Obama Wants More School, Shorter Summer Break

This gets brought up about every half generation.

1) I didn't think much of this idea as a child, but I'm certain it wouldn't hurt today's little animals. Not in secondary anymore, but my question would be "Are educators going to be paid for this extra time? If so, no problem. If not, our president might want to consider retracting this idea in a way that does not cause this nation's detractors to complain about his ideas.

2) The old quotes about lagging behind some other developed nations in math and science is tiring. The point of all this American dreaming is to create an environment where we don't have to work so hard. That ought to include school (as job training, anyhow). At what point does the USA stop trying to compete scorewise with the countries that do not try to educate every kid the same way for 12 school years?

 

How do you figure that? Belgian schools treat every child exactly the same, there's hardly even a private school alternative in place, not counting a few exceptions.

 

BG, I mean that the USA sends students to school for 12 years with each student receiving pretty much the same basic instruction. I'm not sure every developed nation does it this way, even tho Belgium obviously does. I was referring to nations that career-track students beyond a certain grade and do not train them for professions if their scores aren't at a certain level. We test everyone, including students who aren't ever going to accomplish much, but I doubt that every nation does this.

 

Do you know any nations that actually do what you're describing?

We've certainly seen a huge growth in specialized vocational high schools in America over the past couple decades--how is that not exactly what you're describing? The recent introduction of NCLB sets baseline grad tests, sure, but there's a huge difference between AP/college prep courses and spending most of one's day apprenticing as a vet assistant.

Btw, where did you get the idea that the point of the American Dream is that we all shouldn't have to work very hard? That's, like, fascinatingly off the mark.

 

Na, that's Japan.

In America students clearly don't all receive the same education.
Standardized tests are used to test basic knowledge, but schools throughout America are not even.

AP classes are a big step from normal classes. And even the content taught in AP classes is not the same at every school.

If your theory is correct then shouldn't everyone get a similar grade on these standardized test?

I know there are other factors like mentality and such, but then why do some schools continually have higher scores than others? It's not all because of teachers, but more because of the content that is taught.

 

A lot of schools in Chicago are moving to a year-round schedule. They go to school for three months, then get a month off... then go to school for another three.

In a way, I can see the appeal. I've thought about whether I'd like it... and I can imagine that it'd be nice to regroup and rethink things every few months...

but the truth is, instead of having the kids all forget what we worked on all year over the summer, they'd just forget what we've done the last few months over the month off.

 

Actually, Auria is quite right. For example, the Finnish system is considered the best in the world, and they have a heavy emphasis on vocational training. By age 15 students are placed either on a vocational or academic track.

Vocational high schools in the U.S. are still the exception to the rule. The huge majority of American students attend a standard high school where they receive a liberal arts education.

Some nations don't follow this German/Finnish model and do provide almost all students with the same education. This can also work well when you have a largely homogeneous population and fairly equal wealth distribution, which obviously is not the case in the U.S.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily advocating for trade schools nor for copying Finland. But I do think, when making comparisons between and among nations, it's important to keep in mind the number of students and the diversity of the populations being served.

 

Just like to point out that in such systems, elementary school teachers essentially begin the tracking process by thinking (and sometimes saying) "Oh, well, it doesn't matter if Hans, Franz, Berta and Ana don't understand what we're doing in math. They'll be in trade school anyway." And they proceed w/ the lesson w/o thinking of the very negative consequences of tracking at that age.

And how it plays out in countries w/ large immigrant population is that the immigrants get thrown into the de facto trade track, no matter their talents.

 

Christ, just let kids me kids. There are diminishing returns to making kids cram for 100 hours a week anyway.

 

While it is tempting to support such an initiative as the president advances here, simply throwing more school time at students - by itself - does not an educational solution make. There is no evidence that increasing school time (in summer or otherwise) would correspondingly increase student achievement; however, it is likely that increasing school time would facilitate an increase in teachers - hence the reason for the initiative and the NEA (union) support behind it. If the president's initiative gains ground I would like to see it coupled with substantive educational change so the initiative does not smell so much like a union proposal to help teachers with summer work opportunities. What is to be advanced beyond student time in the classroom? Is this true pedagogical advancement or simply summer study hall attendance?

A far more worthy initiative for the president to get behind is proactive local/state control of schools with the appointment of effective school chancellors along the lines of Dr. Michelle Rhee (in the District) and elsewhere, where said chancellors can work directly with local educators and parents to change poor performing teachers and schools for effective results! Dr. Rhee's demonstrated success in weeding out poor educators and developing effective teaching strategies seems far more effective, at the local level, than a overbearing, federal, union-backed initiative at summer school with no educational plan behind it. By the by, if the president is indeed interested in student achievement, he should re-establish school choice/vouchers, in the District and elsewhere, so parents gets to choose/reward effective education for their children...

