I'm not really saying anything about "fast." My argument is more along the lines of the fact that traditional educational structures and salaries are not attracting and retaining the best candidates for teaching positions.

There are some innovative programs out there, most geared at getting kids out of the classroom and into practicums ASAP. I'm not sure whether that's the answer.

Another model which has been somewhat successful (although I have veeerrrry mixed feelings about it) is Teach For America. My biggest issue with that program is that it seems to be a band aid for a bullet hole. First, the turnover for TFA positions is pretty high. Also, traditionally trained teachers don't like the program and its graduates because they feel (and I somewhat agree) that it deprofessionalizes their profession, and I think that does and should affect morale somewhat. But TFA admittedly has done good things.

NCLB is a good thing because it does help us to force accountability onto a system which was otherwise obsessed with preserving the status quo despite in many cases being by all accounts failed and going nowhere. NCLB helps us put the focus back onto serving the students rather than serving institutions and teachers. Ultimately, there will be thousands of good teachers and administrators who will probably be casualties -- and I feel for them -- but they need to know that it's not about them.

I've had mixed experiences with the NCLB. I was in Middle School (I think) when it passed and those years sucked. The administrators were incompetent and basically ran the school like a prison, the teachers (with the exception of one) taught to the test and could give a damn less about anything else, etc. They always got rated an A school but behind that veneer was (in my opinion) a broken system.

High School was the complete opposite. My high school had several unappealing nicknames, a past reputation for drugs and crime and low test scores (they've never been rated above C to my knowledge). Yet, in my four years there I met more teachers who genuinely cared about kids absorbing the material and learning something useful than I did in all my years of school prior. Maybe my experiences were rose-tinted by being an IB student, I don't know. But when you consider the students they had to work with (generally low-income, mostly minority, several first-generation and limited-English proficient, and bad home lives) and the dedication they put into their work, it's hard not to think of that school as a good one. I truly think that the measure of a good education is not what score one gets on an arbitrary state-mandated test but rather the dedication one puts into one's studies and the dedication put forth by one's teachers.

*steps down off soapbox*

But again, it's typically more the dumb reaction to the law by districts rather than the law itself that causes good teachers grief.

Something else to consider is that as the general economy stinks, teaching looks like a more attractive career. It would be a bad way to count on attracting people long term, but I think it could drive up quality in the short term, if coupled with new methods of evaluation and a stronger commitment from principals to explore removing bad or weak teachers.*


New York's "rubber rooms" are notorious, and there are some states where the unions are powerful enough to have compelled contracts clearly not in the students' best interest. However, in many states it's simply an unwillingness to consistently do the paper work that keeps bad teachers employed. Yes, you have "tenure" after so many years, but it doesn't guarantee employment if you are incompetent. And yep, a good principal could document incompetence if he or she wanted to and had the discipline to follow through. In fact, I suspect it doesn't require that much more work than most HR departments put into firing any employee in a big company that worries about lawsuits.

*I want to note that this is totally different than getting rid of unpopular teachers. Some of the absolutely most effective teachers are the ones whose classes kids try to weasel out of. Students are often very willing to sit through a bad teacher's class if it's fun or simply easy. (I don't say that because kids try to get out of my class as much as what I see with the preparation level of the kids in the grades I teach. The best prepared come from a teacher that the kids and parents cause grief about every year, mainly because she had high standards. If we had pay for performance based on student achievement, I think she'd be compensated very well. Interestingly, she doesn't even teach a grade that has a state test.)

THIS! I don't really understand the argument "oh teacher's pay sucks, that is why it's attracting bad teachers." Cause really, (bad economy aside) if the pay is so bad, why would people, who ordinarily wouldn't choose teaching, want to teach? It doesn't sound very logical to me.

I can however agree that teaching is becoming more enticing because of the economy, although it's a double edged sword too. Because of the economy many schools (at least here) are cutting down teachers, so you have more displaced teachers than I've ever heard of (thus why I couldn't find a teaching position this past year).

Not to knock the certification program I'm in (which is one of the strictest when it comes to accepting people in, and to 'pass') but I don't understand how some people could have gotten in. Things like answering this question: "What did the Bill of Rights mean to the people of that time" with this answer "it may or may not have meant something to them." Yeah that's a future teacher right there :rolleyes: But who knows, that lady could be an AWESOME teacher once she finally has a classroom.

All certification programs are like that because essentially you are enrolling in classes and paying for them in order to get certified. You can get a passing grade in a class and still not know how to teach. And the point I was making was NOT that those people are going to be piss poor teachers just because they went through the programs. The point is that NCLB seems to stand for the notion that making people get certified will ensure that they are quality teachers when that is most definitely NOT the case. I don't understand why you would try to construe my comments about NCLB as LOWERING teacher quality. I clearly said that it did not necessarily IMPROVE teacher quality and often deters people who would otherwise be good in the classroom from actually getting a job in education. The teachers I mentioned did not come WAY before NCLB. They came AFTER.

The fact of the matter is, unless everyone becomes infertile, we will always need teachers. Crap pay is better than no pay. It's the same rationale as becoming a nurse or getting into other fields of health care even if you'd rather poke your eyes out with a stick than do that particular job - there will always be sick people.

They're talking about training for student teachers - not regular teachers.

I agree, but you can't lump all certification programs together. Some aren't like you are describing.

You're right not all certified teachers are gonna be quality, just like all nurses (using 33girls example) are not all gonna be quality nurses. Besides, teachers always had to be certified to teach, this wasn't something new that NCLB did. NCLB just re-evaluated what it mean to be a "highly qualified teacher."

Are you seriously responding to mm?

Ok I'll bite. Any particular reason you think I am a father? you don't know anything about me at all.

NCLB changed the certification requirements for many school systems.


Interestingly enough, long before NCLB came into existence, my school system was making AYP. After NCLB, suddenly it became a struggle to make AYP. Yet we had all these certified teachers in the classrooms. I don't think this was unique to my school system either.

Didn't NCLB invent AYP? I thought AYP referred to Adequate Yearly Progress toward the NCLB goals. What were you all using to determine AYP before NCLB? Are you talking about Title I measures?

What I'm rather unclear on is what is an "unparent" and how can anything begin at a home if there isn't one, especially when there has been a historical systematic destruction of one?

I just am trying to understand because sure, blaming unwed Black teen girls having sex and getting pregnant as the problem, but since folks are so against abortion and barely believe in contraception or how to pay for it and how exactly should abstinence work with these "unparented kids", um, would blanket-statements like simply saying home-training as a policy work?

I can't wait to hear Dr. Harris-Lacewell's take on this on Twitter :)

huh?

Jackass.

Who is "you"?

You're addressing someone with a doctorate, idiot.