No, the ancient Greeks were fairer than modern Greeks. Look at the busts of ancient Greek figures. All Gothic tribes were caucasian, like the ancient Romans who were much fairer than, say, southern Italians. The swarthiness in the Mediterranean is from the Semitic blood expansion.
Since Aristotle made significant contributions to "Western Civilization" then he's at least an honorary Dead White Guy in the eyes of those who hate western civilization, no matter what his skin color actually was.
The paragraphs where he compares individual states in spending and ranking smacks of cherry-picking. I want to see a scatter plot. Should be easy enough to demonstrate no correlation if that's what the data shows.
Well, he is right about some of this stuff. Money is not the problem. The problem is the quality of the teachers and the insanity of tenure. There are many teachers that should be fired.
And snacks...don't even get me started on that. What a load of shit. At my children's school, several things are geared around treats...all extrinsic motivation...just like our whole culture. I am on the site committee for the school and get yelled at every year for the mere suggestion of doing away with snacks and motivation by food. There's even a line item in the budget for snacks....FOR THE ADULTS!!! Trust me, many of them should worry less about snacks and more about salads and going for a jog a couple of times a week.
I'm pretty sure all he's saying is that some teachers who are shitty are protected from firing by tenure. Therefore, in the absence of tenure, they would be fired, and since tenure should be done away with, they should be fired.
Yes but Mark, unless you are out there demanding the right to work as a non-union teacher, how are your arguments any different than the squealing of kittens in a box? No one has to care what your opinion is, if the union dislikes it, they can use your own money to defeat it, can they not?
It's funny. There are actually many things on which we agree if we can just get past all the vitriol. For example, last week my son won the little league championship. There were no trophies nor t shirts for the winners. All of the participants in the entire league got trophies which I thought was fine but shouldn't there be another one for the winners? Y'see, folks, I believe very strongly that kids need to understand the meaning of success and failure. One learns so much from failing or losing that it sickens me that the norms and values of the seriously crappy sport of soccer is now universal for all sports. Soccer is a sport that encourages and rewards mediocrity. Unless you are at the pro level, anyone can play it even if they have little skill. It takes skill to play a sport like baseball. In fact, you'd have me on board if you accused soccer of being a communist threat. It certainly seems that way to me and I hate what our culture has become as a result of it.
Not everyone is a winner and being a loser means gaining perspective.
GOF, yes. And that's why I hate unions. There are so many problems with them on so many levels. But I hate unchecked corporate power as well so the whole thing is just a giant sack of poo.
Unix, based on this metric.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8710.2000
There are so many instructors that fail on many of these and are never fired. This is the chief reason why our schools are in such bad shape.
But those metrics aren't defined. They're rather vague. How do you determine who meets them?
A teacher must understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines taught and be able to create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.
I appreciate the link, but it doesn't answer how you're going to _measure_ against those goals.
Minor note: Effective date. The requirements in this part for licensure are effective on September 1, 2010, and thereafter.
How do you measure that, and fire those who do not succeed in measuring up?
Your questions define the problem with firing teachers. How does one measure? Should their be a rubric for teachers? I suppose one answer is NCLB but that benchmarks for that law are ridiculous. We do need a major overhaul of standards of instruction. The question is does it come from the federal government? At present, they seem to have more priorities. Then it falls to the states and there is nothing uniform in many of their standards. I think that the difficulty in measuring success may never be addressed since there is no real desire to fire the pile of crappy teachers.
Why do we need metrics at all? Once upon a time, principals had the power and the right to fire a teacher that was doing--in his judgement, at least--a poor job. Principals no longer have that power (although they still have the right--it's a natural right, really). Instead, they are forced to meander through a maze of bizzare "due process" rules that are designed to keep all teachers in place.
Metrics are evil, except as a guide: they don't allow us to make judgements. A principal could judge a teacher failing metrics as having a special touch, that should stay in the classroom, and have the potential to greatly improve--or a principal could sense that a given teacher, while excellent, may be a little creepy, and should be dismissed.
I, for one, support getting the State out of the picture altogether. It's the State that has given us this bureaucratic mess in the first place!
