It also gives more job security. Think about this. You have taught Science for 10 years. You are a very good teacher and work hard. All of a sudden the principal's best friend's daughter graduates college and wants a job as a Science teacher. Next thing you know, politics come into place and you are out of work. I agree with changing tenure or tweaking it, but I'm not sure about doing away with it.

 

I'm a science teacher and have worked in the same school system for 14 years. I'll take my chances that, if the above happens, that my resume and interview will land me another job as a science teacher (high demand). It might be different in the case of subject or level in which their is a lower demand. Still, though, I think that I would be secure enough in what I do that I would find a job.

Some ideas how education might be "fixed"

Hold kids accountable for their choices rather than worry about how their precious creativity might be steiffled.

Reduce class sizes and hire additional teachers.

Use standardized tests to see where a student started the year v/s where he/she ended the year. Forget national norms, if a teacher took a 15 year old from not reading to reading Dick and Jane, that teacher has done his/her job.

Allow more students to choose vocational track classes in high school.

Involve the community in partnerships, mentorships, and other educational ways.

Drastically reduce the amount of paperwork teachers are required to do so they can focus on teaching.

Get rid of tenure.

Feed the kids. Maybe even open the cafeteria on weekends so the kids don't go from Friday lunch to Monday breakfast without a decent meal.

Have all teachers make in-home visits. (teachers go in groups to develop relationships with parents and to see what the home life is of each student)

 

I have more but I have to go now.

 

 

Actually some of what you cite above is in place in our area right now.

 

* They have bench mark tests at the beginning of the year on the state standardized testing and then work from that on what is needed most for the child come spring.

 

* Our school system require home visits at least once at a point in the year for teachers to see their "at risk" students.

 

Reducing class size would be great but would require MORE money from the system to pay for the new teachers needed because there will be more classes.

 

Good points of discussion.

My case has been made.

 

The laws were drafted for politicians by the Department of Education. They are recommended by the NEA, and in the case of Kentucky, the KEA. Much of it is tied to federal dollars, for laws enacted by Congress at the behest of the NEA, the single most powerful lobbying group in the country.

 

I subscribe to the NEA's magazine, by the way, simply to see what fatuous tripe is being spouted.

 

Millions upon millions of teachers belong to and pay dues to the NEA and KEA. How much longer will teachers, knowing the damage they have done with the laws passed, still continue to pay dues, pledge support, and vote the way the NEA/KEA tells them to, because "well, they do a lot of good, too," or "they are a valuable resource for me," or "they provide me with the representation I need for job security."

 

It is time to abandon them.

 

I disagree with many of the stances of the KEA and NEA and let them know that. About two weeks ago, they had a comment in the paper about a stance and I contacted my local and region rep and the KEA President to voice my disagreement.

Some ideas how education might be "fixed"

Hold kids accountable for their choices rather than worry about how their precious creativity might be steiffled.

Reduce class sizes and hire additional teachers.

Use standardized tests to see where a student started the year v/s where he/she ended the year. Forget national norms, if a teacher took a 15 year old from not reading to reading Dick and Jane, that teacher has done his/her job.

Allow more students to choose vocational track classes in high school.

Involve the community in partnerships, mentorships, and other educational ways.

Drastically reduce the amount of paperwork teachers are required to do so they can focus on teaching.

Get rid of tenure.

Feed the kids. Maybe even open the cafeteria on weekends so the kids don't go from Friday lunch to Monday breakfast without a decent meal.

Have all teachers make in-home visits. (teachers go in groups to develop relationships with parents and to see what the home life is of each student)

 

I have more but I have to go now.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say.

 

Comments on your last two. Many if not all schools provide food that goes home with the students on a Friday and cafeterias are open during the summer.

 

The last one has merit but in reality is very, very hard to put into practice. As as HS teacher I had 160 students a year. You want me to visit their homes at a level that makes it meaningful and not just some brief visit? Not to mention there are a lot of meth labs and pot growing on in these homes of failing students. It should not be in my job description to go into a home that could put my life into risk.

