| Even when evidence is brought to the debate by the so-called reformists, it rarely stands up to scrutiny, as is the case with the "miracle" of Sam Houston High School being touted by Tex. Governor Rick Perry and Sec. of Education Arne Duncan. Apparently, rather than actually doing something to deliver better education to the children of that community, what reformists at Houston High figured out was that the way to "turnaround" a low performing school was to significantly lower the percentage of minority students and then call it "improvement." Voila! (h/t ASCD SmartBrief)
Nevertheless, the idiocy of the ed-reformists marches on, most recently in opposition to Sen. Tom Harkin's bill to keep thousands of teachers from getting laid off.
What's got some of those opposed to the bill so up in arms is that there's nothing in the bill that would make schools jump though all kinds of Race-to-the-Top-style hoops in order to get money to save teachers' jobs. Specifically, many of the disgruntled want measures put into the legislation that will ensure that in order for schools to get the money they have to agree to a process to weed out "bad" teachers. Because most schools consider seniority as a significant factor in evaluating who stays and who goes from a teaching staff, the fake-reform crowd wants schools to instead use "value-added data" to spotlight the "bad" teachers, many of whom are presumed to be "entrenched" and "overpaid."
Problem is, there's ample evidence that it's a bad idea to evaluate teachers based on their "performance" because no one knows how to do it reliably and fairly.
In fact, when you look at the actual evidence for linking teacher ranks to student performance, reformists should be pushing for schools to add more staff, specifically literacy coaches who have a proven track record for helping school faculty become better teachers of reading and literacy.
Furthermore, there's a pretty good argument that all this emphasis on getting rid of "bad" teachers actually creates more bad teachers, as it makes teachers afraid to become more innovative. (And isn't "innovation" one of the sacred cows of the ed-deformists?)
What's never mentioned in any of this diatribe about "bad" teachers is the incredible level of selflessness that teachers bring to their work. A new national survey "finds 97 percent of teachers will do whatever it takes to help kids learn - even paying out-of-pocket for classroom supplies."
As I called attention to in a previous Quick Hit, Core Knowledge Blog summed up the reality of being a teacher in America these days:
"Teacher training programs in schools of education are, to put it charitably, of uneven quality. Teachers have no say on curriculum (and more often than not no curriculum at all) and little control over the pedagogical methods they employ. School environment and disciplinary policies are above their pay grade. In sum, the proposition for a classroom teacher too often boils down to this: take your third-rate training, your lack of meaningful feedback, your absence of meaningful professional development, this content-free, feel-good pedagogy, and teach it in the cognitively suspect way we demand. And if you fail, the fault is...yours!
Yeah, that'll work. It has to, in fact, because we're all about accountability."
This Week's Duncehat Award: Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
The breaking news from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute is that there's a surefire solution to better schools and Mike Petrilli has got it. And the silver bullet is this: Make teaching a dead-end job. (h/t Public Schools Insight)
That's right! The whole problem with the American system of public schools is that "our education system has way too many veteran teachers who cost way too much money and provide way too little value." His evidence for this? Petrilli offers a single link to a voluminous pdf that cites some evidence that improvements in math test scores are not affected by teachers who have more then three years experience.
Other than that, his argument relies to a great extent on data from - you guessed it - charter schools that supposedly know how to "get more bang for their buck" because their market-based wisdom guides them into hiring younger and non-union teachers who don't stay very long.
Apparently that's the only evidence he needs to make this sweeping generalization that veteran teachers are just so much dead wood. As a "compromise," he would accept "wage and benefits concessions" instead of mass lay-offs. But the fact is, as this Quick Hit from The Big Hurt alerted us to, "wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants, such as education and work experience. State workers typically earn 11 percent less and local workers 12 percent less."
That data coupled with the afore mentioned national survey showing that teachers on average spend $623 of their own money on supplies for their students each year is enough evidence to refute Petrilli's argument that America has over-invested in teacher salaries. But when you're an ed-deformist, who needs evidence? |
