Matt Damon's speech to teachers
 

Matt Damon gave this speech to thousands of teachers who attended a Save our Schools rally/march in Washington D.C.

The speech is courtesy of the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...home_multiline



I flew overnight from Vancouver to be with you today. I landed in New York a few hours ago and caught a flight down here because I needed to tell you all in person that I think you’re awesome.

I was raised by a teacher. My mother is a professor of early childhood education. And from the time I went to kindergarten through my senior year in high school, I went to public schools. I wouldn’t trade that education and experience for anything.

I had incredible teachers. As I look at my life today, the things I value most about myself — my imagination, my love of acting, my passion for writing, my love of learning, my curiosity — all come from how I was parented and taught.

And none of these qualities that I’ve just mentioned — none of these qualities that I prize so deeply, that have brought me so much joy, that have brought me so much professional success — none of these qualities that make me who I am ... can be tested.

I said before that I had incredible teachers. And that’s true. But it’s more than that. My teachers were EMPOWERED to teach me. Their time wasn’t taken up with a bunch of test prep — this silly drill and kill nonsense that any serious person knows doesn’t promote real learning. No, my teachers were free to approach me and every other kid in that classroom like an individual puzzle. They took so much care in figuring out who we were and how to best make the lessons resonate with each of us. They were empowered to unlock our potential. They were allowed to be teachers.

Now don’t get me wrong. I did have a brush with standardized tests at one point. I remember because my mom went to the principal’s office and said, ‘My kid ain’t taking that. It’s stupid, it won’t tell you anything and it’ll just make him nervous.’ That was in the ’70s when you could talk like that.

I shudder to think that these tests are being used today to control where funding goes.

I don’t know where I would be today if my teachers’ job security was based on how I performed on some standardized test. If their very survival as teachers was based on whether I actually fell in love with the process of learning but rather if I could fill in the right bubble on a test. If they had to spend most of their time desperately drilling us and less time encouraging creativity and original ideas; less time knowing who we were, seeing our strengths and helping us realize our talents.

I honestly don’t know where I’d be today if that was the type of education I had. I sure as hell wouldn’t be here. I do know that.

This has been a horrible decade for teachers. I can’t imagine how demoralized you must feel. But I came here today to deliver an important message to you: As I get older, I appreciate more and more the teachers that I had growing up. And I’m not alone. There are millions of people just like me.

So the next time you’re feeling down, or exhausted, or unappreciated, or at the end of your rope; the next time you turn on the TV and see yourself called “overpaid;” the next time you encounter some simple-minded, punitive policy that’s been driven into your life by some corporate reformer who has literally never taught anyone anything. ... Please know that there are millions of us behind you. You have an army of regular people standing right behind you, and our appreciation for what you do is so deeply felt. We love you, we thank you and we will always have your back.


All I have to say is...

Matt Damon you frickin rock!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I have no respect for anything that comes out of Matt Damon's mouth. And I used to teach.

You have your opinion and I have mine. :)

I like him for standing up for teachers!

I would comment further but my brain is fried from studying for the Praxis II :)

Just curious why.

But him aside, I agree with everything he said. And I'd agree no matter who said it.

Out of curiosity, why does it matter whose mouth it came out of? His speech is defending teachers and the BS that they have to go through.

YES.

BOO.

YES.

YES.

I completely agree with him about standardized testing. Drilling, practicing, hell, even telling the kids in advance that they're going to take them defeats the whole purpose of these tests and can greatly mess up the result!

We had standardized tests too, but with none of this present-day garbage. We literally came in as for any other school day and were told "we're going to take standardized tests today." Period. No time to get worried about them or flustered or think too hard about how we SHOULD approach them. They might have told us a day or two in advance once we got to jr & sr high, just because of athletics/activities and such, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had not.

Ditto. We knew roughly the time of year we would have them then were told like a week ahead of time so it didn't conflict with sports. Even knowing ahead of time didn't do much because the teachers made it clear this wasn't a test we could study for and therefore there was no reason to worry.

MommyCG was a public school teacher for over 40 years. Even in her retirement, she's still at the school volunteering nearly everyday. She just can't stay away because she loves the kids too much. However, as someone who spent most of my life helping out in her classroom, I've seen an unbelievable amount of stress in recent years to get kids up to scratch or be doomed. It makes me smile to see someone who understands the struggles they face and shows their support.