 

One of the growing issues is what is being done to students medically when they are raised in a meth lab. They say that stuff gets into the drywall and will not leave and you have to tear the drywall out. Imagine what it is doing to the health and mind of a child that breathes it throughout it's formative years.

Wow. That is a great list! The only one I don't fully agree with is doing away with tenure. I think adjustments should be made to it to make teachers more accountable. I pretty much agreed thoroughly with everything you said though. The standardized tests at the beginning of the year is a brilliant idea to truly measure how well students and teachers did in the school year!

 

Why not? I'm still of the opinion that tenure encourages mediocrity.

 

Pulled this one out separately.

 

Any school district that wants to get rid of a teacher whether they have tenure or not, can do that.

 

Tenure is a popular thing to pull out of a hat among those that do not really understand tenure and what it prevents school districts from doing.

 

It prevents a principal/superintendent who has a good friend that needs the teaching job to fire the good teacher and give it to a friend.

 

It prevents a teacher who sees something wrong in the school district and stands up and speaks out on it from being fired so that the dissenting voice can be silenced.

 

It prevents a district finds that they need to cut some expenses and fires all of the teachers in the highest pay range and hiring all new teachers at a substantial savings.

 

It does NOT guarantee that a poor teacher will keep their job.

 

It simply means the district has to show that the teacher is a poor teacher before firing them.

 

Do not make the assumption that school districts are devoid of politics. They are a highly political workplace.

Actually some of what you cite above is in place in our area right now.

 

* They have bench mark tests at the beginning of the year on the state standardized testing and then work from that on what is needed most for the child come spring.

 

* Our school system require home visits at least once at a point in the year for teachers to see their "at risk" students.

 

Reducing class size would be great but would require MORE money from the system to pay for the new teachers needed because there will be more classes.

 

Good points of discussion.

 

On the bolded and as I alluded to in another post, isn't this just a waste of time. Is one home visit enough to really do anything? And while you say that, I am guessing that the high school teachers with 150some students are not visiting every single one of their at risk students homes.

My last question is becoming the answer for literally millions of American families. The number of home-schooled children has nearly doubled since 1999, and number now over 3% of all school age children in the country. And, contrary to popular opinion about religious motivation, fully half of all home-schooled children's parents say they homeschool because they "can provide a better education that the public school systems."

 

It is amazing how many parents show up at school for their child who is in constant trouble in all of their classes and have been through mutliple grade levels and it is the school's fault. And that the parent "can provide a better education than the public school systems."

 

Some actually can. My wife is an elementary reading specialist and I of course am a teacher. No doubt that we could.

 

Not all who make that claim and many do, actually can.

 

I take that back. They can provide what THEY THINK is a better education. That is not always a "better education" though.

 

And I say that as a father who gave serious, serious consideration 10 years ago of home schooling our child and then revisited consideration about 5 years ago on whether transferring our children to Calvary Christian.

Most public schools and teachers do an amazing job for the situation they are thrust in and the limits and scope of what they are called onto do.

It also gives more job security. Think about this. You have taught Science for 10 years. You are a very good teacher and work hard. All of a sudden the principal's best friend's daughter graduates college and wants a job as a Science teacher. Next thing you know, politics come into place and you are out of work. I agree with changing tenure or tweaking it, but I'm not sure about doing away with it.

 

That's no different then any other workplace. Why should teachers be afforded that security when others aren't?

I don't dispute any of this. In fact, complaint #6 is something I levy fairly frequently.

 

Lets take your position then:

 

1) Do you really honestly feel that we are going to make any progress fixing the broken homes?

 

2) What do we do in the meantime?

 

Do we continue to allow the spirit-numbing mediocrity be the order of the day because "that's just the way things are?" Or, will the teachers and their union stand up for the removal of problem children from the school system so that other children can progress and learn? Or, do I need to remove my child from the public school system and teach him the way it was done years ago, from my home?