And that's why I hate unions. There are so many problems with them on so many levels. But I hate unchecked corporate power as well so the whole thing is just a giant sack of poo.
This is one of the few things I've seen you post that I can't find a single thing, however small, to disagree with.
I suspect one of the major differences between you and me is that I consider unions to be a shining example of corporations with few or no checks on their power.
The problem as I see it is that unless you try for a standard to where any increase in an individual's or organization's power in the private sector (be they company, union, church, homeless guy, whatever) is always accompanied by a perfectly equivalent loss of power (rights, privileges, available services, access to grievance procedures, etc.) in government, the government will be suborned to the interests of the powerful in the private sector. It is gonna happen, there's nothing you can do to stop it, at best you can only slow it down.
Notice that the above remains exactly the same no matter how much you may agree or disagree with the person or organization in question. Their legitimacy is not part of the equation at all.
A union, political party, community activist organization, or anything of the sort only adds to the problem, it never takes away from it. Why? Because no matter what is said, it is another corporation that will quickly begin fighting for its own interests. When such organizations are brand new, often the organization's interests and those of its supporters coincides, and people think "Well great, it serves my interests, it serves its own interests, everybody wins, right?" Wrong. It never serves anyone's interests except its own, just like any other corporation. The people who support it at the start think as long as the interests of the corporation agree with their own that doesn't matter. But it does, because by the time the corporation's interests diverge from your own it's too late, they've already taken power in your name and are using it against your interests. And because you have given away your own power, you have now crippled your own ability to get it back.
This is why people who study politics throughout the ages have feared the actions of good, sober, well-intentioned people trying to help those around them through the agency of government. They give more power to a central organization to do something that needs doing. Fair enough, except that those corporate organizations (the banks, the companies, the churches, the activist groups, and all the rest) keep working to increase their own power and serve their own interests long after the situation that created that pressing need has gone past. They work to serve their own ends every day, that's what they're for. And thus, once government has been given power to address a problem, those organizations work to ensure that the problem never truly goes away, since the day it does their newfound power goes with it.
That's why so many of us are so vehemently anti-government. It's not because the people are bad. It's because they're people, doing the things people do. Government agencies are suicide writ large. They are permanent solutions to termporary problems.
Also note that even if you were to find a way to decrease a person's or individual's power with government in perfect proportion to the increase of their power in the private sector (an impossibility, since too many measures of power are intangible and thus unmeasurable), all you'd accomplish would be to disincentivize any form of ambition, any form of success. What would be the point, anything they gained with one hand would be taken away with the other.
And if the loss of privilege is in anything less than perfect proportion, someone will correctly conclude that they are being scapegoated.
Your questions define the problem with firing teachers.
Actually, Mark, this is the same question that has come up with just about every topic.
How does one measure?
Problematic, isn't it?
For instance, would you want Ed and I to be sitting in judgement on you, given that "standard"? Is there anything on that standard that is objective, that is verifiable, that is measurable?
(And we won't go into how much that list defines so much that we've disagreed about, for now. That's another discussion, and we might get to it later.)
How can you fire - or hire - or promote teachers based upon that standard?
According to my quick count, there are 108 points there. Which ones are more important than others? Are they all "worth" .92 apiece on a scale of 100? Compared to what? What's "Meets expectations" versus "Needs work" versus "Excels?"
I suspect one of the major differences between you and me is that I consider unions to be a shining example of corporations with few or no checks on their power.
Yep, I agree. I don't know if it's my natural rebellious streak or the idea that I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member but I have trouble all the time with mine. They are so small minded. That's what really gets me. But that is true of most people, right?
It's because they're people, doing the things people do.
Sadly, also true. Most of what you say is fundamental sociology. People that organize in groups create bureacracy. They can't help it and it's scientifically valid. But is there any other choice? I guess I don't think so.
Unix, all good questions. I'm not sure I have any answers but I can tell you that some of the teaching standards for the state of MN have crossover with the content specific standards. I think answers to your questions can be found in matching up those that best fit social studies, for example, or math.
I don't know if I would have a problem with you or Ed being part of team that sits in judgment for the criteria of teachers. Your goals would be the same as mine: achieving or exceeding knowledge of a particular subject. How we would instruct would be the source of great debate in the beginning but I think once both of you saw results, there would be little quibbling. Bad teachers are bad teachers. Regardless of what standard you choose, high stakes testing is here to stay which means heads are going to roll. Now if we can only get to high stakes testing for social studies and civics...
Just another aside, I love PJ O'Rourke. I have read him for years and think he is hysterical. He's also very sharp and a pleasure to read even though I disagree with him most of the time. I wish there were more conservative pundits like him.
People that organize in groups create bureacracy. They can't help it and it's scientifically valid. But is there any other choice?
A restatement of Robert Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy: "Who says organization says oligarchy."
As for "any other choice," the available evidence suggests that the incidence of oligarchy is strongly correlated with scale. Stay small, keep the would-be oligarchs (be a lot easier to identify in a small group) near enough to tar & feather and shun when they get out of line, and one has a chance to avoid the worst effects. Probably not all the effects -- human nature is what it is -- but the worst effects.
Funny thing: Even back in my Scoop Jackson/AFL-CIO Democrat days, I liked P.J. O'Rourke.
"What vocation is higher than that of the teacher, concerned with building the human spirit in children and young people? How often, with all the high opportunities of the calling, one finds the teacher acquiring all the unfortunate 'ear-marks' of the vocation — the assertive manner, high-pitched voice, didactic assurance in expressing narrow opinions — characteristics springing from dealing habitually with immature minds and exercising authority over them."
-- "Self-Culture Through the Vocation" by Edward Howard Griggs (1914)
I was hoping that you would come back and clarify, since you didn't, you know, answer the question.
Unix, all good questions. I'm not sure I have any answers
But you "agreed" with us that we need to get rid of bad teachers.
How then, do we agree on who the bad teachers are?
The document you pointed to was illuminating, but had no guidelines. Everything was subjective.
but I can tell you that some of the teaching standards for the state of MN have crossover with the content specific standards. I think answers to your questions can be found in matching up those that best fit social studies, for example, or math.
OK, again, how, and what content specific standards?
I don't know if I would have a problem with you or Ed being part of team that sits in judgment for the criteria of teachers.
Not teachers. You. Do you want Ed and I being (on) the "Board" who reviews the list that you gave us, and determining if you meet it, and if you don't, you're fired?
Your goals would be the same as mine: achieving or exceeding knowledge of a particular subject. How we would instruct would be the source of great debate in the beginning but I think once both of you saw results, there would be little quibbling.
But we're not seeing (good) results. (technically, we are seeing bad results, that's why we're "quibbling"). Precision is important, especially when you're talking about firing people.
Bad teachers are bad teachers.
But how can you tell? How can you fire them, justifiably?
See, Mark, this is important, and this is why it's not quibbling.
If I say "Boy, I sure want the White Sox to win the World Series this year!" and you say "Yeah, me too, I love Johnny Damon, I always pull for his teams!"
We didn't actually _agree_. Damon is playing for the Twins, not the White Sox. He never played for the White Sox. You're confused, and remembering him playing for the Boston Red Sox.
So even though we said we want the same thing, based on how you get there is almost as important as your conclusion. Faulty logic leads to faulty conclusions, even if they are seemingly in agreement with someone who got there via another (presumably correct) method.
When you arrive at a conclusion erroneously, and refuse to either admit the error or change your conclusion, then you're not practicing any sort of logical process.
In this case, we agree, we need to fire bad teachers. But that agreed conclusion is worthless, unless you 1) allow us to do it, 2) give us standards we can use 3) insist on putting people in charge who will do that, 4) who can actually measure progress and work towards improving it.
You said above "When you see progress" - but when we show you backwards "progress", you defend it.
So, again, how do we determine which teachers should be fired, that's a fair and equitable system that improves the education system?
Sorry Unix, Sarah's link above ruined this whole thread for me. It seemed like we may have been getting somewhere in terms of agreement and then she had to go off in Cult speak again. I thought about responding but just didn't have the heart to go through it. I really enjoyed this thread while it lasted. I noticed that you mentioned it in the other thread so I came back. Let's see if we can re-direct this back into a decent place.
How then, do we agree on who the bad teachers are?