Thankfully I've always been a good test taker and rocked the ITBS every year, but like 33girl, it was not crammed down our throats. It was just something we did one day a year. My brother, on the other hand, HATED them and would make pictures out of the circles. My Mom would just go crazy that he could get such a phenomenally low score when he was perfectly bright enough to get a good score. What would a teacher do with him today?

He made some very good points. Standardized testing takes up a lot more time and more emphasis is placed on it now in comparison to when I was in school. It is kind of embarrassing when idiots post on our local news blogs that all teachers should be fired, how horrible classroom instruction is, etc. There are a lot of different reasons as to why students are not performing, but there is not enough time to cover it all.

It's nice to feel appreciated ;)

My mom always used to say that if you went by standerdized test scores she would have one kid who went to harvard and another kid that failed out of high school.

I always scored way higher than my grades would indicate because I test well. I am a fast reader and have good comprehension which helped. My brother got barely passed/failing scores even though he was a b /c student and excelled in classes that interested him.

It's a measurement, but it's not the only measurement and I hate that it's tied to funding. There are other ways to measure success at a school but everything can't be quantified. A high school has so may moving parts in it. You have home life, lack of funding for other activities and occasionally just luck of the draw in what students are in your class. Not to mention with charter schools and private schools potentially diluting the pool of public education to those who can't afford private schools or not able to utilize their resources. My best teachers were the ones who were creative and made sure that there were assignements that varied so that if you were weak in one area, you had opportunities to make it up in another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHJk...layer_embedded

"Maybe you're a shitty cameraman, I dunno..."

Oh Matt Damon. That was fun.

"MBA style thinking"

Matt Damon, if you feel a big pair of arms encircling you, it is my dad giving you a hug from the Great Beyond. :)

I love that he attacked a (supposed) logical fallacy (reducing education and its complexity to "MBA-style thinking") through a series of his own logical fallacies. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, thine own mother teach the way.

While I think the initial logical fallacy was the one expressed by the reporter (basically "as an actor, work isn't guaranteed so you work hard so that you'll have job security, right?" -- an interesting question to pose to someone who doesn't have to work at all), I concur he answered it with another logical fallacy.

Still, though, I agree with the general points he's trying to make. The heavy reliance currently placed on standardized tests results in teaching to the test and should not be the measure of whether teachers are performing well, especially when a student's performance depends on so many variables, many of which are way beyond a teacher's control.

The initial question was horrible, I completely agree. And I thought Damon's response was measured and well spoken, although definitely just as fallacious (I'm guessing at least in part, if not mostly, because of the setting/timing).

Right - I mean, to start, even if you want to use an economics-style incentive base when examining education, the incentives first examined should be the ones for the students. I'm skeptical teachers have much, if any, effect on these incentives for wide swaths of the population - which makes using outcome awkward as hell.

At the same time, for things like math in particular, testing is a VERY effective way to determine comprehension, which while not the be-all/end-all, is pretty damn close in terms of importance of outcome. I think there has to be a balance, for sure - the anti-test movement sometimes goes just as far into zealotry as the only-tests-matter crew though.

It depends on the kind of math and what you're testing, I think. But for the purposes of the discussion this thread is about, it's kind of beside the point. The question here is whether standardized testing of students is an effective way to measure whether the teacher has taught well. A teacher can be fantastic and still have students who, for a variety of reasons, don't do well on the tests. And sometimes students can do very well on tests despite having had a terrible teacher. There are those awkward outcomes you're talking about.

There definitely has to be a balance, and testing can certainly be part of the equation. But too often, it seems, testing is the entire equation, and I think everyone -- student and teacher -- suffers as a result.

Sometimes you slam your car door on your leg the morning you are taking the ACT and take the test in extreme pain only to find out later that you have a chipped bone from it.

Oh wait, that's probably rare (and I did pretty well in spite of the circumstance!).

Some kids just aren't good test takers. I have always been pretty lucky that I'm a fast test taker and do well on tests. I had friends who knew their stuff but didn't do as well as I did on standardized tests. I think it was usually test anxiety that hung them up.

All of this emphasis on testing comes from No Child Left Behind. Basically the teachers are held responsible if the kids don't pass the standardized test- so some spend much time "teaching" the test instead of traditional teaching.

