[tbill618]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The problem with this idea is that it doesn't square with reality. The good teachers will do the best job they can because they are professionals. The bad teachers aren't going to improve because they don't have the skills. Adding incentives might PERHAPS draw people who wouldn't otherwise be attracted to the field. Maybe.

And how are you going to judge who's good and who's bad? My wife, for instance, teaches English to at-risk and learning-disabled children. These are immigrant kids in elementary school who have never attended a class -- not even in their native country. They are illiterate in their native tongue, and she's must teach them English, FAST, so they can keep up with the school system. Her students are NEVER going to score well on standardized tests.

So, who is going to judge her performance? You? Some government bean counter? More standardized tests?

Judge them against themselves. Test them when they get in and on an ongoing basis. Pay the teacher based on the individual students progress.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I almost spit my coffee out when I read this. Teaching isn't just reading out of a book. If it was, then ANYONE could do it. Are you suggesting that I am qualified to teach my wife's English as a Second Language class because I was once an editor?

What if the kids don't respond to my methods, then what? What if most of the kids seem to learn, but three or four just don't "get it." Then what?

Elementary schools should get the best educators -- that's where the most difference is made. By the time they get to middle school and high school, the neural pathways are pretty-much locked in place. The student is on a certain vector by then, and little can be done to change it.

Having seen systems in other places that quite successfully use two year normal graduates I don't think I agree with you. You simply train to a method that has been demonstrated to work well.

It may well be that particular methods work in particular cases. But there is virtually no good literature that explores the area.

And I would be considered by virtually any school system including CCSD as qualified to teach your wife's class. I am not bi-lingual so I would decline as it would be too painful to both the kids and I but CCSD would very likely allow me to do so if I were willing. And I can show you my CCSD substitute badge. And your wife's calling is somewhat special and may be an area where a college graduate is required. Special Ed in general may be that way. But 15 reasonably normal kids in a class? Piece of cake.

I would also note that I was educated at the formative level by the nuns where the standard was 50 and 60 kids in a classroom. I was bright and self educable so it worked OK for me and my brothers and sisters. But most of the class would never get out of high school.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by tbill618

Because teachers don't risk becoming permanently crippled on a regular basis?

I know at least one teacher who left CCSD over fear he would be badly injured. He spent a couple of weeks recuperating at one point from a student injury so he had some basis for his belief.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by tbill618

Judge them against themselves. Test them when they get in and on an ongoing basis. Pay the teacher based on the individual students progress.

That is what the LA Times attempted to do. Only worked partially. You could tell the very good and the very bad and everyone else was statistically inseparable.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by tbill618

Judge them against themselves. Test them when they get in and on an ongoing basis. Pay the teacher based on the individual students progress.

So the teachers of the learning disabled, the autistic, or the functionally mentally retarded get paid less because their students don't progress as fast as the honors kids?

My wife's classes are filled with kids who are very likely to spend time in jail at some point in their lives. She hopes that by her influence she can keep many of them from ever seeing the inside of a prison. The parents of these kids look at school as basically a day-care center. On parent teacher conference nights, she thinks it's great if more than one parent shows up.

And you want her salary to be based on student progress?

It's EASY to teach bright, motivated kids with concerned parents who want their children to go to a good university.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Having seen systems in other places that quite successfully use two year normal graduates I don't think I agree with you. You simply train to a method that has been demonstrated to work well.

It may well be that particular methods work in particular cases. But there is virtually no good literature that explores the area.

And I would be considered by virtually any school system including CCSD as qualified to teach your wife's class. I am not bi-lingual so I would decline as it would be too painful to both the kids and I but CCSD would very likely allow me to do so if I were willing. And I can show you my CCSD substitute badge. And your wife's calling is somewhat special and may be an area where a college graduate is required. Special Ed in general may be that way. But 15 reasonably normal kids in a class? Piece of cake.

I would also note that I was educated at the formative level by the nuns where the standard was 50 and 60 kids in a classroom. I was bright and self educable so it worked OK for me and my brothers and sisters. But most of the class would never get out of high school.

You're simplifying elementary education. And to use one of your favorite phases, "You are out of your depth, here."

1) It's never a piece of cake.

2) You aren't going to find 15 reasonably normal kids. You're going to find that roughly 1/3 of the kids in North America have major issues at home. Alcoholic or drug addicted parents, abuse, neglect -- this doesn't just happen to the poor kids in the bad neighborhoods. What do you do if you know sending a kid into foster care will probably be worse than their present situation? Are you going to tell me you're qualified to deal with that? That it's a piece of cake? Must be nice to have the wisdom of Solomon along with the brains of Einstein.

