Josh Barry, of Camp Hill, Penn., wants to know why the president of the local teacher’s union thinks he’s a neo-Nazi after he complained about a classroom assignment that he believed to be biased.
“I’m Jewish and my wife is half-black, half-white,” Barry told me in a telephone interview. “I am the furthest thing from a neo-Nazi.”
Last week, his daughter’s eighth grade American History class at East Pennsboro Middle School was asked to analyze a New York Times story about the recent government shutdown.
“I’m Jewish and my wife is half-black, half-white,” Barry told me in a telephone interview. “I am the furthest thing from a neo-Nazi.”
Barry, who said he is a registered independent, read the story and then read a list of questions his daughter was required to answer and he immediately determined the assignment was “grossly slanted.”
The worksheet included questions like “To what issue do House Republican leaders insist on tying the federal budget?” and “Whom do you hold most responsible for the government shutdown?”
Barry fired off letters complaining about the assignment to his daughter’s teacher as well as the school board. But a few days later, he was shocked to discover that the head of the local teacher’s union was making calls around town – asking if he was a neo-Nazi.
The story was first reported on the website Examiner.com.
“It is safe to say that I am less than pleased with your non-objective approach to education when it pertains to current political discussions in the classroom,” he wrote. “You have a duty to be objective and your information you provided my child was not only grossly slanted but it is incompetently incomplete.”
He pointed out the questions in the lesson were loaded with political ideology and “pre-loaded with incorrect premises.”
The teacher responded by explaining that the lesson was not about politics -- it was about literacy.
“The objective was not to promote any political agenda but to work on non-fiction reading skills,” the teacher wrote in an email obtained by Fox News.
Barry was not satisfied with the explanation.
“You will not indoctrinate my child,” he wrote. “If you are going to present articles with a slant to one side you are morally and ethically required to present the opposing views, to give an opportunity for the student, your captive audience, to come to their own conclusions.”
Barry also reached out to the principal, who defended the teacher’s assignment and allegedly told him The New York Times story was not slanted.
On Friday the story took a bizarre turn.
A friend of Barry’s received a telephone call that he says came from Cydnee Cohen, the president of the East Pennsboro Education Association. Barry’s friend was a mutual friend of Cohen’s.
“We’re having some problems with a parent in our school district,” Cohen allegedly told Barry’s friend. “I would like to know -- some of it seems like he’s a neo-Nazi.”
Barry’s friend, who he declined to name, sent Cohen a text message, refuting the charge.
“Just got your message,” the friend wrote. “Josh is the furthest thing from a neo-Nazi. He is JEWISH.”
Afterwards, the friend called Barry and alerted him to the neo-Nazi allegation.
Cohen did not return messages seeking comment.
Bruce Deveney, the superintendent of the school district, told me they are investigating the incident.
“A teacher that was not involved with the assignment took it upon themselves to address the issue that was made public by the parent,” Deveney said. “The teacher’s actions are not supported or sanctioned by the administration and school board of East Pennsboro Area School District.”
Deveny did not respond to questions about Cohen’s employment status in the school district.
“The district is looking further into this situation and will take appropriate actions,” he said.
Barry accused the union president of “embarking on a campaign to dig up dirt on me and to make me look like a neo-Nazi.”
“It’s a smear,” he told me. “Instead of dealing with the issue at hand in a logical, adult manner, she embarked on a campaign to smear me. That’s their union thuggery tactics.”
For the record, Barry said he is not a neo-Nazi. After he went public with Cohen’s accusation, his friend received a rather heated phone call from the union boss.
“She was swearing at her,” he said. “When my friend questioned (Cohen) about her motive - she said, ‘I’m a union officer. These are my teachers.’”
Barry said he wants the union president fired.
“Anything less than accepting her resignation or firing her is condoning her actions,” he said. “This is unacceptable.”
And he’s also got a message for the local teacher’s union: he’s not backing down.
“It’s going to be very difficult to intimidate me,” he said. “I’m not going to submit to their bullying tactics.”
How can you jump to the conclusion he's a neo-nazi just because of this incident?
All he wanted was both sides of an argument instead of the teacher pushing their side on their students.
Wow. If she wanted to call around and ask if he was a hardcore conservative or a tea bagger at least you know there'd be some kind of rational line of thought behind that irrational reaction. How the hell did he/she get neo-Nazi XD
LordofHats wrote: Wow. If she wanted to call around and ask if he was a hardcore conservative or a tea bagger at least you know there'd be some kind of rational line of thought behind that irrational reaction. How the hell did he/she get neo-Nazi XD
Because Hitler
The assignment could have been handled differently. I can see that the teacher wanted to capitalize on prime current events (go them!), but I could see how they were only bringing in one side of the story (regardless of who or what side that was).
but I'm with LordofHats here, where was the jump in logic that she needed to make to come to neo-nazis?
I'm guessing this is the usual "jump to conclusions and leave out everything that's not outrageous" type of journalism that's so common nowadays. There's literally GOT to be more to this story.
I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'm guessing this is the usual "jump to conclusions and leave out everything that's not outrageous" type of journalism that's so common nowadays. There's literally GOT to be more to this story.
It's exactly what critics of the Common Core school curriculum warned about: Partisan political statements masquerading as English lessons finding their way into elementary school classrooms.
Teaching materials aligned with the controversial national educational standards ask fifth-graders to edit such sentences as “(The president) makes sure the laws of the country are fair,” “The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation” and “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.” The sentences, which appear in worksheets published by New Jersey-based Pearson Education, are presented not only for their substance, but also to teach children how to streamline bulky writing.
“We are doing a terrible disservice to this generation and the next if we only present them with one side of the argument and bombard them with ideas contrary to the American ideal."
- Glyn Wright, Eagle Forum
“Parents should insist on reviewing their children’s school assignments,” said Glyn Wright, executive director of the Eagle Forum, a think tank that opposes implementation of Common Core. “Many parents will be shocked to find that some ‘Common Core-approved’ curriculum is full of inappropriate left-wing notions, disinformation, and fails to teach the truth of American exceptionalism and opportunity.”
The politically charged lesson appears in a worksheet titled “Hold the Flag High,” in which students are taught about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. The assignment asks students to make examples of sentences; “less wordy by replacing the underlined words with a possessive noun phrase.” They are then presented with a half-dozen sentences describing the job duties of a U.S. president.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL WORKSHEET
But if the lessons are meant as a primer on the Constitution, there's another problem, note critics. The job of making sure laws are fair is not the president's, but the judicial branch's. The executive branch's duty is to administer laws. And the example that places the well-being of the nation above the "wants of an individual" appears to run counter to the basic principles of the Bill of Rights. “We are doing a terrible disservice to this generation and the next if we only present them with one side of the argument and bombard them with ideas contrary to the American ideal," Wright said. "In doing so, we allow our children to be indoctrinated instead of educated.”
