I originally posted this on another forum a week or two ago, but I feel there would be a more engaging discussion on it here. I don't really feel like writing a personalized intro for Jref at the moment, so I'll skip to the opening although it doesn't mesh to this. -.- What's wrong with the US education system? Teachers.
It seems to be unpopular in today's world to blame teachers, but I think it's safe to assume in a setting like this I won't get any flak. I've been out of school for almost a year and four months now, so the disdain for some of my teachers is still fresh. Not all teachers are to blame of course; we do have our good teachers. A lot of teachers put the blame on funding as a cop out, but between 1981 and 2007, [inflation adjusted] spending went from $5,639 to $10,041. It nearly doubled, yet student performance (backed by their test scores) did not.
Rather than look at the money we're providing the teachers let's look at the teachers we're providing the schools. Students in Singapore, Finland, South Korea, and Japan test at the highest level in the world. 100% of their teachers come from the top 1/3 of their graduating classes. They're compensated based on performance (motivated) and talented. Conversely in the United States, only 23% of schoolteachers come from the top 1/3 of their classes. This number sinks even lower (14%) when in a school where most of the students are below the poverty line.
Choosing to pursue a career as an educator is rarely looked at with any real intent when looking at the top students in the states. We're taking scholars from the bottom of the pack and sending them to educate the youth while in other industrialized nations they are sending their best. Why choose a field with such limited growth? On a study of 900 students in the United States graduating from top tier colleges stated they never considered becoming teachers. This is a big problem in America's education system.
Another one of the big problems (and perhaps the biggest) are the unions. On February 24th, The American Federation of Teachers, the largest teachers' union in the United States, issued a new proposal. If a teacher is performing unsatisfactorily they have a year to improve or they will be fired in 100 days. So you can collect your pay check for 465 days before you have to worry about losing your job. Remember that other union that led to the collapse of their own field (hint: vroom vroom)? These unions have government officials under their thumbs. Former chancellor of Washington D.C. schools, Michelle Rhee, proposed getting rid of tenure. Which would lead to the firing of bad teachers making more money than everyone else and the good teachers left could be paid more. A recent study shows teachers don't improve after 5 years on the job. The system she proposed would have gotten those remaining teachers $5,000 dollars a year, but the teachers doing the most outstanding of work could have earned up to $115,000 annually.
Private sector employees perform badly and they're held accountable, and can lose their job. In the public sector it's excruciatingly hard to fire poor workers. Only 20% of American 8th graders can read at their grade level or above and exiting high school only 40% can read above that same 8th grade level or above (and the CIA says we as a country have a 99% literacy rate. Ridiculous). Shoddy numbers like this have been going on too long. If led by the public sector these teachers would have been held accountable and replaced with someone who could effectively perform their job. A quote by a blogger who helped inspire this post and from whom I have gotten a lot of information:
"You can point the finger at Wall St., corporations and hundreds of other private industries, but you'd still be missing the point: We can choose not to engage with the private sector. If I don't like the way a company does business, I can choose not to do business with them.
If I don't like the way you're performing with my tax dollars, I can't stop paying taxes. That means public sector employees are overprotected. That's a problem." In charter schools their teachers are not part of unions and their students outperform public schools by a wide margin and these schools are given the same amount of funding.
"In America, a student drops out of high school (on average) every 26 seconds. These students are eight times as likely to go to prison than a high school graduate. They are 50% less likely to vote. They are 65% more likely to need social welfare. They won't be eligible for 91% of jobs in the United States. They will earn less than 42% of what a high school graduate will, and less than 31% than that of a college graduate."
Comments, ideas, etc.?
It seems to be unpopular in today's world to blame teachers, but I think it's safe to assume in a setting like this I won't get any flak. I've been out of school for almost a year and four months now, so the disdain for some of my teachers is still fresh. Not all teachers are to blame of course; we do have our good teachers. A lot of teachers put the blame on funding as a cop out, but between 1981 and 2007, [inflation adjusted] spending went from $5,639 to $10,041. It nearly doubled, yet student performance (backed by their test scores) did not.
Rather than look at the money we're providing the teachers let's look at the teachers we're providing the schools. Students in Singapore, Finland, South Korea, and Japan test at the highest level in the world. 100% of their teachers come from the top 1/3 of their graduating classes. They're compensated based on performance (motivated) and talented. Conversely in the United States, only 23% of schoolteachers come from the top 1/3 of their classes. This number sinks even lower (14%) when in a school where most of the students are below the poverty line.
Choosing to pursue a career as an educator is rarely looked at with any real intent when looking at the top students in the states. We're taking scholars from the bottom of the pack and sending them to educate the youth while in other industrialized nations they are sending their best. Why choose a field with such limited growth? On a study of 900 students in the United States graduating from top tier colleges stated they never considered becoming teachers. This is a big problem in America's education system.
Another one of the big problems (and perhaps the biggest) are the unions. On February 24th, The American Federation of Teachers, the largest teachers' union in the United States, issued a new proposal. If a teacher is performing unsatisfactorily they have a year to improve or they will be fired in 100 days. So you can collect your pay check for 465 days before you have to worry about losing your job. Remember that other union that led to the collapse of their own field (hint: vroom vroom)? These unions have government officials under their thumbs. Former chancellor of Washington D.C. schools, Michelle Rhee, proposed getting rid of tenure. Which would lead to the firing of bad teachers making more money than everyone else and the good teachers left could be paid more. A recent study shows teachers don't improve after 5 years on the job. The system she proposed would have gotten those remaining teachers $5,000 dollars a year, but the teachers doing the most outstanding of work could have earned up to $115,000 annually.
Private sector employees perform badly and they're held accountable, and can lose their job. In the public sector it's excruciatingly hard to fire poor workers. Only 20% of American 8th graders can read at their grade level or above and exiting high school only 40% can read above that same 8th grade level or above (and the CIA says we as a country have a 99% literacy rate. Ridiculous). Shoddy numbers like this have been going on too long. If led by the public sector these teachers would have been held accountable and replaced with someone who could effectively perform their job. A quote by a blogger who helped inspire this post and from whom I have gotten a lot of information:
"You can point the finger at Wall St., corporations and hundreds of other private industries, but you'd still be missing the point: We can choose not to engage with the private sector. If I don't like the way a company does business, I can choose not to do business with them.
If I don't like the way you're performing with my tax dollars, I can't stop paying taxes. That means public sector employees are overprotected. That's a problem." In charter schools their teachers are not part of unions and their students outperform public schools by a wide margin and these schools are given the same amount of funding.
"In America, a student drops out of high school (on average) every 26 seconds. These students are eight times as likely to go to prison than a high school graduate. They are 50% less likely to vote. They are 65% more likely to need social welfare. They won't be eligible for 91% of jobs in the United States. They will earn less than 42% of what a high school graduate will, and less than 31% than that of a college graduate."
Comments, ideas, etc.?
Last edited:
