Thousands of teachers in California have been laid off this year. I've been discussing this with people and thinking about, but put off writing about it because it seemed so overwhelmingly bad. It still seems overwhelmingly bad, and I still don't want to put myself through writing about it. Luckily, thanks to Megan Fox, I don't have to. Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Public Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Education. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Saturday, February 28, 2009
More ID nonsense. Florida's turn at bat
Florida State Senator Stephen Wise introduced senate bill 2396. The bill "Requires that the instructional staff of a public school teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles."
That 'critical analysis' is code for intelligent design. Florida is not the only state with an anti-evolution bill on the floor right now, but if this passes and Florida gets rid of teacher tenure any teachers wishing to even try to oppose this trash might not be around long enough to challenge it.
This, by the way, is not Sen Wise's first flirtation with teaching ID in public schools.
That 'critical analysis' is code for intelligent design. Florida is not the only state with an anti-evolution bill on the floor right now, but if this passes and Florida gets rid of teacher tenure any teachers wishing to even try to oppose this trash might not be around long enough to challenge it.
This, by the way, is not Sen Wise's first flirtation with teaching ID in public schools.
A novel idea.....for Mississippi anyway
Mississippi state legislature is considering a bill (House Bill 234) to create a sex education program for the state's public schools.
As the state with the highest birthrate among teenagers and third highest teen pregnancy rate you might think nobody could possibly be against this. You, of course, would be wrong.
Meet State Senator Lee Yancey, a Republican from Brandon. Mr. Yancey voted against the proposal in committee. According to this article Sen. Yancey said he's aware of the need for young people to be better informed about sex and its consequences. However, he's opposed to schools teaching children how to use contraceptives.
What? Okay, try not to think about that statement too hard. It will hurt your brain. The article goes on to quote Sen. Yancey as saying:
"What everybody's afraid to say is what method would they use to demonstrate how to use a prophylactic?" Yancey said. "Is that something an eighth-grader or sixth-grader needs to see?"
Yes Sen. Yancey, that is something an eighth-grader or a sixth-grader needs to see. I am sure Sen. Yancey is basing his opinion on something, but it does not seem to be any type of experience working with middle school students or the CDC data that says Mississippi is number 1 in births to teenage mothers. So once again. Yes, Mr. Yancey, that is something sixth and eighth graders need to see.
As the state with the highest birthrate among teenagers and third highest teen pregnancy rate you might think nobody could possibly be against this. You, of course, would be wrong.
Meet State Senator Lee Yancey, a Republican from Brandon. Mr. Yancey voted against the proposal in committee. According to this article Sen. Yancey said he's aware of the need for young people to be better informed about sex and its consequences. However, he's opposed to schools teaching children how to use contraceptives.
What? Okay, try not to think about that statement too hard. It will hurt your brain. The article goes on to quote Sen. Yancey as saying:
"What everybody's afraid to say is what method would they use to demonstrate how to use a prophylactic?" Yancey said. "Is that something an eighth-grader or sixth-grader needs to see?"
Yes Sen. Yancey, that is something an eighth-grader or a sixth-grader needs to see. I am sure Sen. Yancey is basing his opinion on something, but it does not seem to be any type of experience working with middle school students or the CDC data that says Mississippi is number 1 in births to teenage mothers. So once again. Yes, Mr. Yancey, that is something sixth and eighth graders need to see.
Teaching under the Sword of Damocles
It appears the Florida Legislature is considering ending teacher tenor. The plan is being sold as an effort to help schools get rid of ineffective or poorly performing teachers. It is a familiar argument, one often used against teacher's unions and teacher tenure. When presented well it even sounds noble. After all, who could argue against getting rid of bad teachers. Oh won't someone please think of the children.
The problem of course, is it will not get rid of bad teachers, it will get rid of teachers who do not see eye to eye with the administration.
First let's put the myth to an end. Teachers, even teachers with tenures, can be fired for legitimate reasons. Getting rid of tenure for teachers only serves to make it easier for administrators to fire teachers for other reasons.
Now, I am certainly not going to argue that all school administrators are bad. In fact I've worked with some truly great administrators. But the fact is there are many administrators out there who care more about maintaining the status quo than the quality of education the students are receiving. Often these are people with what some would call old fashioned ideas about what a school environment should look like. Straight rows of desks occupied by silent students reading or filling in bubbles on multiple choice test sheets. Classrooms as sterile environments.
The problem is that more and more we are finding this is not the most effective learning environment. Students engaged in physical activity in the classroom, inquiry learning, and true open discussions often provide the most engaging and effective classroom environments.
While students typically respond best to teachers with those types of classrooms, all too often administrators do not. As a result, the teachers both students and educational researchers would call the best or most effective teachers are often the very ones administrators would like to get rid of the most.
So while this change in law could possible result in some truly great teachers losing their jobs, a far more drastic effect could be in making teachers fearful of experimenting with these techniques. It could push all teachers to a state of mediocrity. Getting students actively engaged in learning is not always a clean, easy process. It is something that takes practice and patience on the part of the teacher. If a law is passing in which teachers feel any slip up or temperary loss of control may result in unemployment we are more likely to see self censorship on the part of the teachers as far as trying new techniques is concerned.
Denying teachers due process in firing procedures could also make more teachers at risk because of person, political, or religious views.
Of course, none of what I've written so far even addresses the question of how do we evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher. My guess would be standardized test scores. Because when talking about the life of a child, really, what matters besides standardized test scores?
The problem of course, is it will not get rid of bad teachers, it will get rid of teachers who do not see eye to eye with the administration.
First let's put the myth to an end. Teachers, even teachers with tenures, can be fired for legitimate reasons. Getting rid of tenure for teachers only serves to make it easier for administrators to fire teachers for other reasons.
Now, I am certainly not going to argue that all school administrators are bad. In fact I've worked with some truly great administrators. But the fact is there are many administrators out there who care more about maintaining the status quo than the quality of education the students are receiving. Often these are people with what some would call old fashioned ideas about what a school environment should look like. Straight rows of desks occupied by silent students reading or filling in bubbles on multiple choice test sheets. Classrooms as sterile environments.
The problem is that more and more we are finding this is not the most effective learning environment. Students engaged in physical activity in the classroom, inquiry learning, and true open discussions often provide the most engaging and effective classroom environments.
While students typically respond best to teachers with those types of classrooms, all too often administrators do not. As a result, the teachers both students and educational researchers would call the best or most effective teachers are often the very ones administrators would like to get rid of the most.
So while this change in law could possible result in some truly great teachers losing their jobs, a far more drastic effect could be in making teachers fearful of experimenting with these techniques. It could push all teachers to a state of mediocrity. Getting students actively engaged in learning is not always a clean, easy process. It is something that takes practice and patience on the part of the teacher. If a law is passing in which teachers feel any slip up or temperary loss of control may result in unemployment we are more likely to see self censorship on the part of the teachers as far as trying new techniques is concerned.
Denying teachers due process in firing procedures could also make more teachers at risk because of person, political, or religious views.
Of course, none of what I've written so far even addresses the question of how do we evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher. My guess would be standardized test scores. Because when talking about the life of a child, really, what matters besides standardized test scores?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