One answer (there are many) is to have high stakes assessment across the board. If students aren't learning the basics of math, reading, history, and civics, they should be disciplined and/or fired. This would quickly weed out those who do not want to adjust their pedagogy to include more effective instrutional strategies.
OK, again, how, and what content specific standards?
Well, here's a start. There are links for all other subjects as well. There's a lot of information there. The main thing that was beaten into my head was...does your unit/lesson plan/instructional strategies align with MN standards? The problem is that these standards are not often met and there is no consequence if they are not. That needs to change.
Do you want Ed and I being (on) the "Board" who reviews the list that you gave us, and determining if you meet it, and if you don't, you're fired?
Yeah, I probably wouldnt' have a problem with that. I would hope that you would not let your "feelings" about me interfere with your judgment and you would look at me based on the criteria and standards of excellence. I'm fairly confident that many of your views would change...not only about me but about differentiated instruction. Of course, there isn't any high stakes testing for social studies...yet...but I would support any move for that if it were to come up.
But how can you tell? How can you fire them, justifiably?
Well, when 26 percent of our country is either unsure or thinks that we separated from a country other than Great Britain in the 18th century, that is one measure of failure. I guess I'm sounding like a broken record but you would be able to tell through high stakes assessment. That doesn't mean I support they typical bullshit and very biased standardized tests. There are plenty of other ways to assess. I would wholeheartedly support students writing their own assessments as long as they align with standards and show varied instructional strategies.I wouldn't allow, for example, exclusively multiple choice tests.
I agree with all four of your points above but we see different reasons why they are not happening. Marxists agendas and feel good about yourself instruction have very little to do with why we are failing. I think you have made the mistake of associating my points with those techniques which, in all honesty, I have never really seen nor do I use. Differeniated instruction, for example, means using Socratic Seminar along with assessment through student presentations or living history re-enactments combined with a large variety of other strategies...not the Stanford silliness. Kevin's posts regarding education have one general theme and do not seek, thus far, to really solve anything. It's very right wing radio War on Christmas stuff.
Teachers whine constantly about wanting to be on the same level as doctors or lawyers...professionally speaking...but then want to laze around and move half assed through their lessons...giving up easily on the more challenging students. They get stuck in a pattern and don't want to change to fit the times. They watch test scores fall and wonder why what worked 20 years ago doesn't work today. Or even 5 years ago. They completely fail to connect with their students and then stubbornly refuse to reflect at all on their own pedagogy. And all of this doesn't even begin to address the checked out parents which is most of our culture.
Actually, Unix, once you set aside this Marxist/Frankfurt/Stanford silliness, I think you will find the reasons for our failures in education are worse. And far more frightening.
So, again, how do we determine which teachers should be fired, that's a fair and equitable system that improves the education system?
You answered it with this:
1) allow us to do it, 2) give us standards we can use 3) insist on putting people in charge who will do that, 4) who can actually measure progress and work towards improving it.
Again, not happening. Perhaps we can now discuss why this is the case. There are so many reasons and, sadly, one of the main ones is apathy.
Ed, I think you know that the icon is a joke. Interestingly, I just visited my first presidential library (Truman) and saw the same poster there in the "Red Scare" part of the exhibit.
As far as the article, I've bookmarked it and may talk about it on my blog but I'd like to focus on the questions and comments by Unix here and see where we go. They appear for the time being to be substanitive.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/06/appeal-to-authority.html (38 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Don't think I'd want Aristotle - these days he'd expect Tenure.
How dare you suggest that we should listen to a dead white guy!
Dead white guy? I always thought Greeks were kinda swarthy.
No, the ancient Greeks were fairer than modern Greeks. Look at the busts of ancient Greek figures. All Gothic tribes were caucasian, like the ancient Romans who were much fairer than, say, southern Italians. The swarthiness in the Mediterranean is from the Semitic blood expansion.
Since Aristotle made significant contributions to "Western Civilization" then he's at least an honorary Dead White Guy in the eyes of those who hate western civilization, no matter what his skin color actually was.
The paragraphs where he compares individual states in spending and ranking smacks of cherry-picking. I want to see a scatter plot. Should be easy enough to demonstrate no correlation if that's what the data shows.
O'Rourke says where he got his data. Should be easy enough to construct a plot in Excel.