A Pearson spokesperson told FoxNews.com the “Hold the Flag High” worksheet will undergo some editing of its own, based on issues raised by critics, including Education Action Group Foundation.
“These particular questions appear in a fifth-grade unit of Pearson’s Reading Street, an English Language Arts program,” the Pearson official said. “They accompany a selection about soldiers during the Civil War, and they attempt to make a connection between that passage and language skills. As with all our curricular materials, they underwent a thorough development and review process. Still, we are always open to improving our work … Based on this feedback, we will be modifying the worksheet to clarify these questions.”
The official adds that while they are currently being used as common core material, versions of this worksheet including the questions of the Possessive Nouns section have been around and copyrighted since 2007.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative was devised by an association of the nation's governors and backed by the Obama administration in 2009 with the goal of setting a uniform standard for grades K-12 nationwide. Some 45 states, in many cases enticed by federal grants, have signed on and testing of students in grades 3-8 and once in high school is scheduled to begin next year.
Critics of the initiative say that school districts will devise curriculums to maximize their students' performance on the national exams; some in fact, have already done so. The same critics also claim that Common Core math standards barely cover basic geometry or second-year algebra and that the classics are all but ignored in English classes.
While Common Core has plenty of defenders -- and may prove beneficial -- critics maintain that it is not the federal government's job to impose educational standards.
chaos0xomega wrote: I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"
Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
Probably because the questions presented within the report are objective and not one-sided so the father's letter writing campaign was clearly a gross over-reaction, indicating he may be a Tea Party frother. Still doesn't justify being labelled a neo-nazi but we only have one side of the story anyway so maybe that is an exaggeration too. I mean, it is all on Fox.
That said, I think some classics would have been a better choice for a literacy homework, but modern children probably get bored too easily.
By post five. I have. its fun. You say you're anywhere but the West Coast or NY you'll insure it by post four.
The trick is to count how long it is before its all Bush's fault pops up.
But don't worry. You'll get similar from right wing sites. Thats why I ignore the posting section of them frequently. They annoy me to no end and give Libertarians a bad name.
chaos0xomega wrote: I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"
Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
I dare not enter such wretched hives of scum and villainy.
Seaward wrote: Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
Doubly true if you post anything concerning immigration reform
Seaward wrote: Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
Doubly true if you post anything concerning immigration reform
LordofHats wrote: Wow. If she wanted to call around and ask if he was a hardcore conservative or a tea bagger at least you know there'd be some kind of rational line of thought behind that irrational reaction. How the hell did he/she get neo-Nazi XD
The worksheet included questions like “To what issue do House Republican leaders insist on tying the federal budget?” and “Whom do you hold most responsible for the government shutdown?”
I wouldn't mind seeing the whole worksheet, because questions like that are incredibly basic and are absolutely nothing to get angry about (they're basic questions that any informed citizen should be able to answer at the time). Is it just because it used the word Republican? I agree with previous statements, there's either more to this, or the parent is just an overreacting nut,
The worksheet included questions like “To what issue do House Republican leaders insist on tying the federal budget?” and “Whom do you hold most responsible for the government shutdown?”
I wouldn't mind seeing the whole worksheet, because questions like that are incredibly basic and are absolutely nothing to get angry about (they're basic questions that any informed citizen should be able to answer at the time). Is it just because it used the word Republican? I agree with previous statements, there's either more to this, or the parent is just an overreacting nut,
I believe there's an issue due to implied answer leading when you take the two questions together in sequence.
I'm not saying that's the issue(or that it's necessarily an actual issue), but I can see it causing his reaction, especially considering the recent arguments of the issue the questions refer to.
I dunno, loaded is perhaps a strong accusation but from the example question, there does seem to be an agenda there.
"insist on tying" is more the phrase that raises the eyebrows to me.
Plus, it doesn't seem like too big a stretch that there's an argument building up to the 'most responsible' question.
In saying that. Talking about 'indoctrinating my child' is a different kind of crazy in my mind. "Incompetently incomplete" is another line that makes me think of the crazy parent that goes 'my little Timmy can't get a C, he's too special and awesome and intelligent for that, it's your fault!'
In saying that, if the parent left the letter at. "Yo mate, that homework assignment wasn't cool because X." I'd probably agree
The whole union rep thing, that whole involvement just seems mad to me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just because it is the source does not mean the info is less valid.
It makes the story less reliable. It means there is a significant chance that there are other elements at play that aren't reported, and even a reasonable chance that parts of the story aren't even true. Now, it is possible to go and find out more about the story, but its a story about some random guy questioning a homework assignment, even by the standards of off topic spending time researching that would be ridiculous.
The only thing that makes sense is to conclude that an unreliable news service has printed a very trivial story, and just walk away.
They have a link at Fox News to see the entire "homework" sheet. Its pretty slanted. My beef is the questions themselves I pointed out earlier. Its not the president responsibility to ensure the law is in compliance with the Constitution. Its the Judicial. Its to dang obvious with "finger pointing".
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just because it is the source does not mean the info is less valid.
It makes the story less reliable. It means there is a significant chance that there are other elements at play that aren't reported, and even a reasonable chance that parts of the story aren't even true. Now, it is possible to go and find out more about the story, but its a story about some random guy questioning a homework assignment, even by the standards of off topic spending time researching that would be ridiculous.
The only thing that makes sense is to conclude that an unreliable news service has printed a very trivial story, and just walk away.
Good call. That's typically my attitude with NBC. :-P
cincydooley wrote: Good call. That's typically my attitude with NBC. :-P
And just to clarify, simply ignoring a story because it comes from a dodgy source is basically creating your own little echo chamber. Seeing that the source is dodgy should prompt you to go and look in to the issue, and find out the real story, and actually learn what's realy happening with any given story.
Of course, there's a limit to that, when a story just can't justify time spent on research. Such as a story about some guy complaining about a homework assignment, and the teacher's union official responding with really stupid allegations. In those cases, when you can't just trust the source on the face of it, but it would be ridiculous to spend any time looking in to the issue, the only course that makes sense is to just walk away.
I don't really see the issue...