This is why we need our best educators at the elementary level -- this is when bad learning habits can be replaced by good ones. When learning disabilities can be corrected before they become life-long problems. This is when problems at home can be spotted and acted upon.

If the students are apathetic slackers when they reach middle school, that's pretty much it. Hormones are going to kick in soon, and that's that.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

You're simplifying elementary education. And to use one of your favorite phases, "You are out of your depth, here."

1) It's never a piece of cake.

2) You aren't going to find 15 reasonably normal kids. You're going to find that roughly 1/3 of the kids in North America have major issues at home. Alcoholic or drug addicted parents, abuse, neglect -- this doesn't just happen to the poor kids in the bad neighborhoods. What do you do if you know sending a kid into foster care will probably be worse than their present situation? Are you going to tell me you're qualified to deal with that? That it's a piece of cake? Must be nice to have the wisdom of Solomon along with the brains of Einstein.

This is why we need our best educators at the elementary level -- this is when bad learning habits can be replaced by good ones. When learning disabilities can be corrected before they become life-long problems. This is when problems at home can be spotted and acted upon.

If the students are apathetic slackers when they reach middle school, that's pretty much it. Hormones are going to kick in soon, and that's that.

Teacher propaganda. Taught in all the Education Institutions but with little basis.

We simply don't do the experiments to find out what actually works. We theorize and implement but virtually never test. No one has any real data as to whether Charter Schools are good or bad. Because no one actually collected the data.

The education establishments have loads of beliefs and theories but very little real data. They really don't know what is the right thing to do. +

Again the LA Times series is really good reading. Nobody knew who the good teachers were. And that included the teachers. When those held up as the prototype great teachers were subject to actual measurement some turned out to be in the bottom. And these purportedly great teacher were personally shocked to find out how bad they were. After decades as the best they found they were the worst. And that is what comes from the Education Institutions and their theories.

And apathetic slackers often turn into great students later. The education process has more variants than you give it credit for. Many do not get into the flow until in college.

I find your view that elementary education is formative and important intellectually pleasing. But I have no idea if it is in fact true. Nor does your wife. The necessary work and data collection has never been done. My mother, her sisters and my sister are all products of the Hunter College system. All are very strong believers in that approach. I personally doubt it and suspect that some of them would have done better out of a more normal high school. But you won't ever shake their belief in that system.

Many theories and beliefs - Few facts.

[NLVgal]

LVOC: "Few facts"

That's true, but education is almost like medicine in some ways. If you are treating the sickest of the sick, your data is going to look worse than that of the guy treating patients at a well-care center.

I think both you and Scoop have agreed that smaller class sizes are better. That's one step.

I've had really good teachers, (I used to ditch my assigned Nevada history class to sit in on one's sixth period class) and really poor ones. The really poor ones literally wrote the assignment on the blackboard and sat silently (or even slept) through the rest of class.

I agree that elementary education is where it's at. That's where we should be throwing our money and time.

[von949]

I don't know if you guys and girls know but most of the school work is in the form of a "homework packet". My daughter brings a math and English packet home every Monday. Usually not due till Friday. In a sense it is self paced. She can do everything on Monday or spread it out over the course of the week.

Parent involvement is a must. Self discipline helps also.

Smaller class or larger class, it really wont matter...there is still a homework packet in the book bags of all the students. Who will take the time to help them?


Sent from cell...

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by von949

I don't know if you guys and girls know but most of the school work is in the form of a "homework packet". My daughter brings a math and English packet home every Monday. Usually not due till Friday. In a sense it is self paced. She can do everything on Monday or spread it out over the course of the week.

.

That's what thrashed my oldest in elementary school. He has ADHD (I cried BS until his third grade teachers showed me evidence) He would often complete assignments but lose them before turn-in day.

It is not cool to ask six year old's with ADHD and a backpack to keep track of paperwork for a week. He did graduate, and has a very high IQ, but he started hating school in elementary school in part because of the homework packets and it never left him.

Mandatory homework is a subject that gets my blood boiling. I was an honors student. Homework was what I did when I didn't finish my work in class or I had a book report or science project due. Mandatory homework, nightly, especially in a district full of single parents and shift-workers is tantamount to setting children up to fail. I hate that policy.

Every time our system is called under question, they make the graduation requirements and testing standards tougher. It's like lacing up your cleats and stomping on your own johnson.