I think I'll do that. I love making graphs!
Well, he is right about some of this stuff. Money is not the problem. The problem is the quality of the teachers and the insanity of tenure. There are many teachers that should be fired.
And snacks...don't even get me started on that. What a load of shit. At my children's school, several things are geared around treats...all extrinsic motivation...just like our whole culture. I am on the site committee for the school and get yelled at every year for the mere suggestion of doing away with snacks and motivation by food. There's even a line item in the budget for snacks....FOR THE ADULTS!!! Trust me, many of them should worry less about snacks and more about salads and going for a jog a couple of times a week.
There are many teachers that should be fired.
Based upon what metric(s), Mark?
I'm pretty sure all he's saying is that some teachers who are shitty are protected from firing by tenure. Therefore, in the absence of tenure, they would be fired, and since tenure should be done away with, they should be fired.
Nate:
Based upon what metric(s), though?
Yes but Mark, unless you are out there demanding the right to work as a non-union teacher, how are your arguments any different than the squealing of kittens in a box? No one has to care what your opinion is, if the union dislikes it, they can use your own money to defeat it, can they not?
Oh, for the love of...
Let Mark agree with you all, for once!
Who's not?
It's funny. There are actually many things on which we agree if we can just get past all the vitriol. For example, last week my son won the little league championship. There were no trophies nor t shirts for the winners. All of the participants in the entire league got trophies which I thought was fine but shouldn't there be another one for the winners? Y'see, folks, I believe very strongly that kids need to understand the meaning of success and failure. One learns so much from failing or losing that it sickens me that the norms and values of the seriously crappy sport of soccer is now universal for all sports. Soccer is a sport that encourages and rewards mediocrity. Unless you are at the pro level, anyone can play it even if they have little skill. It takes skill to play a sport like baseball. In fact, you'd have me on board if you accused soccer of being a communist threat. It certainly seems that way to me and I hate what our culture has become as a result of it.
Not everyone is a winner and being a loser means gaining perspective.
GOF, yes. And that's why I hate unions. There are so many problems with them on so many levels. But I hate unchecked corporate power as well so the whole thing is just a giant sack of poo.
Unix, based on this metric.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8710.2000
There are so many instructors that fail on many of these and are never fired. This is the chief reason why our schools are in such bad shape.
Mark:
Thanks.
But those metrics aren't defined. They're rather vague. How do you determine who meets them?
A teacher must understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines taught and be able to create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.
I appreciate the link, but it doesn't answer how you're going to _measure_ against those goals.
Minor note:
Effective date. The requirements in this part for licensure are effective on September 1, 2010, and thereafter.
How do you measure that, and fire those who do not succeed in measuring up?
*sigh*. And Echo's editor strikes again. That last line I typed, then noted the date and pasted it - and that line disappeared.... it's a kinda magic.
Your questions define the problem with firing teachers. How does one measure? Should their be a rubric for teachers? I suppose one answer is NCLB but that benchmarks for that law are ridiculous. We do need a major overhaul of standards of instruction. The question is does it come from the federal government? At present, they seem to have more priorities. Then it falls to the states and there is nothing uniform in many of their standards. I think that the difficulty in measuring success may never be addressed since there is no real desire to fire the pile of crappy teachers.
Why do we need metrics at all? Once upon a time, principals had the power and the right to fire a teacher that was doing--in his judgement, at least--a poor job. Principals no longer have that power (although they still have the right--it's a natural right, really). Instead, they are forced to meander through a maze of bizzare "due process" rules that are designed to keep all teachers in place.
Metrics are evil, except as a guide: they don't allow us to make judgements. A principal could judge a teacher failing metrics as having a special touch, that should stay in the classroom, and have the potential to greatly improve--or a principal could sense that a given teacher, while excellent, may be a little creepy, and should be dismissed.
I, for one, support getting the State out of the picture altogether. It's the State that has given us this bureaucratic mess in the first place!
And that's why I hate unions. There are so many problems with them on so many levels. But I hate unchecked corporate power as well so the whole thing is just a giant sack of poo.
This is one of the few things I've seen you post that I can't find a single thing, however small, to disagree with.