The father has no reason to see bias (Seeing as it was the Republicans who caused the government shutdown)
The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
And that's the case here as well. But "Neo-Nazi" is not really synonymous with right wing in the US. It's more like calling someone a moronic, racist douchebag, which is pretty disproportionate even in the face of Mr. Barry's own rather disproportionate concerns.
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
Might have to do with teachers' vested interest in ensuring a next generation of Democrats.
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
Might have to do with teachers' vested interest in ensuring a next generation of Democrats.
Well, someone has to ensure there are at least a few sensible people around in the future
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
Might have to do with teachers' vested interest in ensuring a next generation of Democrats.
Well, someone has to ensure there are at least a few sensible people around in the future
Don't worry. The American university system has plenty if that indoctrination going on.
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
Might have to do with teachers' vested interest in ensuring a next generation of Democrats.
Well, someone has to ensure there are at least a few sensible people around in the future
Don't worry. The American university system has plenty if that indoctrination going on.
it is a biased question, it blames Republicans. a Republican would see it as Democrats fault. if the question read "To what issue do senate Democrat leaders insist on tying the federal budget" would you still say its not biased?
purplefood wrote: The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
And that's the case here as well. But "Neo-Nazi" is not really synonymous with right wing in the US. It's more like calling someone a moronic, racist douchebag, which is pretty disproportionate even in the face of Mr. Barry's own rather disproportionate concerns.
Admittedly not but it is the extreme of the right wing so it seems reasonable to assume he was either exaggerating or simply being absurd. The latter being likely.
purplefood wrote: Admittedly not but it is the extreme of the right wing so it seems reasonable to assume he was either exaggerating or simply being absurd. The latter being likely.
Wow. How'd you come by the info that this guy's on the extreme of the right wing?
purplefood wrote: Admittedly not but it is the extreme of the right wing so it seems reasonable to assume he was either exaggerating or simply being absurd. The latter being likely.
Wow. How'd you come by the info that this guy's on the extreme of the right wing?
I didn't.
Neo-Nazism is on the extreme right wing.
The teacher was obviously assuming the parent was right wing (Possibly due to recent media stories of such things) and was either being an idiot and claiming he was an extreme right wing supporter or was exaggerating for effect.
purplefood wrote: I don't really see the issue...
The father has no reason to see bias (Seeing as it was the Republicans who caused the government shutdown)
The teacher's thing was a bit odd but given that every time we hear about a parent objecting to their child's education they are usually right wing.
Except of course it wasn't. The House passed multiple bills including a budget. THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT WOULDN"T EVEN TAKRE THEM UP.
So no, and yes, you're biased. Even though I was with the Democrats on this, its biased to say its the Republicans fault.
SilverMK2 wrote: You make stupid comments, you suffer the wrath of my sense of humour
Oh, you were disagreeing? That's even more hilarious.
The point you made is stupid because not every teacher is a democrat or republican, and not every teacher "forces" their viewpoints on their students.
And are you suggesting that Republicans might be doing something to anger teachers, "forcing" them to ensure that children become democrats thus potentially saving those that the Republicans are "crushing under their heels"?
SilverMK2 wrote: And are you suggesting that Republicans might be doing something to anger teachers, "forcing" them to ensure that children become democrats thus potentially saving those that the Republicans are "crushing under their heels"?
Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
SilverMK2 wrote: And are you suggesting that Republicans might be doing something to anger teachers, "forcing" them to ensure that children become democrats thus potentially saving those that the Republicans are "crushing under their heels"?
Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
My wife and many of her younger colleagues love that idea.
Needless to say they're not well liked by the union. They're also some of the best teachers in the district so the union can't touch them.
Seaward wrote: Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
Well they probably don't likek the later because its a terrible idea.
Seaward wrote: Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
Well they probably don't likek the later because its a terrible idea.
Seaward wrote: Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
Well they probably don't likek the later because its a terrible idea.
How is it a terrible idea????
A teacher's performance would be based on how well their students do.
If their students do poorly because they had a bad teacher that's one thing.
If their students do poorly because they can't be arsed to put the effort in or some other reason then why should the teacher be punished?
Text books, AV equipment, parenting, sports, even the school food, there are all sorts of things that affect children's performance that are nothing to do with the teachers.
Seaward wrote: Yep. Republicans are generally in favor of such horrific concepts as getting rid of bad teachers and paying based on performance. Teachers don't like those ideas.
Well they probably don't likek the later because its a terrible idea.
How is it a terrible idea????
A teacher's performance would be based on how well their students do.
If their students do poorly because they had a bad teacher that's one thing.
If their students do poorly because they can't be arsed to put the effort in or some other reason then why should the teacher be punished?
No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.
Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
Student and parent feedback?
Frankly I wouldn't trust students to give good feedback and neither would I trust parents.
If there was a consistent random evaluation (Say a few times per term) that might work better.
Kilkrazy wrote: Text books, AV equipment, parenting, sports, even the school food, there are all sorts of things that affect children's performance that are nothing to do with the teachers.
Again, which is why you have to involved other evaluative methods, like with ANY OTHER JOB PERFORMANCE REVIEW......
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote: Student and parent feedback?
Frankly I wouldn't trust students to give good feedback and neither would I trust parents.
If there was a consistent random evaluation (Say a few times per term) that might work better.
And you'd be wrong. You have to get a large enough sample size to be able to eliminate obvious outliers (like anything).
In fact, parental and student feedback SHOULD figure in as they're the primary customers of whom teachers serve.
Obviously it shouldn't be the only metric, but it should figure in to the pie.
Because there's no workable metric that doesn't involve mountains of red tape that waste more money than the process would be worth. Standardized Tests? Those are already a huge part of the problem with US education. We don't need more standardization we need less. Grades? Well the teacher gives out the grades so I guess they can pick their own paygrade or just be honest and be boned out of any bonuses if they happen to be math or science. Peer review? What was that about unions not letting teachers get fired? You could go full blown with a review board but it would basically be a massive waste of time and a drain on an already overworked system. Half the problems with bad teachers are the fault of poor certification programs in a lot states. Pay for performance is a bad idea that masquarades around as a solution to a problem it doesn't fix in the slightest. There are places of work where output can be quantified but teaching just isn't one of them no to mention all the crap that would start up if you started doing it.
The things the education system needs the most are more money and more teachers (and for school boards to stop being made up of appointed officials with no background in education).
cincydooley wrote: Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
I have a large number of teachers in my family, from high school through to university level and I can't really see how performance related pay can be brought in to the profession. Lesson observations are a highly subjective method of assessment and prone to influence by any number of factors (kids deciding that they are going to mess around, teacher not being particularly well on that day/time, observer's familiarity with the material, observer's teaching style (if any), etc...). Student feedback is about the most horrible way of judging a teacher's performance you could possibly imagine, and parent feedback can actually be worse (since almost everything is filtered through their child first before it gets to them).
