on your 26 weeks on Unemployment Comp and then without income.
What we (taxpayers) are learning from all this is that K-16 HAS BEEN MISREPRESENTING everything. They show little interest in EDUCATION REFORM that works at teaching our children to read and write. They show little interest in BEHAVING LIKE HUMANS OR PART OF A COMMUNITY WHERE DIFFERING VIEW POINTS ARE RESPECTED. We are learning that TEACHERS HAVE A TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED in how we decide to proceed with K-16 in the future, whether or not the economy recovers.
Hey Joe. am also an EA--if your clients have unusual circumstances might be able to tip you into an escape clause--like the guy I got out of a half million audit assessment.
So rosie,
This Education credit thing does not appear worth much. form 8863. One of my client's kid had an expense (qualifying) of $1599 but apparently only gets 20% of that as a deduction... it seems kinda flimsy. Am I reading the 8863 wrong or is it just what it is?? 20% of tuition only, no books, transportation, room/board... nothing but 20%?? The kid spent almost $4,000 gettin there, roomin, rental car etc and only gets to whack $320 from the experience..hardly seems worth it, but $320 is $320 off the bottom taxable line. Please advise if you have a minute.
Thx,
Joe
PS I'm just doing this for free; am not an EA. Just a BS...LOL
Nancy:
Hot air? You have been accusing me of that a great deal lately.
As for the tenure and bad teacher question, is it a smoke screen?
At least Gibby is starting to show his true colors here. He normally shies away from admitting his "right wing" bias, but it looks like he's finally owning up to the fact that his positions are nothing more than political.
Extremists like the political operative Patrick R. Gibbons have no place in the debate about improving education for the 300,000 students in Clark County or the millions across this country. No place whatsoever. His only interest is ensuring that dollars be funneled away from public schools and into the pockets of his political masters.
Turrialba:
Yes, hot air because it does not do anything but go up the atmosphere. All of you can present all the research you can find, but none of them will make any difference unless we solve the root cause of the problem.
The problem in education is very basic, but no, you want to go fancy by quoting fancy stuff that has no effect whatsoever. We are still wallowing in muck. Education, politics, firemen gaming the system, policemen in organized crime payroll, lobbyist, politicians in businessmen's payroll, and people in general have no concept of decency. All they want are money and power no matter who gets hurt.
Americans have this false sense of security since they have not experience any major political upheaval. I hope it remains that way. However, people who are hurting can only take so much. Maybe we are different. Maybe it won't happen here, but the upheaval around the world has affected us, and we must learn some lesson from it, somehow. We can persecute people only for so long before they begin to scratch themselves out of the hole in which we put them.
I have been saying that all those research by Harvard, Yale, Stanford and all those 'reputable' institutions you guys keep regurgitating have not solve the problems of education nor society, HAVE THEY?
Education is the only key. However, education too has failed because our society is ill and the basic unit of society is the FAMILY. We must focus our attention in rebuilding families. How about you guys do research on that, huh?
Nancy, even one of Patrick's links (the one he wanted us to spend an hour on) states that the parents are the most important. After that comes the importance of teachers, and that those schools that are the neediest usually have the newest/least experienced teachers (although wasn't Patrick trying to tell us earlier that the newbies are the best and experience doesn't matter after five years or some such nonsense?). All I can say to that link is "duh." Seriously, we all know that experienced teachers are most needed in the at-risk schools, but there is no incentive for teachers to stay there, and there will be even less of a likelihood that those experienced teachers are going to want to stay if their wages are going to be affected by test scores.
Teachers don't go into teaching for the great pay. That's not to say that they are going to do it for free, either, especially not after spending a lot of time and money to become teachers, more time and money to keep up their licensure, and then money out of their pockets for supplies for their students.
First, Patrick thanks for the condescending remarks. I got a good laugh.
Second, prove my skills and effectiveness plateaued after 5 years. Until then, over reaching and generalized studies are of no value to anyone because in reality, that is all they are. In education, nothing applies to everyone all the time. What works for one school, will not work for another. What works for one teacher and makes him/her effective, will not work for another.
