Top Five Things To Improve Public Schools August 11, 2005 Lauren Edutopia asked their readers what top five things they would do to improve the state of America’s public schools. The answers shouldn’t be surprising. Now, how to get it all done in the face of tripe like NCLB.
Tell me about it. At my previous job I worked with a lot of teachers, working and retired. Let me tell you, if you want an earful, mention NCLB within earshot of a teacher.
#4 is a biggie. Especially for the upper grades. It’s practically impossible to get decent parent involvement in middle and high school, for a number of reasons. I’m about to go to battle with the principal at my daughter’s middle school. I’m girding up for next week’s big meeting. That’s part of the reason why parents get so discouraged too. I never felt like I constantly had to go to bat for my kids until we breached the middle school threshold. Now it seems like there’s always something.
I’ll overlook that cheap NCLB crack. #1 is worthwhile on general principle, but to do it you’ll have to convince the public that raising their taxes to pay for something they receive no direct benefit from is a good idea. #2 is missing the point; what needs to be done is to reduce *school* size. #3 isn’t going anywhere. Standardized testing is so common now because it meets the public demand for accountability. It’s a big, ugly stick but it works. #4 is wishing for horses. The parents who want to be involved already are, and the ones who don’t will resent being forced into it. #5 ties into #2. Chopping down the size of the district also pares down the bureaucracy.
I agree with all five of your criticisms, David, though I’m generally hopeful because I believe in the power of our schools. Yes, they are problematic. Yes, some children slip through the cracks. Overall, I think the public education system is, as I’ve stated before, one of the best things our government has ever done for its people. That said, I truly wish that school districts, schools, and classrooms were reduced in student numbers. This, too, can unfortunately only happen if the people can be convinced that a raise in taxes is a benefit for all. Considering the state of current social security (big and little Ss), investing in our young people adds to our overall economic and social well-being. The Republican party has done such a good job at hacking away at the positive public perception of state schools that I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Additionally, progressives have only offered solutions that amount to a different kind of privatization or coop, the latter of which is not a viable solution, and the former, as with the Republican offerings, only help a small few. As it currently stands, we need to go with the current school infrastructure but make some serious changes regarding pay, funding, and priority, and all of these things are negatively affected by NCLB.
Okay, let me preface this comment by saying that 2 years ago, I would have agreed with everything on this list. Then I moved to DC and my partner began teaching in a public high school here. I’ve rapidly become convinced that both sides of this debate are less interested in finding real, pragmatic solutions than they are in ideological idiotry (on the right) and protecting their turf (on the left). Yes, in a perfect world teachers and social workers and nonprofit grunts would be making far more money than everyone else. However, this isn’t a perfect world. Limited resources dictate that trade-offs always have to be made. (And more funding won’t solve all problems. DCPS is exhibit #1 of that–one of the highest per-pupil spending states/territories, and school buildings are still falling apart, and only about 50% of students who enter high school actually leave with a diploma.) If we want smaller class sizes, then we’re going to need more teachers for the same number of students–which means smaller salaries. If we want larger salaries for teachers, that means bigger classes. I’ve been pondering this a lot over the last couple of months. (Nerdy wonk-talk ahead.) One of the largest issues that we can actually deal with is the mis-match between the huge requirements (barriers) to becoming a licensed teacher and the actual skills that one needs to be effective in the classroom. One of the worst pieces of NCLB is the requirement that all teachers be “highly qualified”: have a masters degree. The things that make a good teacher (good classroom management skills) don’t have shit to do with having a masters degree. It’s pointless, and all it does is erect higher barriers to entering the profession. Which is a shame, because the entry-level salaries for teachers are solidly middle-class. Why in the world don’t we see a whole army of 20-somethings clamoring to become teachers for 4 or 5 years out of college? The entire way that school systems are set up, from requirements to be hired that sometimes are very loosely related to skill sets that are actually needed, to the way benefits are structured (pensions rather than 403(b)s), are just out-of-whack with the way that people move in the labor market today–moving to new jobs after 4-5 years, rather than doing one thing your entire life. Okay, I’m going to apologize for the long post and back away slowly, hoping I don’t start a flame war…
One of the largest issues that we can actually deal with is the mis-match between the huge requirements (barriers) to becoming a licensed teacher and the actual skills that one needs to be effective in the classroom. YESSSS. As someone who just came through a teaching program tailored to NCLB, most of my training makes little sense except on an indeological level. While I understand the reasoning behind most of the things they had us do, I wrote more “reflective papers” than wrote lesson plans. I have no idea what the fuck to do in a classroom and I student teach in, oh, three weeks.
You will be fine when your class starts in three weeks. It will be hard, it will be fun, you will think you are going insane – you’ll be fine. You have your own life knowledge, with the background of your education and “reflective papers” (gag, puke, I hated them too), plus the knowledge you will gain daily from your students. I have eighteen years of parenthood, thirteen years of teaching, and I’m still learning from my students and my own mistakes on a daily basis. I do agree that a master’s degree does not a quality teacher make, but it won’t hurt…what is more important is the motivation of the teacher and willingness to do what is needed to help the students succeed. Hopefully you will have supportive administration and co-workers. That will make a huge difference in your quality of life.
I completely agree with the fact that masters degree does NOT = good teacher. I went to a ghetto high school, and the highest paid, most revered (by administration and such) teacher was 1) the one with the most degrees 2) the one with decades of tenure 3) and also the most horrible teacher EVER! As much as we students (the ones that valued our education) complained about her inability to teach, there was no way she could be fired or anything, because of tenure…
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of teacher support for standardized testing by subject. From what I’ve seen, standarized testing has a lot less support among humanities/social science teachers than among math/science teachers. Understandably so; the humanities/social science curriculum is a lot more flexible, and a lot less cumulative, than the math/science one. But as a college math teacher, I’m less concerned with the school system’s failure to “educate the whole child” than I am with the failure of my students to do the basic math that they should have learned in grades 1-12, and that they need for my class. I can’t teach ten years’ worth of mathematics in three months, and that’s exactly what I’m required to do with my most unprepared students. That said, there’s such a thing as a bad standardized test, and I’d like to see some work done on that front.