Far better to tighten up the HR end of the system, so bad teachers are suitably noted, appropriate actions/interventions/training/etc logged to show that action has been attempted to correct defects and warnings/etc are properly noted. And then actually use that information to remove someone from their job if that is required... like you would in any other industry. That kind of management is lacking in so many settings it drives me mad - so many bad workers carrying on for years simply because simple procedures for logging and correcting unacceptable standards are not followed.
cincydooley wrote: Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
I have a large number of teachers in my family, from high school through to university level and I can't really see how performance related pay can be brought in to the profession. Lesson observations are a highly subjective method of assessment and prone to influence by any number of factors (kids deciding that they are going to mess around, teacher not being particularly well on that day/time, observer's familiarity with the material, observer's teaching style (if any), etc...). Student feedback is about the most horrible way of judging a teacher's performance you could possibly imagine, and parent feedback can actually be worse (since almost everything is filtered through their child first before it gets to them).
Far better to tighten up the HR end of the system, so bad teachers are suitably noted, appropriate actions/interventions/training/etc logged to show that action has been attempted to correct defects and warnings/etc are properly noted. And then actually use that information to remove someone from their job if that is required... like you would in any other industry. That kind of management is lacking in so many settings it drives me mad - so many bad workers carrying on for years simply because simple procedures for logging and correcting unacceptable standards are not followed.
As do I (and I was a teacher myself for 5 years) and I disagree wholeheartedly.
It would certainly take more effort on behalf of administrators, but it would be worth it. A educated observer/administrator wouldn't worry about how poorly a student was behaving, but would rather assess the teacher on their handling of that situation. Which is how they did it during Praxis 3s in Ohio before they were cut due to budget cuts.
Again, I fully believe that parent feedback is important. Obviously you, like I said, need large enoug sample sizes to remove outliers, but parents can offer important feedback on how a teacher interacts with them and their student.
And I disagree about student feedback. I think it can be incredibly valuable. It's easy to spot pandering and vindictiveness, but students absolutely know who their good and bad teachers are.
Because there's no workable metric that doesn't involve mountains of red tape that waste more money than the process would be worth. Standardized Tests? Those are already a huge part of the problem with US education. We don't need more standardization we need less. Grades? Well the teacher gives out the grades so I guess they can pick their own paygrade or just be honest and be boned out of any bonuses if they happen to be math or science. Peer review? What was that about unions not letting teachers get fired? You could go full blown with a review board but it would basically be a massive waste of time and a drain on an already overworked system. Half the problems with bad teachers are the fault of poor certification programs in a lot states. Pay for performance is a bad idea that masquarades around as a solution to a problem it doesn't fix in the slightest. There are places of work where output can be quantified but teaching just isn't one of them no to mention all the crap that would start up if you started doing it.
The things the education system needs the most are more money and more teachers (and for school boards to stop being made up of appointed officials with no background in education).
So many things wrong with this.
Presently standardized tests are the ONLY metric by which teachers are evaluated, and until value added was introduced (which has copious problems on its own) automatically set teachers up to fail. Example: a teacher that had a 98% passage rate in year 1 and a 95% passage rate in year two would be considered a failing teacher because of lack of improvement or stagnation in scores, which leads us to ridiculous statements like "excellent failing" teachers (excellent determined by the %, failing due to lack of growth).
Further, we don't need more teachers right now. At all. There are plenty of highly qualified teachers that have been laid off and can't find jobs or have recently graduated and can't find jobs. What we need less of is programs like Teach for America that take these jobs from these well trained, dedicated people and give them to unqualified ivy grads that had a 5 week training class who use TFA as a stepping stone to other things or solely for the student loan payoffs.
Though we certainly agree on the money and school board point.
Further, we don't need more teachers right now. At all. There are plenty of highly qualified teachers that have been laid off and can't find jobs or have recently graduated and can't find jobs. What we need less of is programs like Teach for America that take these jobs from these well trained, dedicated people and give them to unqualified ivy grads that had a 5 week training class who use TFA as a stepping stone to other things or solely for the student loan payoffs.
Well, no, what we need is a cultural regard for teachers that extends beyond "...those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
Further, we don't need more teachers right now. At all. There are plenty of highly qualified teachers that have been laid off and can't find jobs or have recently graduated and can't find jobs. What we need less of is programs like Teach for America that take these jobs from these well trained, dedicated people and give them to unqualified ivy grads that had a 5 week training class who use TFA as a stepping stone to other things or solely for the student loan payoffs.
Well, no, what we need is a cultural regard for teachers that extends beyond "...those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just because it is the source does not mean the info is less valid.
What info is that exactly? Do you mean the totally unsubstantiated allegations? Or perhaps you mean the alleged phonecall to a friend who the guy won't name?
This seems like a pretty standard case of "parent takes issue with lesson" to me, up until the point where he starts making up what sounds like complete nonsense about "union thugs" conducting a smear campaign against him and the "story" is picked up by a right-wing pseudo-news blog and is then dutifully regurgitated as fact by Fox. If we're going to talk about biases, the fact that so many of you gents looked at that story, saw the word "union", and immediately accepted the guy's version of events when the story itself presents absolutely no corroborating evidence is an indication maybe some of you need to examine your own.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just because it is the source does not mean the info is less valid.
What info is that exactly? Do you mean the totally unsubstantiated allegations? Or perhaps you mean the alleged phonecall to a friend who the guy won't name?
This seems like a pretty standard case of "parent takes issue with lesson" to me, up until the point where he starts making up what sounds like complete nonsense about "union thugs" conducting a smear campaign against him and the "story" is picked up by a right-wing pseudo-news blog and is then dutifully regurgitated as fact by Fox. If we're going to talk about biases, the fact that so many of you gents looked at that story, saw the word "union", and immediately accepted the guy's version of events when the story itself presents absolutely no corroborating evidence is an indication maybe some of you need to examine your own.
Sure, if you want to leave out the whole Neo-nazi bit!
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just because it is the source does not mean the info is less valid.
What info is that exactly? Do you mean the totally unsubstantiated allegations? Or perhaps you mean the alleged phonecall to a friend who the guy won't name?
