The perfect summary of every failed reform in education (with homogeneous classrooms and almost universal social promotion at the top of the list), teacher strikes, rubber rooms instead of firing horrible teachers, and every other damn thing that has worked to undermine what ought to be every US child's birthright - opportunity for appropriate, effective education because of our system of publicly funded education instead of in spite of it.
At 05:29 PM 10/5/2012, Paul Tanner wrote: >On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Greg Goodknight <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> Well, there it is again: You admit that it is stupid to overwork US > >> teachers regardless if whether you characterize them as stupid with > >> respect to teaching loads (about 1100 hours per year) in comparison to > >> countries that have performed at the top level in the world on > >> international tests like Japan (600), Korea (550), Finland (600), > >> France (620), and in comparison to the OECD average ( > > > > > > Having them work half > > as much as they do now isn't a solution, either; that isn't the > reason other > > countries seem to be doing better at teaching than the US teacher corps is. > > > >How do you know? You admitted that having teachers labor under twice >the teaching load of such as the Korean and Finnish teachers is bad >for the kids. > > > > > If you don't like teaching for the money and benefits you're getting, do > > something else. > > > >This is about what's best for the kids. (I've not been in the >classroom for a while, anyway. Tutoring only.) > >And therefore your incessant whining about all those "lazy communist >bum" foreigners proves that you are not caring for what is best for >the kids in the least. > >And so we see that all this talk from conservatives that when they >push for extracting every last drop of blood of productivity from a >worker (like a teacher), they are really doing what's best for the >kids is just a bunch of cow manure. It proves that the focus of >conservatives in education is not what is best for the kids but >something else entirely. > >Note: Productivity going up is not necessarily a good thing for the >worker or for those consuming the product of the worker, since for >example the productivity measure goes up and up when the worker has to >do more and more work for no more pay, something that any fool should >be able to see can negatively impact the quality of the product. The >more we overwork and underpay workers, the more we should not be >surprised finding that the quality of the product suffers in >comparison to what would have happened had we not overworked and >underpaid the workers. This is relevant since the kids are those that >consume the product, and we should care about them. > > > > > > > > > The answer isn't to ease the workload of teachers who shouldn't > be teaching, > > unless it's to reduce their workload to zero. Can we agree on that? > > > >I agree that those who should not be teaching should not be teaching. > >And I agree with those who say that the US should professionalize >teaching the way Finland did, making it so that except for special >academic schools (where teachers can teach without a degree in >education but instead a degree in something else), one cannot teach in >public school k12 without at least a graduate degree in education, in >the context where undergraduate degrees in education are no more, >totally phased out. Education degrees should be like law or medicine, >a graduate level degree only, with high standards for entry. (But >being a graduate degree program only would naturally raise the >standards for entering a graduate education program in that it would >naturally increase competition into the program.) > >But that does not mean that I therefore agree with you that we should >not give a crap about what is best for the kids. I repeat: You agreed >that having teachers work under twice the workload of the Korean, >Japanese, and Finnish teachers is bad for the kids. > >And therefore, in line with it being so professionalized, teaching >should change as well, to reflect the professionalism, where the pay >and teaching workloads are like Korea, Japan, and Finland, where less >time in front of a class gives the teachers much more time for such >things as professional collaboration with other teachers. > > > > > > >> > >> But, given that you've admitted twice implicitly that overworking > >> teaching like this in the US hurts students by admitting twice > >> explicitly that overworking teaching like this in the US is stupid, > >> let's see you actually address the question of whether students are > >> hurt even more by overworking "stupid" teachers compared to > >> overworking "non-stupid" teachers. (I for one think that the > >> ""non-stupid" teachers would be better equipped to handle the vastly > >> increased stress of a teaching workload 50%-100% greater.) > > > > > > I'm just aping your "idiotic" rhetoric, Paul. That's where the idiocy > > started here. > > > >You are trying to wiggle out of your admission that overworking >teachers is bad for the kids. I am going to hold you to your >admission. > > > If you really cared about the students, you'd be leading an > effort to remove > > lousy teachers from the classroom rather than pushing your politics. > > > >I just did above push for raising the standards. > >And guess what. It's not the first time. I've said many times here the >same things, including the part that undergraduate degrees in >education should be eliminated, making education degrees graduate >degrees only, with high standards for admission like they have in >Finland. > >Your claim that my pushing for teaching workloads to be brought in >line with what they are in such countries as Finland and Korea is "my >politics" is yet again proof that you are not in the least caring for >what is best for the kids. And your whining about lazy foreigners >shows that you simply don't know what you're talking about. You >wrongly think that teachers are working only if they are in front of a >class. Teachers in Korea or Finland are not lazy communist bums >because they have much less working time in front of students and much >more working time not in front of students.