Third, last time I looked collective bargaining was a two way street. The legislature, governor, and districts bargained and said yes. Maybe they need to stop being beholden to lobbyists and large corporations.
Fourth, only 50% of CCSD Charter Schools made AYP last year. They are not the end all, be all solution and they need to not be presented as such.
Lastly, I teach my students that if they think they already know everything, they won't learn anything. Their mind will be closed to new knowledge and new ways of thinking. Maybe there's a lesson in there for you somewhere.
We will always disagree, of this I am sure. I also know that until people seriously start listening to teachers, nothing will improve. Everyone thinks they know how to fix education. Yet, with all the think tanks, politicians and research institutes input, ideas and "improvements" in the last 15 years; nothing has really changed for the better. Maybe it's time for that to change.
Here I go again Nancy. I can't fix the family, nor can the public school system. It shouldn't even try.
The public school system and the higher education system, open doors for people, first and foremost. It is incumbent for individuals to walk through those doors.
My responsibility as a citizen is to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for students to realize this purpose. This includes providing quality facilities and a professionals. The teacher's responsibility is to show up each day ready to teach and adhere to standards that will facilitate ultimate purpose of the system-no more and certainly no less. In the end, it is the responsibility of the students and parents to make the most of these opportunities, according to ability and desire.
The fact is that in a system of 310,000 students, statistics are valuable for measuring how well everyone is doing in getting to the goal. By everyone, I mean parents, students, professionals and the taxpaying public. Based on the statistics I have seen, the outcomes are unsatisfactory. Parents, students, teachers and the taxpaying public get an "F". One-half do not complete high school and many who do are not prepared to face what follows.
I am trying to find a way to a decent outcome, today, next year and five years from now. If $10,000 per student was really the answer, then I think I would say, why not? Will $10,000 per student provide the necessary tools to walk through the door? Yes, it is about money. It is my primary duty and responsibility to contribute to support the public education system.
I find it equally difficult to find solutions in your comments, which seem elusive to me, in my efforts to target real solutions to bring about decent outcomes.
I understand what you are saying Turri, but we have done this solution forever and education and society has not improved! It has not because the problem is not lack of money- it's people who run it. It's us, our morality and our values; what we consider worth of praise, of rewards.
I realize my solution is elusive and difficult to operationalize. And, it does not happen in one year, two years, or maybe not in our lifetime. Look back a few decades ago when people were decent; when families were whole; when people were made responsible for their actions - not justified because of some disability - physical or psychological. Look back of the time when respect was valued, when responsibility was instilled, when resilience was the hallmark of success.
Those days have been replaced by greed, power and its concomitant abuse; the strong persecuting the weak. Our evolution as human beings have regressed to times when 'dogs eat dogs.'
You said you don't even want to try, but you are! You present research and figures and solutions. I am just asking you to redirect your passions and try. Many associations are trying. Check them out and offer your talents to them. Bring their advocacy forth. Give them a voice. Champion their causes.
My influence is limited to students and teachers. I teach children the corresponding 3Rs: Respect, Responsibility, and Resilience every day in school, but it is extremely difficult because of what they see outside the school. They have difficulties reconciling the dichotomy. I feel overwhelmed sometimes explaining to them what is and what should be. I feel this should be the parents' job not mine.
Children with good parents succeed, but their numbers are dwindling. And, it is extremely discouraging. Help me encourage people to volunteer in schools, talk to children, be a friend to children, influence businesses to sponsor schools, provide better pay, healthcare, and benefits to employees and their children; allow concessions to working parents so they can spend time in school with their children. These are not liberal agendas. These are plain being-human agenda.
There are many other ways we can reinforce what good teachers do. And, on the same vein, undo what bad teachers do by advocating for the children and getting involved in schools to make sure administrators do their jobs and have those teachers fired.
That is what I would like you people to focus your efforts -not on facts and figures and research that have not brought any meaningful results. Get involved!
We are blessed to have Patrick R Gibbons out in front cheerleading teachers and the community at large with the wisdom he espouses, the flow of quotes and the jams down our throats -"Of course teachers plateau after 3 -5 years. can't you read?? It's from HARVARD!!"