This seems like a pretty standard case of "parent takes issue with lesson" to me, up until the point where he starts making up what sounds like complete nonsense about "union thugs" conducting a smear campaign against him and the "story" is picked up by a right-wing pseudo-news blog and is then dutifully regurgitated as fact by Fox. If we're going to talk about biases, the fact that so many of you gents looked at that story, saw the word "union", and immediately accepted the guy's version of events when the story itself presents absolutely no corroborating evidence is an indication maybe some of you need to examine your own.
Sure, if you want to leave out the whole Neo-nazi bit!
That's what I'm talking about; look at the article again. "Friend says", "alleges" - the guy claims his friend told him that the teacher called the friend and inquired if the dad was a neo-nazi, and his friend claims he later received a threatening call from a senior figure in the union - either one could be lying out their arse, and no evidence was presented in the article to substantiate any of those three claims. Literally the only thing the article claims as factual is that he objected to the lesson, and the teacher sent him an email saying she disagreed with him and explaining why, after which he complained to the school principle and received a similar answer.
The fact that certain people can look at that and immediately condemn the teacher, the school, and the union speaks pretty loudly to their preconceptions about all three. The fact that they can leap to those conclusions when the article is provided courtesy of an unashamedly partisan blog presented by an unashamedly partisan news network...
Yodhrin wrote: That's what I'm talking about; look at the article again. "Friend says", "alleges" - the guy claims his friend told him that the teacher called the friend and inquired if the dad was a neo-nazi, and his friend claims he later received a threatening call from a senior figure in the union - either one could be lying out their arse, and no evidence was presented in the article to substantiate any of those three claims. Literally the only thing the article claims as factual is that he objected to the lesson, and the teacher sent him an email saying she disagreed with him and explaining why, after which he complained to the school principle and received a similar answer.
The fact that certain people can look at that and immediately condemn the teacher, the school, and the union speaks pretty loudly to their preconceptions about all three. The fact that they can leap to those conclusions when the article is provided courtesy of an unashamedly partisan blog presented by an unashamedly partisan news network...
Pretty clear at 0:57
And that video was directly linked in the article (twice). So there is actually evidence there if you had looked.
Yodhrin wrote: That's what I'm talking about; look at the article again. "Friend says", "alleges" - the guy claims his friend told him that the teacher called the friend and inquired if the dad was a neo-nazi, and his friend claims he later received a threatening call from a senior figure in the union - either one could be lying out their arse, and no evidence was presented in the article to substantiate any of those three claims. Literally the only thing the article claims as factual is that he objected to the lesson, and the teacher sent him an email saying she disagreed with him and explaining why, after which he complained to the school principle and received a similar answer.
The fact that certain people can look at that and immediately condemn the teacher, the school, and the union speaks pretty loudly to their preconceptions about all three. The fact that they can leap to those conclusions when the article is provided courtesy of an unashamedly partisan blog presented by an unashamedly partisan news network...
Pretty clear at 0:57
And that video was directly linked in the article (twice). So there is actually evidence there if you had looked.
You're kidding, right? So if I produce a recording of an unidentified American man asking if I am a neo-nazi accompanied by an edited screenshot from a phone with again no identifying information, and go to the press saying it's you, you would be OK with people accepting that without question?
Damn, you yanks have a pretty loose definition of the word "evidence". If the police examine this "evidence" and find the man's claims have merit? Fine, there's an issue here and the case must be answered, but I'm pretty damn sure that those of you who bought this hook line & sinker were the sort of people who already have low opinions of teachers and their unions.
EDIT: Let me put it this way - if the Huffington Post put out a story, sources from a blog with a well-known left-wing editorial agenda, in which an individual alleged they had an exchange with a teacher about what they considered to be a right-biased lesson plan, and claimed subsequently a friend of that person received a call from an unrelated teacher asking if the person was a communist/Islamic extremist, and as "evidence" presented a youtube video consisting of a cropped jpeg image and an unidentified audio clip - would you guys also immediately conclude that the guy is obviously telling the truth and start going all "rabble rabble rabble unions and stupid teachers rabble rabble"?
Yodhrin wrote: You're kidding, right? So if I produce a recording of an unidentified American man asking if I am a neo-nazi accompanied by an edited screenshot from a phone with again no identifying information, and go to the press saying it's you, you would be OK with people accepting that without question?
Damn, you yanks have a pretty loose definition of the word "evidence". If the police examine this "evidence" and find the man's claims have merit? Fine, there's an issue here and the case must be answered, but I'm pretty damn sure that those of you who bought this hook line & sinker were the sort of people who already have low opinions of teachers and their unions.
EDIT: Let me put it this way - if the Huffington Post put out a story, sources from a blog with a well-known left-wing editorial agenda, in which an individual alleged they had an exchange with a teacher about what they considered to be a right-biased lesson plan, and claimed subsequently a friend of that person received a call from an unrelated teacher asking if the person was a communist/Islamic extremist, and as "evidence" presented a youtube video consisting of a cropped jpeg image and an unidentified audio clip - would you guys also immediately conclude that the guy is obviously telling the truth and start going all "rabble rabble rabble unions and stupid teachers rabble rabble"?
Aye right you would.
1. I'm Irish
2. You're making amazing and sweeping generalisations in an attempt to make your point, which actually weakens your argument
3. Have you anything to actually counter the evidence put forward, or do you just not like the source?
cincydooley wrote: No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.
Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
When the teacher's pay and/or job security is derived at least in part from how much the parent's like teacher, then you've just removed that teacher's ability to give honest, fearless advice to the parents. It's just another variant of 'teaching to the test'.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: How can you jump to the conclusion he's a neo-nazi just because of this incident?
All he wanted was both sides of an argument instead of the teacher pushing their side on their students.
I'm in college right now, and pushing their side onto the students is all that most of my professors do.
cincydooley wrote: No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.
Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
When the teacher's pay and/or job security is derived at least in part from how much the parent's like teacher, then you've just removed that teacher's ability to give honest, fearless advice to the parents. It's just another variant of 'teaching to the test'.
Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.
cincydooley wrote: No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.
Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
When the teacher's pay and/or job security is derived at least in part from how much the parent's like teacher, then you've just removed that teacher's ability to give honest, fearless advice to the parents. It's just another variant of 'teaching to the test'.
Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.
Three of my immediate family are teachera and 2 are university lecturers - they all, and their unions, and most other teachers, think you are wrong. Just saying
chaos0xomega wrote: I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"
Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
I dare not enter such wretched hives of scum and villainy.
The houses of parliment
But yeah, talk about a quick jump to irrational conclusions.
is not evidence that you're evil and are going to take over the world, despite apparently being a quote by you. The same way I forged this quote, someone could just as easily forge a screenshot of a cellphone. It just isn't evidence of anything on its own.