I suspect one of the major differences between you and me is that I consider unions to be a shining example of corporations with few or no checks on their power.
The problem as I see it is that unless you try for a standard to where any increase in an individual's or organization's power in the private sector (be they company, union, church, homeless guy, whatever) is always accompanied by a perfectly equivalent loss of power (rights, privileges, available services, access to grievance procedures, etc.) in government, the government will be suborned to the interests of the powerful in the private sector. It is gonna happen, there's nothing you can do to stop it, at best you can only slow it down.
Notice that the above remains exactly the same no matter how much you may agree or disagree with the person or organization in question. Their legitimacy is not part of the equation at all.
A union, political party, community activist organization, or anything of the sort only adds to the problem, it never takes away from it. Why? Because no matter what is said, it is another corporation that will quickly begin fighting for its own interests. When such organizations are brand new, often the organization's interests and those of its supporters coincides, and people think "Well great, it serves my interests, it serves its own interests, everybody wins, right?" Wrong. It never serves anyone's interests except its own, just like any other corporation. The people who support it at the start think as long as the interests of the corporation agree with their own that doesn't matter. But it does, because by the time the corporation's interests diverge from your own it's too late, they've already taken power in your name and are using it against your interests. And because you have given away your own power, you have now crippled your own ability to get it back.
This is why people who study politics throughout the ages have feared the actions of good, sober, well-intentioned people trying to help those around them through the agency of government. They give more power to a central organization to do something that needs doing. Fair enough, except that those corporate organizations (the banks, the companies, the churches, the activist groups, and all the rest) keep working to increase their own power and serve their own interests long after the situation that created that pressing need has gone past. They work to serve their own ends every day, that's what they're for. And thus, once government has been given power to address a problem, those organizations work to ensure that the problem never truly goes away, since the day it does their newfound power goes with it.
That's why so many of us are so vehemently anti-government. It's not because the people are bad. It's because they're people, doing the things people do. Government agencies are suicide writ large. They are permanent solutions to termporary problems.
Also note that even if you were to find a way to decrease a person's or individual's power with government in perfect proportion to the increase of their power in the private sector (an impossibility, since too many measures of power are intangible and thus unmeasurable), all you'd accomplish would be to disincentivize any form of ambition, any form of success. What would be the point, anything they gained with one hand would be taken away with the other.
And if the loss of privilege is in anything less than perfect proportion, someone will correctly conclude that they are being scapegoated.
Your questions define the problem with firing teachers.
Actually, Mark, this is the same question that has come up with just about every topic.
How does one measure?
Problematic, isn't it?
For instance, would you want Ed and I to be sitting in judgement on you, given that "standard"? Is there anything on that standard that is objective, that is verifiable, that is measurable?
(And we won't go into how much that list defines so much that we've disagreed about, for now. That's another discussion, and we might get to it later.)
How can you fire - or hire - or promote teachers based upon that standard?
According to my quick count, there are 108 points there. Which ones are more important than others? Are they all "worth" .92 apiece on a scale of 100? Compared to what? What's "Meets expectations" versus "Needs work" versus "Excels?"
I'm with you, GOF.
I'm having this almost out-of-body experience at agreeing with Mr. Delphia.
But, rather than build an argument on our momentary agreement, I'm just going to enjoy the sheer, stoned weirdness of it all for a while. ;)
"This must be what it feels like to go mad." - Dr. Simon Tam
I suspect one of the major differences between you and me is that I consider unions to be a shining example of corporations with few or no checks on their power.
Yep, I agree. I don't know if it's my natural rebellious streak or the idea that I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member but I have trouble all the time with mine. They are so small minded. That's what really gets me. But that is true of most people, right?
It's because they're people, doing the things people do.
Sadly, also true. Most of what you say is fundamental sociology. People that organize in groups create bureacracy. They can't help it and it's scientifically valid. But is there any other choice? I guess I don't think so.
Unix, all good questions. I'm not sure I have any answers but I can tell you that some of the teaching standards for the state of MN have crossover with the content specific standards. I think answers to your questions can be found in matching up those that best fit social studies, for example, or math.