We are blessed to be cursed by the bozo with flat feet and huge shoes (Adelson = billionaire, though the denials are profuse!), shiny red nose and goofy hat (Education Policy ANAL-ist)with all the logic and common sense of a circus clown fretting his last hour on the stage.
The obtuse angle of hypocrisy is so blatantly in perspective here that even a numb-nutted goof ball of a teacher of several decades along with about twenty five other careers that i did can see how beautiful this world is... and hilarious.
"What's the matter with you stupid people? i told you once. I told you twice..." Teachers are just bad parents who lost their ability to get better and so they ROT after 5 years.
Fly over my methane farms Pat. Smell the money. Watch 'em drop 'em and bubble the methane into the slurry and tanks where we burn it for power and sustainability, independence and something that may appear a simple word in a lexicon you seldom review - freedom.
Go to India where 3,000,000 family farms collect manure to generate electricity to power their $15 computers, milk and cook their meager dinners on the way to America's finest schools before you launch any more attacks, ad hominen hombre of the desert sun.
We are blessed to have the gibby as a laughing stock, the biggest fool to ever hit the big time, and all we gotta do is watch him blabber crap and condescend on our ignorance from smarmy smack-down hill. God i love America, don't you??
Here's another thought regarding the charter school model: Since the charter schools (apparently) are so good at raising test scores, why not just give all of our local public schools the same freedom from regulations and constraints that charter schools enjoy? Allow all schools to kick out the kids who don't perform (just as charters can) and I can assure you test scores will improve.
http://tinyurl.com/3z2eb2g
Joe--that last post of yours is excellent. LOL.
Mr. Lamy, I cannot help it if you wan to bury face and hide from what appears to be overwhelming evidence not just from professors at Harvard but from Amherst, Stanford, MIT, Northwestern and Columbia and even left-wing groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Brookings Institution. If you want to be a blind ideologue who wastes his time engaging in logical failures by throwing insults around, fine. I'm not here to change your mind, I'm here for fun...you throwing around insults as I feed you crow with empirical evidence only makes this that much more enjoyable.
Turrialba, you're a very sad individual. The irony is you agree with me but you're too afraid to admit it. You're too busy trying to pretend to be a moderate in the hopes of getting left-of-center people to like you because you honestly believe you can get them to agree with you. If you had more intellectual courage you may get somewhere but as it stands all you end up doing is setting fires and tearing down what could be logical discussions.
Patrick--To be very clear. I agree with parts of the message, but not the messenger. Nothing sad about that. It is my choice and I stand by it. I want to live in a society where people have differing views and engage these questions.
As for intellectual courage, it seems to me this is the desire to seek out and engage people with differing views in a mature and civil manner. This facilitates learning and understanding for both sides. Maybe I will change some minds or maybe I will have my mind changed. The courage my friend is the willingness to consider and engage other ideas and the willingness to modify one's own views in response to these ideas.
We are not the debating team here. We are people writing about our views of problems we face and how to solve these problems. Implementing solutions in this world requires working with others.
I do not believe in going off on shallow and pedantic rants, lecturing well-meaning people, who care enough speak out on issues as you do. I try my best to listen and understand. It isn't always easy and I am not always successful. I have been working at it for one-half century. I plan to keep working at it for the next one-half century.
Patrick when you look at the world you only see those things that confirm your world view and you attack those which do not. Try engaging the world a little bit, it might surprise you how the world responds.
Perhaps you will cease to be a polarizing figure and become one that can move ideas ahead by bringing people along with you. Learning to listen and respect is the first step. This is what Joe and others are telling you Patrick. Listening for a change and ask yourself the question suppose he/she is right? That my friend takes courage.
Turri,
Gibby IS an easy target as he sets himself up as THE path to providence, the teller of all truth and the oracle of Oklahoma.
His constant denials of obvious truth add to the unseasoned lack of perspicacity that opens the door for the easy jab to the jaw. When he regularly takes the stand as an expert while still wet-behind-the-ears in such statements as 'professionals stop improving after a couple of years,' he invites some of us to pounce all over his foolhardy suppositions and pathetic posturing.