The teacher allegedly involved in the "neo-nazi" enquiry has apparently apologised for making that phone call.
You must either believe that Fox made up everything, or that the neo-nazi phrase actually was used, though such a phrase might be used in a non-serious manner.
Kilkrazy wrote: The teacher allegedly involved in the "neo-nazi" enquiry has apparently apologised for making that phone call.
You must either believe that Fox made up everything, or that the neo-nazi phrase actually was used, though such a phrase might be used in a non-serious manner.
Do I believe Fox made up everything? I wouldn't put it past them, they have form. However I think it's more likely that they published a crock of crap from an online partisan source without bothering to properly check the facts, something for which they have even more form.
Again though, my point was not "this never happened", or even that "this man is a liar", it was to point out the fact that many people here are apparently happy to jump to conclusions and begin the blame & shame game based on lots of "allegedly"'s, "apparently"'s, and "has claimed"'s.
And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American. I notice you also failed to address any of the points I raised, other than to vaguely waffle about "generalisations". As for countering the "evidence", I would have thought my repeated use of quotation marks around the word "evidence" made it fairly obvious that I don't think any of what's presented so far constitutes such, and won't until it's verified by a reasonably trustworthy and impartial third party like the police or the school district's own investigation.
cincydooley wrote: No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.
Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.
When the teacher's pay and/or job security is derived at least in part from how much the parent's like teacher, then you've just removed that teacher's ability to give honest, fearless advice to the parents. It's just another variant of 'teaching to the test'.
Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.
Three of my immediate family are teachera and 2 are university lecturers - they all, and their unions, and most other teachers, think you are wrong. Just saying
Of course their unions do. Unions at large have no interest in a meritocracy. Teachers unions are one of the biggest Problems with education.
cincydooley wrote: Of course their unions do. Unions at large have no interest in a meritocracy. Teachers unions are one of the biggest Problems with education.
You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.
The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...
And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American.
The flags are based on your IP's point of origin(something like that, can't remember the technical stuff exactly), not what you set your location as.
It's why we sometimes get threads of "Why's my flag X when I'm in Y?"
In addition just because he's IN America doesn't mean he's FROM America or American.
Yodhrin wrote: And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American.
Dreadclaw is an immigrant to our great country from Ireland.
The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...
My gut instinct would tell me that they're leagues apart.
You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.
The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...
Im getting the impression that they aren't even close. Unions in the US okayed the notion that a single, high stakes standardized test should account for 50% of a teachers' performance over a year, but which matters little to those in power in the unions that have been tenured. The unions do absolutely nothing to protect or serve their younger constituency that isn't on a continuing contract, but rather signs a new contract every year. To top it off, the teachers that don't join the teachers union (most of whom are young teachers that don't see the value for what they pay in) are treated, for the most part, as pariahs or are bullied by those in union leadership positions. Many young teachers feel forced to join unions in the first place to avoid that when entering a new school.
The pay structure doesn't reward hard work or positive feedback, only further education (which good teachers are constantly seeking anyway) and longevity. While I think there is some merit in higher pay for longevity (classroom experience IS important for teachers), It doesn't inherently encourage teachers to work harder or perform better, especially for a tenured teacher that may or may not simply be there collecting a pay check.
The reason student and feedback would be important is precisely because it would speak to "how much work a teacher puts into the job." It doesn't have to be a big piece of the pie--IMO the largest piece should be through random, consistent performance observation-- but that input is important because it reflects all the things that aren't shown via standardized testing or in class observations. Again, as parents and students are the primary clients of the school district, shouldn't they be heard too? Obviously you'd have to look at them cumulatively to ensure that overly prejudicial or biased comments aren't weighed too heavily, but it's easy to eliminate those types of comments as outliers.
is not evidence that you're evil and are going to take over the world, despite apparently being a quote by you. The same way I forged this quote, someone could just as easily forge a screenshot of a cellphone. It just isn't evidence of anything on its own.
So you have something to substantiate your claim that the voice mail was faked? Or do we just go and ignore salient points based on unproven, unfounded speculation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American. I notice you also failed to address any of the points I raised, other than to vaguely waffle about "generalisations". As for countering the "evidence", I would have thought my repeated use of quotation marks around the word "evidence" made it fairly obvious that I don't think any of what's presented so far constitutes such, and won't until it's verified by a reasonably trustworthy and impartial third party like the police or the school district's own investigation.
So what you're saying is that you don't like the source that reported the news, are unable to counter the evidence, so have to go for some vague attempt to discredit it while offering no evidence, then get on your high horse because no one is playing your 'what-if' game?
What do you want me to refute? The fact that it may have been edited or faked? Provide some evidence to make your point and I may offer a rebuttal. if you want to settle into poorly made theoretical arguments based on your own bias then there isn't much likelihood of a constructive discussion.
Who's getting huffy? I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. So if I'm Irish born (something that has been mentioned on more than one occasion), and living in America which flag would you have me fly?
You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.
The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...
Im getting the impression that they aren't even close. Unions in the US okayed the notion that a single, high stakes standardized test should account for 50% of a teachers' performance over a year, but which matters little to those in power in the unions that have been tenured. The unions do absolutely nothing to protect or serve their younger constituency that isn't on a continuing contract, but rather signs a new contract every year. To top it off, the teachers that don't join the teachers union (most of whom are young teachers that don't see the value for what they pay in) are treated, for the most part, as pariahs or are bullied by those in union leadership positions. Many young teachers feel forced to join unions in the first place to avoid that when entering a new school.
The pay structure doesn't reward hard work or positive feedback, only further education (which good teachers are constantly seeking anyway) and longevity. While I think there is some merit in higher pay for longevity (classroom experience IS important for teachers), It doesn't inherently encourage teachers to work harder or perform better, especially for a tenured teacher that may or may not simply be there collecting a pay check.
The reason student and feedback would be important is precisely because it would speak to "how much work a teacher puts into the job." It doesn't have to be a big piece of the pie--IMO the largest piece should be through random, consistent performance observation-- but that input is important because it reflects all the things that aren't shown via standardized testing or in class observations. Again, as parents and students are the primary clients of the school district, shouldn't they be heard too? Obviously you'd have to look at them cumulatively to ensure that overly prejudicial or biased comments aren't weighed too heavily, but it's easy to eliminate those types of comments as outliers.
Just for fairness sake's, let's also put up the response from the AFT President.
AFT President Randi Weingarten wrote:The report is “puzzling.”