 

While I agree with you that more time will not equal better results, I disagree with you as to the reasons. First, the NEA supports the proposal because Obama proposed it and he's a Democrat. That's the way the NEA tends to roll. There is no logical argument that could support your "they support it because it will mean more teachers" suggestion. In the key areas that the government wants to focus on (math and science), they can't even find enough teachers for the current format. There would be scores of teacherless classes or, most likely, scores of classes taught by someone unqualified to do the job.

Michelle Rhee is an unmitigated disaster on two legs. No educational reorganization can be proven successful in a two year span. It's like replacing a high school coach. You don't judge the results until they've had time to make it their own. Based on that article, DC showed improvement in testing at two grade levels. While the improvement is a good thing, it's important to remember three things:

1- Even though the article attempts to dismiss it, DC schools were trending upward BEFORE Michelle Rhee.

2- "Miraculous" test scores have been trotted out before to justify a "breakthrough" in education. Houston turned out to be nothing more than corruption-fueled gains.

3- You don't judge an educational system on standardized tests alone. Maryland has had troubles in its first few years of testing students. They struggled with the essay components. What was the response? Added writing instruction? A return to teaching grammar and rhetoric? Nope. They removed writing from the tests. It's all multiple choice now. Watch those scores rise now! What an achievement that will be! [/sarcasm] You judge success in the classroom, not on standardized paper.

Rhee is a cartoon. There was a multiple-part article about her about a year ago that I had read (I want to say it was in the Post or the Baltimore Sun). In the article, it detailed how she went into a teacher's classroom (with a small entourage of assistants and reporters), was generally disruptive (making facial expressions and reactionary noises) and left after spending fewer than 5 minutes in the classroom. Those five minutes, during which she was a sure distraction, were enough for her to determine the "substandard" quality of that poor teacher. Rhee bragged about it. She seemed positively gleeful in her "ability" to judge the quality of a teacher and decide their fate by watching them teach less than 10% of a lesson.

The other part of the article told the story of a student whose favorite teacher, a man who had inspired and guided him to make something of his life, was summarily dismissed by Rhee. Apparently Rhee had also promised that she would get new computers sent to the school. After weeks of no computers and the firing of his favorite teacher, this student wrote Rhee a very polite, professional letter, advocating for both. Rhee never responded.

Trust me, for all the faults that lie withing education, Michelle Rhee is NOT the model you want to follow.

If the president, or ANY governmental figure, is interested in student achievement, he needs to put the focus on improving school-based administration and eliminating redundant bureaucratic positions. Too often, the administrators running the schools are the same people who were poor classroom teachers (and many of them spent fewer than 10 years in the classroom themselves). Put the focus on improving administration, and the results (genuine results) will follow.

 

Dude, it's ITN. He doesn't give a rat's ass about actual education improvement, he just wants a platform on which to take shots at the NEA.

 

Hell, I'm skeptical of the woman just because she can't even romanize her own name properly. 이 hasn't been represented in English as Rhee since the Korean War.

 

That should truly concern real educators, especially since Obama and his union buddies at the NEA are chiefly concerned about teacher employment; the District being a good example of entrenched failing schools and ineffective teachers! So too, Obama's inexcusable shafting of parents and school choice in the District, all while his kids attend private school, a good testament to his unconcern.

I disagree, though, concerning your critical assessment of Chancellor Rhee; she's done quite a bit to shake up DC schools and that's a good thing for all students in the District!

 

Ooooh. Yet another non-educator opining on unions w/o the slightest idea about their history in education.

Or the fact that in so many major cities, nurses, police, firemen and other professions make about 20% more than teachers, whereas back in the early '70s teachers made 20% more than those professions.

Not that those professions are "overpaid" or worth intrinsically more or less than teachers. Some of them require less training!

It's just that our profession has been so politicized and demonized w/ the intent to reduce our salaries.

What do scientific studies say about academic performance predictors? There's p-lenty of data out there for you to sift through in order to come to a responsible conclusion...

What do scientific studies say about the effectiveness of school vouchers/school choice? There's p-lenty of data out there for you to sift through in order to come to a responsible conclusion...

