> When you have a group of dedicated, wealthy, involved parents, these negative incentives can be overcome.
I'd go further and say you don't even need the wealth -- just dedicated and involved parents. Success will flow from that. Trouble is, it's a vicious cycle: the kids who need the most help often have the least dedicated and involved parents.
People claim that private schools are better than public for all sorts of reasons, but I think the main reason probably is that the parents who care enough to put their kids in private school usually also care enough to be dedicated to and involved in their child's education.
> Once you've figured out what it'd cost, then you can start figuring out "is it worth it?"
There's more to it than money. Public school teaching is currently a lousy job for a number of reasons:
* very large amounts of work to take home
* having to deal with complaints from parents and administrators if you raise the rigor of your classes
* if you're male, the possibility of losing your career if a female student decides to lie and say you did something wrong
* the monotony of only a small portion of your work being actually academic-related. Most of the work is babysitting-style work or else administrative work. For people who like to work with their minds, this is a big deal and a reason against going into teaching.
Also, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Who (non-teachers) is making these enormous salaries you quote? Those are big numbers.
yf, I'd glad you're interested. I skipped a few details in my OP thinking no one would be interested, yet here you are.
The state standardized tests are pretty long, but not long enough to make all your tests from. Teachers have to give tests every few weeks (partly because students will forget things after too long, but also because the administration demands assessments, assessments, and more assessments). So what happens is, some chapter tests are standardized. The students do ok on these, since they've been prepped over and over for them. However, teachers need to make their own tests too, of course, and these were the ones I was originally referring to (where, if you require critical thinking, too many students fail).
> Perhaps the current standardized tests are a poor measure of performance.
They are a good measure of how well students perform on standardized tests.
> I can't see any reason why standardized tests would be worse than non-standardized ones.
Good teachers know how to ask good questions. Sometimes those questions change depending upon the students, any extra/different material covered in class, and so on. Regardless, good teachers can ask students to perform critical thinking and can tell if the student can really do it or not -- but it takes time. Administrators want lots of assessments. So many that good teachers will drown under all the grading if they are making students do real critical thinking and providing detailed assessments of it all.
> Additionally, teachers do not have the ability to "race to the bottom".
The forces in place now are resulting in bad patterns. Patterns like good teachers leaving, and the only ones staying are the ones willing to play the game and do all the assessments. "Race to the bottom" means teachers becoming robots who
* cover the required material ("electricity is movement of electrons!"),
* assign homework on it ("what is electricity?"),
* quiz on it ("is electricity, a. movement of protons, b. movement of neutrons, c..."),
* review it ("does everyone remember what electricity is?")
* test on it ("what is electricity? a. movement of electrons b. ..."),
then move on to the next topic. That's what standardized testing gets you and why it's a race to the bottom: find teachers who can shovel the most of that to the most students in the shortest amount of time and get the highest scores.
The net result on teaching staff is that the ones who teach critical thinking skills eventually tend to get washed out of the system. Teaching critical thinking skills is harder, the skill is harder for students to acquire (they have to work for it!), it takes more time, assessment is less cut and dried, and there's less payback visible on those standardized tests.
Sorry. To clarify, there are statewide standardized tests, which in turn end up resulting in department-wide (within a public school) standardized tests (a regular "chapter test", but the same one is given by all teachers in a given department).
When there's a state-mandated standardized test in, say, science, administration immediately jumps on it and says, "Ok! Now we know what our science tests should look like!" and in turn, science teachers must all toe the line, give tests that look just like the state standardized test, and teach to those tests. If Mr. A's students score lower than Mrs. B's students (and administration looks very closely at these test results), [sarcasm] then Mrs. B must be the better teacher! [/sarcasm]
Students "pass" their own class's chapter tests, partly due to teachers just passing them for the reasons previously explained, but also partly because they've been prepped and groomed specifically to pass the test.
Students "pass" the state-wide standardized tests partly because that's what they've been prepped for, and partly because of the nature of standardized testing. Think about it: if everyone does poorly on a state-wide standardized test, the state administrators making the test assume they've made it too difficult, and so water it down. Makes sense also because they want their state to compare favorably with other states. But regardless, what they want is that bell curve. They want it bad. They want to point to the districts on the low side of the bell curve, tell them to improve, and believe they've done something useful.
In turn, local districts want their own bell curves. They want to point to teachers with students on the low side of that bell curve, eliminate them (or otherwise reprimand them), and believe that they've done something useful.
Then net result of all this for the students is that they become pretty good at passing standardized tests but not terribly good at critical thinking. In class, teachers will hear over and over again from students, "will this be on the test?". The students crave bytes of information that sound like a multiple choice question with the answer attached, because that's the sort of thing that leads to success on tests.
The existing situation is this: there are standardized tests, teachers are sticking to the basics -- they have no choice since they've got to teach to the test like everyone else (lest your students score a percentage point lower than another teacher's students), students are doing poorly, students are passing anyway because of the enormous forces on teachers in the broken system.
The standardized tests are part of what's broken in the system. Also part of what's broken is that there are enormous forces preventing teachers from failing students who actually fail.
Greenspun seemed to be talking about public high schools, and that's what I was talking about as well.
Standardized testing is just a race to the bottom. As soon as everyone agrees upon the standardized test, anyone who teaches anything outside of the box at all gets punished because an hour spent on something that's interesting and happens to catch the students' fancy on a given day is one less hour spent preparing them for the standardized test.
His ideas about schools and education are incomplete. One reason we have teacher's unions is to help avoid good teachers being fired due to ignorant complaining noisy parents (and students). And by the way, even with unions a female student can ruin a male teacher's career with a simple "he touched me" lie.
Smart parents will do their best to send their kids to private schools, but the less fortunate kids will get stuck in public. If it were even easier/cheaper to send your kids to private, then there would be an even greater separation between the kids who's parents care and the kids who's parents don't give a damn (the haves and have-nots).
The answer isn't to make more private schools, the answer is to fix public schools. And the problem with public schools is not the teachers. The teachers are working within a system that is broken. Rather than go into the details, here's a quick example: you're a teacher. You cover the material in class. You're inventive, dynamic, clear, withit, the whole nine yards. You assign homework on the material, go over the homework, and then give a quiz (on that material). Students fail because they didn't study and don't care (and this stems from most parents not giving a shit about school as long as their kids are out of the house and having some fun in sports). You go over the quiz in class, and give a test later in the week (on the same material). The students fail because they don't care and didn't study. You have a choice: do you fail a bunch of students and bring down a shitstorm of parent complaints and administration complaints? Or do you yet again make things even easier and maybe even curve the grades so only the very least prepared students fail?
If you fail a bunch of students, administration will claim that you're a bad teacher. You'll have constant visits by "guests" (from administration) in the back of the room evaluating you. Parents will complain loudly that you're inept. Everyone will turn you into a scapegoat. If you're not tenured, you're gone.
Let me give you a hint: teaching is just a job, like any other job except that you're helping kids and so you try to go the extra mile if you can. But it's still just a job, and its not worth all the shit you get to make it rigorous if no one else is doing it, if you get no help from administration, and if you in fact get severely punished for it.
You want to fix education? Let the teachers teach, and let them fail students who fail. And for Pete's sake, get rid of the fucking standardized tests. They turn education into color-by-numbers.
I'd go further and say you don't even need the wealth -- just dedicated and involved parents. Success will flow from that. Trouble is, it's a vicious cycle: the kids who need the most help often have the least dedicated and involved parents.
People claim that private schools are better than public for all sorts of reasons, but I think the main reason probably is that the parents who care enough to put their kids in private school usually also care enough to be dedicated to and involved in their child's education.