Last updated on 2012.11.30
Semi-retired tutor and education advocate Dave L. Wegner of Sioux Falls writes a great column to that Sioux Falls paper advocating referral of Governor Dennis Daugaard's really bad education reform package, House Bill 1234. Wegner says HB 1234 represents the ideas not of qualified educators but of pro-corporate lobbying groups (see notes on ALEC here and here). Wegner says our teachers are already focusing on the three keys to making our schools even better: standards, curriculum, and professional development:
It's hard to understand why the state government can't simply concentrate on improving school funding while letting professional educators -- people who know what they are doing -- continue the type of reform work that has proven value to youngsters. Our educators have kept most South Dakota schools in a national leadership role even as teacher salaries and overall per-pupil funding is continually at the bottom (50th out of 50).
HB1234's heavy-handed evaluation tactics and morale-destructive pay schemes shouldn't be allowed to subvert the positive efforts that continue to do well for our youngsters throughout most of South Dakota [Dave L. Wegner, "Bring HB 1234 to a November Vote," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.05.24]
Wegner offers a fine defense of teachers as the first, best experts on how to help your kids learn more.
Alas, on the very same webpage, that Sioux Falls paper allows paying customer Colorado Technical "University" to insult teachers with this advertisment:
CT"U" can run all the photos of anonymous quasi-models gazing dully with parted lips it wants. It still won't trick any half-thinking clod into believing that a piece of paper from CT"U" will improve his chances of getting laid or hired.
But when an institution claiming to provide education peddles the insulting notion that teachers aren't part of the real world and that they aren't as good at the job to which they've dedicated their lives, well, they're just asking for me to break out Paint....
Oh Cory, once again you've managed to be insulting and demeaning in one fell swoop.
The ad from Colorado Technical University isn't demeaning teachers in the least, it merely displays the business model that CTU has chosen to follow and has made it successful. The educators at Colorado Tech are professionals who have spent their lives in business, health care, accounting, etc, who have been asked by CTU to come in and teach to students who want to go in to those fields. These "real world gladiators" have spent time in their careers, and are thus able to take that "real world" experience and show it to their students. This is quite similar to how a med student might gain experience by working with doctors at any local hospital.
But, back to the ad Cory... You seem to think that the only way students can learn is in the traditional classroom setting, being taught by teachers who have a degree in education. So, a genuine question Cory, do you think this is the only way that students can be taught, or can the vocational/technical model work too?
I support giving the top teachers bonuses, and holding the bottom teachers accountable for doing a better job. Just like in the real world.
Tyler, there's one major, glaring problem with the vocational/technical and even University methods vs the high-school etc method.
The problem is the idea that someone who knows what they're doing in the field and is smart enough to get a PhD. is qualified to teach. Sure, some professors are wonderful (most of mine are very good, I think), but they don't have to know how to teach.
Having a degree in education is tremendously important when educating people, especially in educating children. As a University student, if I have a bad professor I just have to make up for it by learning on my own. But in high school, no students are going to do that. If a teacher doesn't know how to teach in high school, none of the students will do any good.
Grudz, I agree with you that we need to incentivize teachers to do better. Incentives are always good, but the fact is, HB 1234 measures teacher performance using standardized tests, which are not only not an indicator of how good the teachers are (or how much the students know) but are actually turning out to be an incentive for teachers to cheat the system.
After all, why should a crappy teacher care if his students don't know anything as long as he's getting paid more.
Maybe instead of just focusing on paying the best teachers more, we should work on paying our teachers a competitive salary. We're not going to get many good teachers to give bonuses to if the bonuses still don't bring their salary up to other states standard teacher pay.
Tyler, how nice to hear from you again... and nice to find you still so easy to refute.
"Don't give me teachers"—the insult is clear. CTU wants its customers to think that "teachers" aren't good enough to teach them. That message insults teachers, regardless of what diverse settings those teachers may work in. I am as much of a "real-world gladiator" (oooh, the manly, warlike imagery, again suggesting by contrast that teachers are a bunch of milquetoasts) as any store owner, salesman, lawyer, veterinarian, or member of any other profession.
To be clear, Tyler, I think learning can happen in any setting, by any number of models. But it won't happen unless you have good teachers. And teachers are defined by more than a certificate... just as they are defined by more than experience in any particular business.
Grudz, schools are the real world. How many principals and school boards do you think right now are interested in keeping bad teachers on staff? What motivation could the school board that you the voter control have for hiring bad teachers in the first place, then offering them contracts again for three years?
If school boards are hiring bad teachers and renewing their contracts, they are misusing their power. HB 1234 does nothing to change whatever perverse factors are motivating those boards (our boards!) to misuse that power; in ways, it gives them more discretion to misuse their power.
The problem with the "business model" of on-line education is that it really can't deliver anything in any "hands-on" field. Essential the business model is fraud.
There are people who think they've gotten nursing credentials from on-line operations, but have never taken blood pressure. What they've gotten is a piece of paper worth nothing.
On-line education might be fine if you are taking insurance courses, but learning to teach, heal, weld, sell or anything else that takes actual skill or human interaction is pretty much out of the realm of on-line education.
By concentrating on the empty platitudes we receive the message the status quo is acceptable, move along folks, nothing to see here, move along, no reform is necessary. Of course, nothing is further from the truth.
Wegner writes, "while letting professional educators — people who know what they are doing — continue the type of reform work that has proven value to youngsters." - If our "professional educators "knew what they were doing" and were to "continue the type of reform work" we would: 1) not have an educational system behind those of the most educationally advanced nations in the world; and 2) our regrettable education standing in the world would be rising to achieve the top standing in the world. Sadly, out education results are not overtaking those of Denmark or South Korea or Singapore - not even close.
Wegner also asks that how many education professionals crafted SB1234 - a bad question since: 1) the education "professionals" got us in this education under-performance debacle; and 2) the education professionals make no public suggestions to adopt reforms necessary to pull us out of it -- a) 240-250 full contact days per year; b) focus on scholarly activities by relegating extra-curricular activities to private clubs; c) reduction in the high numbers and percentages of non-platform education support staff and administrivia administrators-to include consolidation of school districts to about one-quarter of the excesses in our system. Until the education "professionals" show leadership; take reform seriously; no one in their right mind takes seriously cries to throw money at a failing system.
At the same time SB1234 is a further unmitigated disaster since it invokes solutions in search of a problem on one hand; and on the other offers proven failed management solutions to address other situations. Voters must reject SB1234 while also rejecting the near-mindless cries to pump more money into a system incapable of self-reform.
That's pretty good Cory!
John: What debacle? And "no public suggestions to adopt reforms"? More B.S. I'm on record with all sorts of counterplans that would be a better use of $15 million than Governor Daugaard's school-wrecking plan. But we don't need those counterplans to justify beating this bill: the status quo really is better than what our K-12 schools would become under DD's plan. The system is not failing.