 

It's like you aren't even trying anymore. You are outright dismissed without any attempt to engage in conversation by 90% of the posters on this board. I generally prefer to engage in the discussion (unless you get to a level like that yutz who kept repeating the same set of lies about teachers having unlimited sick time). That said, I went into detail about my concerns regarding Rhee and the dubious nature of the "proof" of her success. You responded with, "she's done quite a bit to shake up DC schools." What has she done that you see as a positive? Do you share her opinion that a teacher's professional fate can be determined by observing 10% of a single lesson while serving as a distraction in the room? If you don't want to be dismissed as a joke by the remaining 10% of the people here, join a real conversation in a meaningful way.

 

ItN- I just noticed the PM. I might start a new thread later, but it'll probably be a while. We're getting into a busy part of the semester (I'm on a two year leave from teaching while I earn my Masters degree- one of the reasons that I'm rarely on Bigsoccer anymore. Well that, and Red Bull). If I start a Rhee thread, I'll let you know.

 

My initial post addressed the thread topic; i.e., Obama proposing a longer school year. I firmly believe he thinks (along with his Education Secretary Arne Duncan) that throwing more money at the problem - longer school year and more teachers - will address the issue by and of itself. This is typical of the Obama approach (education and otherwise) yet does not really address the issue of America's failing schools. Students in the U.S. already spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do students in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests, so simply a longer school year, which would likely involve school districts simply instituting more study halls due to already-existing overcrowding and compressed schedules, would do little. Moreover, what Obama proposes is yet another unfunded mandate from Washington that states and local school districts can ill afford. As my earlier post advanced; Obama is being pushed by his Union chums in the NEA to expand the teacher base and extending the school year is one way to please the Union, due to new teachers having to be hired. Yet by itself, this action does nothing to help America's schools - it simply adds more teachers. As I earlier noted, Obama's outright dismissal of the District's school choice initiative gives clues that Obama's goal is not purely student success but instead teacher career longevity!

Cornell University recently profiled Chancellor Rhee (she being a 1992 graduate) on the occasion of her address to the university on her efforts to overhaul the Washington, D.C. public schools. As described, when she was appointed as Chancellor in 2007 by Mayor Adrian Fenty, "...the task before her was overwhelming: The achievement gap between black and white students was 70 percent; only 8 percent of eighth-grade students achieved grade level in math; and poor black fourth-graders tested two grade levels behind the same demographic in New York City." Indeed, I content that shaking up DC schools was part of that effort; your question on "proof of her success" seems to be questioning her mission; school chancellors, by their nature, look at the big overview snapshot of a region's education mission. What she's done as positive is bring a fresh approach, terminate teachers deemed ineffective, address the District's lingering school equipment acquisition issues (updated classrooms, school book supplies, etc.) in a proactive way, and, of course, try to raise student test scores. (Yes she is relying upon standardized tests among other assessments of student performance). My prior link cited some positive student test results in this area. Urban schools take decades to turn around; it may be too early to judge Rhee's effectiveness. However, I firmly believe she is light years ahead of others appointed to this position that have failed and if you dismiss Michelle Rhee you probably should surface some tangible reasons why you oppose her other than "unmitigated disaster" with no comparative analysis that based on her predecessors in this chancellor position, she's farther ahead in advancing student achievement in the District.

I believe, as I am sure you do, that there are many factors that must bear upon a teacher's professional assessment but student achievement should certainly be a primary criterion among these. Matter of fact, if one bases it on that criteria alone most DC teachers are failures due the district's decades old history of poorly performing schools! However, teachers have myriad criteria on which they are based and observation of their classroom actions by superiors is but one of many assessments. In my opinion, DC teachers do need their professional fate determined simply because of the years where student success was not the primary goal but rather teacher success in position longevity! I think this is part of what Chancellor Rhee is addressing - sometimes bringing in new players does a world of good to team morale.

I do have strong opinions on the topic at hand; pursuant to real educational reform that we truly need. If I've not addressed it in a meaningful way herein let me know. Simply because you may disagree do not discount opinion that may differ from your preconceived belief.

True, I am a non-educator; I am a parent. That certainly qualifies me to have bias toward student success. Part of this bias means I have a rather poor attitude toward unions who are themselves overtly biased toward educator employment. Whether or not I have the "slightest degree" about union history in education, I can tell you that parents, by and large, are far more concerned about student success than teacher success, all things being equal.

 

For starters, far too many short-sighted parents are dismissive of the importance of teacher job security b/c they do not realize how teacher recruitment works. When college kids graduate, there must be an enticement to attract the top candidates possible. If not, many candidates who could have and should have become teachers instead choose other more lucrative professions that take advantage of the same skill set.