I don't know if I would have a problem with you or Ed being part of team that sits in judgment for the criteria of teachers. Your goals would be the same as mine: achieving or exceeding knowledge of a particular subject. How we would instruct would be the source of great debate in the beginning but I think once both of you saw results, there would be little quibbling. Bad teachers are bad teachers. Regardless of what standard you choose, high stakes testing is here to stay which means heads are going to roll. Now if we can only get to high stakes testing for social studies and civics...
Just another aside, I love PJ O'Rourke. I have read him for years and think he is hysterical. He's also very sharp and a pleasure to read even though I disagree with him most of the time. I wish there were more conservative pundits like him.
People that organize in groups create bureacracy. They can't help it and it's scientifically valid. But is there any other choice?
A restatement of Robert Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy: "Who says organization says oligarchy."
As for "any other choice," the available evidence suggests that the incidence of oligarchy is strongly correlated with scale. Stay small, keep the would-be oligarchs (be a lot easier to identify in a small group) near enough to tar & feather and shun when they get out of line, and one has a chance to avoid the worst effects. Probably not all the effects -- human nature is what it is -- but the worst effects.
Funny thing: Even back in my Scoop Jackson/AFL-CIO Democrat days, I liked P.J. O'Rourke.
"What vocation is higher than that of the teacher, concerned with building the human spirit in children and young people? How often, with all the high opportunities of the calling, one finds the teacher acquiring all the unfortunate 'ear-marks' of the vocation — the assertive manner, high-pitched voice, didactic assurance in expressing narrow opinions — characteristics springing from dealing habitually with immature minds and exercising authority over them."
-- "Self-Culture Through the Vocation" by Edward Howard Griggs (1914)
OT, but this explains a lot: "Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics." In other news, water is wet.
Also OT: http://vimeo.com/7898284
Mark:
I was hoping that you would come back and clarify, since you didn't, you know, answer the question.
Unix, all good questions. I'm not sure I have any answers
But you "agreed" with us that we need to get rid of bad teachers.
How then, do we agree on who the bad teachers are?
The document you pointed to was illuminating, but had no guidelines. Everything was subjective.
but I can tell you that some of the teaching standards for the state of MN have crossover with the content specific standards. I think answers to your questions can be found in matching up those that best fit social studies, for example, or math.
OK, again, how, and what content specific standards?
I don't know if I would have a problem with you or Ed being part of team that sits in judgment for the criteria of teachers.
Not teachers. You. Do you want Ed and I being (on) the "Board" who reviews the list that you gave us, and determining if you meet it, and if you don't, you're fired?
Your goals would be the same as mine: achieving or exceeding knowledge of a particular subject. How we would instruct would be the source of great debate in the beginning but I think once both of you saw results, there would be little quibbling.
But we're not seeing (good) results. (technically, we are seeing bad results, that's why we're "quibbling"). Precision is important, especially when you're talking about firing people.
Bad teachers are bad teachers.
But how can you tell? How can you fire them, justifiably?
See, Mark, this is important, and this is why it's not quibbling.
If I say "Boy, I sure want the White Sox to win the World Series this year!" and you say "Yeah, me too, I love Johnny Damon, I always pull for his teams!"
We didn't actually _agree_. Damon is playing for the Twins, not the White Sox. He never played for the White Sox. You're confused, and remembering him playing for the Boston Red Sox.
So even though we said we want the same thing, based on how you get there is almost as important as your conclusion. Faulty logic leads to faulty conclusions, even if they are seemingly in agreement with someone who got there via another (presumably correct) method.
When you arrive at a conclusion erroneously, and refuse to either admit the error or change your conclusion, then you're not practicing any sort of logical process.
In this case, we agree, we need to fire bad teachers. But that agreed conclusion is worthless, unless you 1) allow us to do it, 2) give us standards we can use 3) insist on putting people in charge who will do that, 4) who can actually measure progress and work towards improving it.
You said above "When you see progress" - but when we show you backwards "progress", you defend it.
So, again, how do we determine which teachers should be fired, that's a fair and equitable system that improves the education system?
Sorry Unix, Sarah's link above ruined this whole thread for me. It seemed like we may have been getting somewhere in terms of agreement and then she had to go off in Cult speak again. I thought about responding but just didn't have the heart to go through it. I really enjoyed this thread while it lasted. I noticed that you mentioned it in the other thread so I came back. Let's see if we can re-direct this back into a decent place.