“On the one hand it makes the point of the importance of keeping good teachers and what's needed to do that,” she said in a release. “On the other, it assumes that someone can magically become a good teacher and that school leadership means simply firing bad teachers. What is missing is the work that needs to be done to create continuous development and support systems to help all teachers become great teachers. This is how we make sure that every student succeeds.”
Weingarten, who was re-elected president on Monday, the final day of the AFT convention in Detroit, pointed out that Bill Gates has said that teacher evaluations must be fused with professional development, and that teachers get little or no feedback.
She said teachers need continuous training, a clear career path with opportunities for leadership, classroom resources, administrative and community cooperation and parental engagement.
"These are things we should be focused on providing all teachers,” she said. “What it comes down to is ensuring that teachers have the time, tools and trust they need to improve teaching and learning. It’s about treating educators like the professionals they are, using their rich knowledge and experience to build up the teaching profession."
Not too sure about what Bill Gates has to do with anything, are you guys south of the border worshipping the man as a messiah now?
cincydooley wrote: Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.
I deal with incentive schemes and performance monitoring on a daily basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, yeah.
And no, you didn't explain a better system, all your other ideas were equally terrible, I just didn't go through them because it kind of felt like I was being mean. But random observation is both insanely expensive, and seriously harms trust. Your insistence that the sample size is large enough ignore the problem of correlation between units in the sample - hard to teach kids aren't randomly distributed.
cincydooley wrote: Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.
I deal with incentive schemes and performance monitoring on a daily basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, yeah.
And no, you didn't explain a better system, all your other ideas were equally terrible, I just didn't go through them because it kind of felt like I was being mean. But random observation is both insanely expensive, and seriously harms trust. Your insistence that the sample size is large enough ignore the problem of correlation between units in the sample - hard to teach kids aren't randomly distributed.
I promise that performance monitoring in the American public school system is far different than anything that exists in the business world, but I'd love to hear why they're "equally terrible" considering what I've said is basically the same as what Gates is saying needs to be done. And that includes parental involvement and feedback. I realize the piece involving student feedback would be hard to incorporate well, but I also think it's important because students, especially at the high school level, can really provide good insight about their teachers and they really do know who their good and bad teachers are, and are able to do divorce that from who they like and dislike.
Random observation is required because on a scheduled observation, any teacher can look brilliant. You orchestrate the lesson and inspcentivize good behavior for the students. But you're right about it being time consuming and expensive. There's nothing getting around that. The Ohio senate just proposed a bill that would address the trust issue, too, with teachers deemed "accomplished" only being subject to observation every three years and those deemed "masters" every 5 years. Believe it or not, but most good teachers welcome observers in the classroom and certainly don't see it as a breach of trust. Getting that feedback, as with any job, is always a good thing.
cincydooley wrote: I promise that performance monitoring in the American public school system is far different than anything that exists in the business world, but I'd love to hear why they're "equally terrible" considering what I've said is basically the same as what Gates is saying needs to be done. And that includes parental involvement and feedback. I realize the piece involving student feedback would be hard to incorporate well, but I also think it's important because students, especially at the high school level, can really provide good insight about their teachers and they really do know who their good and bad teachers are, and are able to do divorce that from who they like and dislike.
I have no problem with seeking the feedback of students, it's the act of incorporating it in to pay and incentive programs that's disastrous.
Random observation is required because on a scheduled observation, any teacher can look brilliant.
Assuming direct observation is required at all. it is just bizarre to hire a qualified professional, and tell them you're going to randomly drop in to their workplace just to make sure they're doing their job.
Thing is, who is and who isn't a good teacher is a mystery to no-one. You don't need formal testing and random inspections. The school board and principal knows, and the principal certainly does. Perhaps not to the fine level of who deserves a slightly bigger pay rise, but then remuneration based performance is just a nonsense for teachers anyway.
Just give principals and school boards the ability to hire who they want, and fire non-performing teachers, and just ignore all the rest of that nonsense as stuff that just doesn't work for jobs as subjective as teaching.
Assuming direct observation is required at all. it is just bizarre to hire a qualified professional, and tell them you're going to randomly drop in to their workplace just to make sure they're doing their job.
I truly think it it's because there's no real quantitative way to assess a teachers performance otherwise. Anything that could be quantitative is effectively out of the teachers hands because it's all dependent on student performance. I think a good way would to have partner schools within a district if possible, where admins from one building could observes teachers from a different building. It would remove some of the personal relationship pieces that can color even the most impartial person. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would be a start.
Thing is, who is and who isn't a good teacher is a mystery to no-one. You don't need formal testing and random inspections. The school board and principal knows, and the principal certainly does. Perhaps not to the fine level of who deserves a slightly bigger pay rise, but then remuneration based performance is just a nonsense for teachers anyway.
Just give principals and school boards the ability to hire who they want, and fire non-performing teachers, and just ignore all the rest of that nonsense as stuff that just doesn't work for jobs as subjective as teaching.
Completely agree that the good teaches and bad teachers aren't mysteries, but the problem is that, with tenure, it's very hard to get rid of "non-performing" teachers as they're protected by the union. Sadly those people are usually paid the most because of their longevity, too.
I'm not going to pretend fixing it is an easy solution; it certainly isn't. But it could be a start, say, if those teachers that achieve the "accomplished" level for x many years get a "bonus," and those that achieve a master status get a bonus or salary bump or something like that. It would certainly incentivize being a great teacher in a more positive way that basing it solely on student test scores. Granted, I have no idea where that funding would come from... Hell, my poor wife has been on a pay scale freeze for 5 years now.
I think it's good to bounce these kinds of ideas around though, because anything that moves teachers toward being regarded as the highly qualified, highly educated professionals most are and away from the horrible "those that can't, teach" is a positive step to me.
cincydooley wrote: I truly think it it's because there's no real quantitative way to assess a teachers performance otherwise. Anything that could be quantitative is effectively out of the teachers hands because it's all dependent on student performance. I think a good way would to have partner schools within a district if possible, where admins from one building could observes teachers from a different building. It would remove some of the personal relationship pieces that can color even the most impartial person. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would be a start.
Ultimately, when something can't be properly quantified, the answer isn't the least bad method, but to not do it at all. Across my career I've seen incentive and assessment schemes do more harm than good, and probably by some margin. This isn't because good incentive schemes are hard to put in place, but just because for a bunch of reasons they're applied to the wrong areas. The CEO, who's job is extremely hard to quantify, almost always has an incentive scheme, but the guys in machining, who's work can be incentivised very easily, generally don't.