I graduated from college during an economic boom, and my friends that went into private industry were making $25,000+ more than me. But I knew I wanted to be a teacher so I sucked it up.

Nor do they realize just how much training and effort goes into putting and keeping an instructor in the classroom AND managing the academic progress of an entire school year after year after year.

more later... gotta go

 

Again, you repeated this without addressing my point at all. I'm no big fan of the NEA. I wasn't a member when I taught. I find them to be far too political and far less interested in representing their membership. That said, the idea that this initiative (which I also disagree with, largely based on the reasons you cited- that throwing more money and classroom hours will not solve the problem by itself) is to create more teaching positions is absurd. Many schools can't even staff the openings they have now with qualified applicants. It's like opening 10 new restaurants when you don't have enough chefs to staff the existing ones.

So your proof of her success is a profile issued by Cornell to promote one of its own graduates as she prepared to deliver a speech AT the University? Yikes, I bet that profile was unbiased. I agree that the task before her IS overwhelming (saying "was" makes it seem like she's succeeded in her task, rather than being in the midst of doing so.) Yes, DC schools were a mess (though again, as I said earlier, a mess that was trending upwards BEFORE Rhee arrived). I do not question her mission (improving the school system), and NOTHING that I wrote made it appear otherwise. What I question is whether or not her methods will actually achieve her mission (which I highly doubt).

What "Fresh approach"? She's on a god-complex, where she seems to have it in her head that nobody knows anything about teaching but her. As for the updated classrooms and equipment acquisition, I know that she's promised a lot, but I have yet to see anything about her actual accomplishments in this area. I have, as I wrote earlier, seen an article detailing an example of Rhee FAILING to deliver the technology she promised during a highly publicized visit to a school.

There's no "may be" about it. It IS too early to judge her effectiveness. Let me give you an example. I taught a reading class a couple of years ago. I had the same class of kids every day for two years (my school was on an alternating block, so most classes were every OTHER day. I had these kids for 90 minutes a day, EVERY day for TWO years.) These kids first came to me as 9th graders. There were about 20 of them in the class (a very small class size these days) and they were, on average, at a 5th grade reading level. By the end of their sophomore year, this group of kids tested out at an 8th grade reading level, and this was, by far, the largest gain of any reading program in the county.

That class not only gave these kids more time in class, but it was a collaborative effort. I taught the class every day with a special educator who was also a certified reading specialist. We had special professional development on how to teach these classes. We had experts from Johns Hopkins University coming in to observe and provide constructive feedback. We had a master teacher from the county come in to help teach and provide more feedback twice a month.

Basically, we had a small army of professionals and the best resources/technology that the education system could provide targeted solely on these 20 kids. All of that resulted in a net gain of one grade level improvement (from 9th graders at a 5th grade level to 11th graders at an 8th grade level). Remarkable, quick improvement doesn't happen in education. It's slow and steady going to make incremental gain. People who aren't involved in education keep looking for a nuke to blow it up and immediately make everything better. There is no nuke. Teaching is trench warfare.

The problem that I have with Rhee is that, even though her methods appear different and radical, she's just more of the same. One of the biggest problems in education is the incompetency of a large number of school-level administration. The percentage of inept administrators is FAR higher than the percentage of inept teachers in core content areas. Yet, the first thing people want to do when education problems arise is to point the finger squarely at the classroom teacher and add ANOTHER layer of administration.

There are layers of administration left over from two, three or even four "educational quick fixes" and they NEVER leave. Streamline administration, remove redundant positions and get COMPETENT people into school-level administrative posts. By competent, I mean people who will make it easier for a teacher to be effective, rather than throw roadblock after roadblock in their path. This is not what Rhee does. She goes into a school assuming that she knows everything. She throws power around and expects that fear of her will suddenly make everything better, like the existing teachers weren't trying and they just needed a scare. That's not what happens. DC teachers won't sit there and get "scared straight." They'll take their certification to another district where they will be treated like professionals.

You failed to address the issue of standardized inflation that I discussed earlier. Until student achievement can be measured in a way that isn't subject to such easy inflation, those numbers are useless (and FYI- it was county leadership that removed writing from the MD test to increase scores, not teachers).

Do you realize that such systemic failure shows the exact opposite? Think of it as if you were a teacher in a classroom. If you teach a lesson, and give a quiz, you can use the results to make a determination. If 10% of the students fail the quiz, it's safe to believe that those 10% had an issue or didn't study, and then focus on them. If 90% of the students failed the quiz, a good teacher assumes that they weren't clear enough, and they go back and re-teach the material in a different way. The systemic failure of the DC system says far more about the way that system is RUN than it says about the teachers attempting to work in that system.