My hope is that someday he awakens to the real world and learns to temper the snippets of factoids he references with some understanding.
He's probably not a bad guy, though his attack mode seems to kick into high gear whenever he hits turbulence.
Have a good day. I'm out the door headed to discovery, sharing and laughing about what fools we all are!
Joe:
Patrick hasn't realized that having an opinion and being right are not the same thing.
As Nancy has been trying to tell me for weeks now, facts are easy, but truth is very elusive.
Enjoy your adventure today.
T.
Turrialba, I never said opinions and being right are the same thing. That said, what is wrong with my opinion? What is wrong with the evidence I've brought here?
You're a hypocrite on this issue and no matter how I deliver the facts you'll still complain, hurl insults and pretend you're here to "discuss". I'm polarizing only because I bring the facts that some very ideological people ultimately don't want to hear because it upsets their own world view. I'm polarizing because people like Joe Lamy, Gmag, Birdie, and Keystone have 1 strategy only - personal attacks to discredit an opponent. I'm polarizing because people like you are too cowardly to see that.
Mr. Lamy you're statement is again laughable. I make a statement you demand empirical evidence, when I show you the empirical evidence you turn your nose up at it and demand anecdotal evidence which is clearly a weaker line of evidence.
Mr. Lamy,
You're again building strawmen with the research. Either you don't understand what they're saying or you're making up stuff to attack the research.
The research doesn't say teachers stop trying after 5 years. It doesn't say teachers stop innovating in the classroom after five years. It doesn't say teachers stop creating new lesson plans after five years.
What the research shows is that during the first few years of teaching the students under that teacher continue to improve from year to year. For example in year one the average student may score 75 on the exam. In Year 2 the class averages 80 in Year 3 82.
What the research finds is that sometime between Year 3 and Year 5 the students under that teacher are no longer seeing their scores rise. It can thus be said the teacher's skills have plateaued.
The research also shows that there is a much wider gap in skills between the worst and best teachers overall than there is between a teacher at Year 1 and a teacher at year 5. For this reason Dr. Peterson along with the Brookings Institution, were recommending focusing resources on retaining top teachers rather than more job training.
Patrick--get a clue. Really. Look at the comments here. You sit here and call people stupid day after day, no wonder you are not taken seriously.
Grasshopper, you have alienated a lot of folks on this site for no reason except your own hubris. The same day-after-day badgering of posters here and via email. There is no progress. As for my alledged hypocracy, by your standard, no one is as idealogically pure enough to suit you. I just consider the source.
Patrick this site is so much more peaceful and civil when you sit on the sidelines. Please go back to doing whatever it is you do when you are not posting here.
If you feel the need to post, why not take up a different topic other than education?
Turrialba, show me here on this thread where I called someone an idiot or stupid. The reason the threads are hostile, and most of them are when it comes to politics and economics, is because the people who post have generally made up their minds about the issue.
Your method of discussion seems to be more about winning a popularity contest. You're noticeably absent when I'm presenting just the facts in a civil and rational tone but jump on the attack bandwagon later down the thread.
Btw, ideological "purity" has nothing to do with this. I like logical and rational consistency. I called you a hypocrite because you want me to act in a civil manner but still attack me personally when I am civil. You're also a hypocrite for allowing the personal attacks to continue while demanding people be civil.
As for progress I've seen none of it with your discussions. You ask lots of questions but most are ignored. Even when answered you never seem to progress much further.
This method is fine and I support it, especially in a faster moving thread or in person, but it isn't working here.
Mr. Turrialba,
I'm not sure I understand your complaint against Mr. Gibbons here. After reading the relevant parts of this discussion I can only find that Mr. Gibbons is under a constant barrage of personal attacks and despite this, he has remained fairly level headed (as far as I can tell, it is hard to read emotions through the internet). I found no instances of him referring to any person on here as stupid, as you claimed. He appears to have stuck to the facts (which seems counter intuitive, but then so does most great works of science, so you and others are free to disagree with it) as best he could while providing sources and references when asked (or verbally assaulted).
Could you please clarify the problem?