Quote:
Originally Posted by SameOldStory
Does the parent issue need to be addressed? Or does the biggest problem lie with the teachers and schools? Mrscoach and other teachers can skipp this one. ) I think that the answer is obvious.
|
It's a sensitive issue. Before my husband and I were allowed to adopt children, we had to each be interviewed by a social worker, our house was inspected, we had to show a clean police record and a clear bill of health, get letters of reference, etc. I didn't mind doing all this. I rather wish more parents went through this kind of deliberation before having biological children. But that smacks of eugenics. And unless we want to provide these services completely free of charge, and even cover the expenses of a parent's lost wages while attending, I don't think it's realistic to expect poorer families to go through this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recluse
In a related story on this morning's news:
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has pledged to end "automatic" teacher tenure, "99.1% reach tenure for life".
His plan: if a teacher cannot maintain a minimum standard of learning in the classroom for 2 years, they can kiss their tenure goodbye.
|
What always bothers me about these plans is that they don't assess what that particular group of kids knew at the beginning of the school year (or when they moved to the area and were added to the teacher's class), and then evaluate the teacher based on progress made that year. They also don't do any kind of adjustment for socioeconomic status. If both parents are working two jobs each and aren't home to help the kids with their homework, or if the kids aren't getting enough nutritious food because the family can't afford it (or doesn't know much about nutrition), the teachers get blamed anyway. This is already a problem with "No Child Left Behind." Measurements are taken comparing last year's third graders with this year's third graders. There are huge statistical problems with this system.
Additionally, the evidence at this point strongly supports that kids learn best in an environment that promotes trust-- between students and teachers, between teachers and administration, etc. If the city sets up a hostile relationship with the teachers by threatening to fire them every year, this whole process gets undermined.
On the individual child level, the strongest predictor of future academic success is whether children were read to when young-- and that is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status (see parents working two jobs each, above). I'm all in favor of better support for schools, including reduced class sizes and the return of the arts to the curriculum, and I think it's reasonable to try to evaluate how well the schools are doing in return, but I think we need to be careful about how we design our measurements of success, and not punish teachers for what they can't affect.