The same applies to the government sector as well. People are mad keen to get incentive schemes put in to teaching despite there being no decent set of metrics that would work... but no-one talks about incentive schemes for road crews or bus drivers or any of the jobs that are really easy to quantify.
Completely agree that the good teaches and bad teachers aren't mysteries, but the problem is that, with tenure, it's very hard to get rid of "non-performing" teachers as they're protected by the union.
And that sounds like the problem worth working on, to me. Don't worry about incentives or any of that, just fix the industrial relations. Move away from the clashes with a defensive, militant union, by offering genuine protection from political and personality based firings through an independant ombudsman, effectively bypassing the union's claim of legitimate need, and thereby removing it's power in all cases where it is protecting a person who does deserve to lose their job.
Hell, my poor wife has been on a pay scale freeze for 5 years now.
That sucks for you and your wife, sorry to hear about that. It would be very hard to get ahead on a flat income.
I think it's good to bounce these kinds of ideas around though, because anything that moves teachers toward being regarded as the highly qualified, highly educated professionals most are and away from the horrible "those that can't, teach" is a positive step to me.
The increasing efforts to think of teaching as a genuine profession is definitely a move in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done, of course, but the same is true of my career
Who's getting huffy? I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. So if I'm Irish born (something that has been mentioned on more than one occasion), and living in America which flag would you have me fly?
American Flag Hurr!
(or alternatively the Disney World flag. Its a Small World after all..)
chaos0xomega wrote: I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"
Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.
On some Leftist websites you post anything vaguely Republican-sounding you get the axe. As an example DemocratUnderground.com is notorious for doing this to anyone who does not toe the party line.
Hello. Public School Administrator here. Regarding teacher evaluations and merit pay; the former is fairly easy to explain, the latter opens a world of dangerous conversation.
The current practice making its way around the US is for a qualitative and quantitative approach to teacher evaluation. The form that this takes will vary depening upon the laws of a particular state. Here in Oklahoma we have the "Teacher and Leader Effectiveness" law or TLE which guides our processes. Long story short, school districts may choose from one of three state approved frameworks to utilize for teacher qualitative evaluations. These use a combination of formal and informal observations, scales and evidences and a collaborative process of growth between the teacher and administrator. The quantitative component is comprised of a menu from which teachers and adminstatrors choose a few appropriate measures based upon consultation relevant to their subject area (class benchmarks, etc.), this is called "Other Academic Measures"; the other part is an average of several years' worth of standardized test scores. The breakdown on evaluations is 50% qualitative, 35% student growth and 15% "Other Academic Measures".
Personally, I love the qualitative aspect but loathe the quantitative. It's what you get when people with no experience in education write laws that impact an entire profession.
Meanwhile, educators in my state are the lowest paid in the region and districts are struggling to find teachers to fill high-need positions because the same people that like to pass education laws seem to forget how to write when it comes to funding education. So, what happens when you have high expectations and low pay? People move to Texas and teach Frazz. ;-)
is not evidence that you're evil and are going to take over the world, despite apparently being a quote by you. The same way I forged this quote, someone could just as easily forge a screenshot of a cellphone. It just isn't evidence of anything on its own.
So you have something to substantiate your claim that the voice mail was faked? Or do we just go and ignore salient points based on unproven, unfounded speculation?
Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.
agnosto wrote: Hello. Public School Administrator here. Regarding teacher evaluations and merit pay; the former is fairly easy to explain, the latter opens a world of dangerous conversation.
The current practice making its way around the US is for a qualitative and quantitative approach to teacher evaluation. The form that this takes will vary depening upon the laws of a particular state. Here in Oklahoma we have the "Teacher and Leader Effectiveness" law or TLE which guides our processes. Long story short, school districts may choose from one of three state approved frameworks to utilize for teacher qualitative evaluations. These use a combination of formal and informal observations, scales and evidences and a collaborative process of growth between the teacher and administrator. The quantitative component is comprised of a menu from which teachers and adminstatrors choose a few appropriate measures based upon consultation relevant to their subject area (class benchmarks, etc.), this is called "Other Academic Measures"; the other part is an average of several years' worth of standardized test scores. The breakdown on evaluations is 50% qualitative, 35% student growth and 15% "Other Academic Measures".
Personally, I love the qualitative aspect but loathe the quantitative. It's what you get when people with no experience in education write laws that impact an entire profession.
Meanwhile, educators in my state are the lowest paid in the region and districts are struggling to find teachers to fill high-need positions because the same people that like to pass education laws seem to forget how to write when it comes to funding education. So, what happens when you have high expectations and low pay? People move to Texas and teach Frazz. ;-)
Wow that actually sounds so much better than Ohio it's shocking. In Ohio, student "growth", dictated by value added, accounts for 50% of the eval.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.
It is only a salient point. Just because you don't like it and can't counter it does not change the fact. It is central to the claims being made. Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.
It is only a salient point. Just because you don't like it and can't counter it does not change the fact. It is central to the claims being made. Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?
I see you're ignoring the video at least
You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:
We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.
I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.
I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:
We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.
I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.
I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.
And the race to shout strawman continues apace on Dakka It helps if you realise that I did not misrepresent your position, which is what a straw man is, but that I was giving alternate reasons as to why the phone numbers and names were likely not disclosed
Spoiler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It is possible to unintentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument by failing to understand it in the first place and honestly communicating what one (wrongly) thinks is the actual argument. This can lead to opposition believing the creation of a straw man argument to be intended, when it may or may not be.
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
The identity of those in the video, and those responsible for the texts, are very easily established and unlikely to be put in the public domain while this is an ongoing matter. But you're right, evidence provided by more than one person and corroborating accounts are really proof of anything.....
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:
We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.
I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.
I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.
And the race to shout strawman continues apace on Dakka It helps if you realise that I did not misrepresent your position, which is what a straw man is, but that I was giving alternate reasons as to why the phone numbers and names were likely not disclosed
Spoiler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It is possible to unintentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument by failing to understand it in the first place and honestly communicating what one (wrongly) thinks is the actual argument. This can lead to opposition believing the creation of a straw man argument to be intended, when it may or may not be.
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
The identity of those in the video, and those responsible for the texts, are very easily established and unlikely to be put in the public domain while this is an ongoing matter. But you're right, evidence provided by more than one person and corroborating accounts are really proof of anything.....
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?
If the purpouse of those two questions wasn't to strawman, why are they there? If I'd wanted to say what those questions wondered if I was saying I would have said so. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and as such, to me, can't be interpreted in any other way than to misrepresent my position.