ItN, I don't know where you work, but fear and unclear expectations NEVER improves team morale. Rhee determines, based on a method of "she just knows a bad teacher when she sees one (for five minutes)" who loses their jobs. That's absurd. Not surprisingly, people have complained. There was an issue a while back where she took heat because she hired a group of friends and supporters to handle her own performance evaluation (so she alone is exempt from a fair evaluation of her performance?). There was another case I'd read about where she sacked the principal of a HIGHLY successful elementary school (one which her children happened to attend).

Bottom line is that Rhee acts as if she and she alone can judge someone's ability to teach. She acts this way based on her THREE years of classroom teaching experience (even I have more teaching experience than she does). She's an administrator, and an arrogant one to boot.

ItN- that comment was initially made because I hadn't read your private message explaining why you didn't address my concerns about Rhee in your earlier response. That said, it applies again now, as you sidestepped many of my concerns with your viewpoints without addressing any of my points. All you did is repeat the same arguments as your initial post while ignoring anything that questioned them validly and mixed in a smattering of anti-teacher rhetoric to spice it up.

I believe that parents should be, indeed HAVE to be, a part of any real improvement of education. I also don't think that will ever happen until parents are willing to own up to their role in the failure of the existing education system. Too often, parents scream about how the teachers are horrible and that is the problem with education. Almost all of the things I've mentioned:

-Writing being removed from the state tests
-Students being passed along until they are MULTIPLE grade levels below where they should be.
-Students running the schools without any kind of real discipline.

These are all the result of a very vocal subset of PARENTS. If a student doesn't learn something, the grades go home to mom and dad. Mom and dad assume the problem is with the teacher (because their angel couldn't possibly be lying to them) and call up the principal or even the school board. Parent gives grief to the school board=Board gives grief to the Principal=Principal gives grief to the teacher=grade gets inflated (even if the teacher refuses. I've seen administrators "adjust" grades to improve the graduation rate, let a kid get away with blatant plagiarism because the parent was loud and angry about their baby getting caught, ignoring eligibility policies for kids with loud parents, etc etc etc. I even saw, in my first year, a principal put two kids onto the soccer team after they'd been cut, all because mommy called and yelled).

Teachers can't teach well without the parents. That said, parents can't expect their children to learn anything if they keep undermining the authority of those teachers to their children. When you go to your doctor, you tell him/her what they need to know and then let them do their job. When you go to your lawyer, you tell them what they need to know and then let them do their job. For some reason, too many parents want to go to their kid's teacher, tell them what they need to know and then tell them how to do their jobs. It's insane.

 

Like most of your posts, this one is based on assertion and flawed logic.

If tomorrow, they say the school year will be four weeks longer, I don't see where the additional teachers enter the equation. The existing teachers work a longer school year.

Or do you expect all the existing teachers to just leave and hand over the keys to their classrooms to these additional union teachers you describe?

There is a lot of variation in school year length in different districts around the country. Do you have evidence of the numbers of teachers required based on the school year?

Its strange that in California teachers are being laid off due to budget problems, yet there is no corresponding shortening of the school year. If your argument is true, shouldn't the NEA be insisting that the school year be shortened?

Well?

 

some sort of sensible synthesis between the Finnish ( where my brother lives ) and American systems would be desirable, IMO. the idea that every boy and gril needs 4 years of HS English is way overly romantic.

i've been subbing at a school where the test scores are significantly above average. my experience is that the seniors, overall, think that senior English is a waste of time, and getting the greater percentage of them to take any kind of critical view of 1984 or Death of a Salesman is like performing dental surgery without anesthetics.

what's important to know is that most of them are going to college. but reading from a collection of works that are 50+ years old is tedious for them. nevermind that DOAS is a prize winning play. the prize was given by old people who don't know anything worth knowing.

truth.

 

Do they really think 1984 is not relevant in modern society? Wow.

 

first of all, i don't think they want to "get it". they don't identify with Winston. they only vaguely perceive that Big Brother is akin to Communist Russia, or some other oppressive system. the idea of "thought crime" is something that they think is grim, but they don't really imagine that such a possibility exists.

my impression is that they have totally forgotten all of the history that they learned, because history isn't relevant any more. WWI only happened becuz a book said so.

Lincoln freed the slaves. that's all they know about him, other than the fact that someone shot him while he was at a movie!

i'm intentionally emphasizing the worst aspects of the kids' attitudes toward literature and history. obviously i'm not talking about all the kids, maybe not even a clear majority, but having a classical education isn't a goal for them.