 

Give me an answer or suggestion, I'm all ears.

 

As to question #1, I honestly have no idea how we can fix broken homes that have become such a scourge.

 

As to "problem children" and what to do with them, many teachers vehemently disagree with the typical union stance and absolutely believe kids who continuously disrupt and cause problems in the classroom should be removed. Perhaps, the "fix" that is needed is not so much the system of education but merely the corrupt unions who too often are the "face" of the system.

Pulled this one out separately.

 

Any school district that wants to get rid of a teacher whether they have tenure or not, can do that.

 

Tenure is a popular thing to pull out of a hat among those that do not really understand tenure and what it prevents school districts from doing.

 

It prevents a principal/superintendent who has a good friend that needs the teaching job to fire the good teacher and give it to a friend.

 

It prevents a teacher who sees something wrong in the school district and stands up and speaks out on it from being fired so that the dissenting voice can be silenced.

 

It prevents a district finds that they need to cut some expenses and fires all of the teachers in the highest pay range and hiring all new teachers at a substantial savings.

 

It does NOT guarantee that a poor teacher will keep their job.

 

It simply means the district has to show that the teacher is a poor teacher before firing them.

 

Do not make the assumption that school districts are devoid of politics. They are a highly political workplace.

 

Thanks for the primer, I do have some experience in the public school system so I'm not assuming anything. Every situation that you described can and does happen in the "real world". Why should teachers be afforded thius level of protection vs. what otehrs of similar educational backgrounds can expect?

 

If tenure keeps even 1 inept teacher in the classroom for one extra day is that a bad thing? I recall a situation here in Jefferson County where a principal fought to remove a poor teacher from the classroom for YEARS before she was finally removed. Do we just tell those students that she "taught" during those years that they got a substandard education to protect a principle? This woman was such a train wreck as a teacher that grades for her class were not counted when figuring GPAs for eligibility and this was in the flagship high school in the JCPS.

That's no different then any other workplace. Why should teachers be afforded that security when others aren't?

 

1. Unions protect many in the job place from this.

2. Other workplaces are motivated by profit and keeping the best employees. Schools are not motivated by profit and thus can become very political places.

Thanks for the primer, I do have some experience in the public school system so I'm not assuming anything. Every situation that you described can and does happen in the "real world". Why should teachers be afforded thius level of protection vs. what otehrs of similar educational backgrounds can expect?

 

If tenure keeps even 1 inept teacher in the classroom for one extra day is that a bad thing? I recall a situation here in Jefferson County where a principal fought to remove a poor teacher from the classroom for YEARS before she was finally removed. Do we just tell those students that she "taught" during those years that they got a substandard education to protect a principle? This woman was such a train wreck as a teacher that grades for her class were not counted when figuring GPAs for eligibility and this was in the flagship high school in the JCPS.

 

There is an understanding throughout the state concenring JCPS. There is KY education and then there is Jefferson County. They do whatever they want in many cases. They have a very strong teacher's union that is part of the issue/problem as been mentioned in other posts.

 

You CANNOT compare what goes on in JC with the rest of the state.

There is an understanding throughout the state concenring JCPS. There is KY education and then there is Jefferson County. They do whatever they want in many cases. They have a very strong teacher's union that is part of the issue/problem as been mentioned in other posts.

 

You CANNOT compare what goes on in JC with the rest of the state.

 

AGREED

On the bolded and as I alluded to in another post, isn't this just a waste of time. Is one home visit enough to really do anything? And while you say that, I am guessing that the high school teachers with 150some students are not visiting every single one of their at risk students homes.

 

It's been pretty successful in a couple of homes that found themselves feeling important to their child's teacher. The Martinsville City Schools have jumped tremendously in some of the testing issues they had five years ago. This was not a catch all but it was part of the puzzle that's helped a few kids that might have found it easier to disappear.