How then, do we agree on who the bad teachers are?
One answer (there are many) is to have high stakes assessment across the board. If students aren't learning the basics of math, reading, history, and civics, they should be disciplined and/or fired. This would quickly weed out those who do not want to adjust their pedagogy to include more effective instrutional strategies.
OK, again, how, and what content specific standards?
http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/Social_Studies/index.html
Well, here's a start. There are links for all other subjects as well. There's a lot of information there. The main thing that was beaten into my head was...does your unit/lesson plan/instructional strategies align with MN standards? The problem is that these standards are not often met and there is no consequence if they are not. That needs to change.
Do you want Ed and I being (on) the "Board" who reviews the list that you gave us, and determining if you meet it, and if you don't, you're fired?
Yeah, I probably wouldnt' have a problem with that. I would hope that you would not let your "feelings" about me interfere with your judgment and you would look at me based on the criteria and standards of excellence. I'm fairly confident that many of your views would change...not only about me but about differentiated instruction. Of course, there isn't any high stakes testing for social studies...yet...but I would support any move for that if it were to come up.
But how can you tell? How can you fire them, justifiably?
Well, when 26 percent of our country is either unsure or thinks that we separated from a country other than Great Britain in the 18th century, that is one measure of failure. I guess I'm sounding like a broken record but you would be able to tell through high stakes assessment. That doesn't mean I support they typical bullshit and very biased standardized tests. There are plenty of other ways to assess. I would wholeheartedly support students writing their own assessments as long as they align with standards and show varied instructional strategies.I wouldn't allow, for example, exclusively multiple choice tests.
I agree with all four of your points above but we see different reasons why they are not happening. Marxists agendas and feel good about yourself instruction have very little to do with why we are failing. I think you have made the mistake of associating my points with those techniques which, in all honesty, I have never really seen nor do I use. Differeniated instruction, for example, means using Socratic Seminar along with assessment through student presentations or living history re-enactments combined with a large variety of other strategies...not the Stanford silliness. Kevin's posts regarding education have one general theme and do not seek, thus far, to really solve anything. It's very right wing radio War on Christmas stuff.
Teachers whine constantly about wanting to be on the same level as doctors or lawyers...professionally speaking...but then want to laze around and move half assed through their lessons...giving up easily on the more challenging students. They get stuck in a pattern and don't want to change to fit the times. They watch test scores fall and wonder why what worked 20 years ago doesn't work today. Or even 5 years ago. They completely fail to connect with their students and then stubbornly refuse to reflect at all on their own pedagogy. And all of this doesn't even begin to address the checked out parents which is most of our culture.
Actually, Unix, once you set aside this Marxist/Frankfurt/Stanford silliness, I think you will find the reasons for our failures in education are worse. And far more frightening.
One more thing...
So, again, how do we determine which teachers should be fired, that's a fair and equitable system that improves the education system?
You answered it with this:
1) allow us to do it, 2) give us standards we can use 3) insist on putting people in charge who will do that, 4) who can actually measure progress and work towards improving it.
Again, not happening. Perhaps we can now discuss why this is the case. There are so many reasons and, sadly, one of the main ones is apathy.
I don't want to kill this thread again, but the irony is just too rich to ignore:
Markadelphia said:
"It seemed like we may have been getting somewhere in terms of agreement and then she had to go off in Cult speak again."
Now look at his icon.
BTW, Mark, was the information presented in that article inaccurate? Do you have evidence to show that it's inaccurate?
Ed, I think you know that the icon is a joke. Interestingly, I just visited my first presidential library (Truman) and saw the same poster there in the "Red Scare" part of the exhibit.
As far as the article, I've bookmarked it and may talk about it on my blog but I'd like to focus on the questions and comments by Unix here and see where we go. They appear for the time being to be substanitive.
So every time you pulled out that poster to bash conservatives, it was just a joke bashing? Does this mean that everything you write means nothing?
Actually, it's no joke at all. It's a tragedy. The sentiment of this icon has been expressed many times on here.
Thank you for confirming the original irony.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>