Now what is wrong with holding teachers accountable? Well...let's say I'm a high school science teacher (which I may be someday). If the kid enters my class with third grade reading skills...only basic math skills...is it my fault he can't grasp DNA replication or chemical reactions?

NCLB or not...kids are still being passed through. Kids are with their families 16 hours a day and in school 8. Not everything that happens in a kids life is at the hands of the teacher. As a society we need to accept there are some horrific people having children (not going to use the word "raising" as it's not applicable here.). Teachers can only do so much. They wind up being villianized by a society that does not appreciate the work ethic or heart of the average teacher.

Clearly :p That is indeed what I meant by awkward - separating signal from noise is very difficult, to put it different terms.

I guess, then, my question is: should we even try? I'm not being glib, either - is there any way to tell who is a "good" teacher (particularly using outcome)?

I think implementation is as much the problem as anything - and I mean that from the top down (test design, use of the results, integration of test materials into curricula and vice versa, etc.).

While standardized testing has well-documented issues (mostly related to biasing factors from test designers), it's not something inherently wrong or evil - it is just used in an extremely stupid fashion in most secondary schools.

We don't have the same global fight against post-secondary standardized tests - in fact, they're often embraced when performed on a smaller scale (doctors, lawyers and whatnot).

Exactly. My high school best friend was in National Honor Society (I think her overall was something like 3.8, and this was before the days of grade inflation, and she was in the college prep course) but I don't think she even broke 900 combined on her SATs. She wasn't stupid, obviously - just a really bad and really nervous standardized test taker.

But we aren't firing professors based on the number of professionals who pass these tests. The students are blamed for their own failures at this level. At least that is my experience in the medical field.

That was actually my point - it's only a problem when judging the teachers using the outcome, the tests themselves (regardless of flaws) are acceptable as an instrument in other contexts.

But it's comparing apples to oranges. Extremely specialized tests that are paid for out of pocket by the person being tested. You have an incentive to pass. For physicians, however, passing isn't mandatory after the USMLE. You don't have to be board certified to practice in your field.

I don't mean to invite an apples-to-apples comparison at all - that was what the "other contexts" was about ... I'm literally only saying that standardized testing is not inherently awful (and using examples where it is accepted to show this), which seems to indicate that the use of the tests is the problem, and not the tests themselves.

I guess I'll be somewhat more specific in my earlier point, and hopefully illustrate what I'm saying a little better:

Standardized tests provide TONS of data - smart school systems could use the data to improve at every stage. Instead, the data are reduced to a binary "pass/fail", at least in effect, and applied toward short-sighted goals (like judging teachers on a minute sample). Are the data flawed? In some ways, perhaps - but it's systemic, not endemic, and the apples-to-oranges examples of post-secondary testing show us that it is certainly possible to work around the flaws to get to something positive. In other contexts, the tests work just fine - it's about expectations and how the test is used.

I'll let them speak for themselves, but I imagine teachers would be MUCH more open to standardized tests if the tests resulted in a global overview of what is and isn't 'working' for kids at every level, and curricula were designed each year to help address those issues across every level. If the outcome became collaborative rather than 'definitive' (re: a teacher's performance, rather than a student's), it seems like most of the problems raised here would be obviated.

I agree with what you've said here. That would be logical, yet it's always easier to just point a finger and find fault.

Yep - I think that's my main take-away ... the most vocal on either side seem to be short-sighted and reactive, whether they're saying "TEACHERS SUCK!" or "TESTS DON'T WORK!"

Luckily, I think they're a distinct minority.

Most of the stuff he spews is bunk but I agree with a little of what he said but not for the reasons he states. I believe we should remove the federally mandated standardized testing but I also believe we should return the total responsibility for education back to the states and local governments. I do believe the states run the University and CC systems and, in most cases, do a very credible job. If the states don't want to compete they can continue to graduate dummies. If they want to compete in a global economy they will place the emphasis needed to meet these new requirements and new realitites. It is time to drilldown to the lowest level (state and local) because what we have been doing for the last 40+ years isn't working all that well.

I talked this over with my daughter who teaches high school English and we both agree with the following:

I know I am going to get a lot of crap for this (but that is the norm) so here goes.

1. Shut down the DOE and allocate that money (for the next 5 years) to the states based on their student population. Phase this money out and the schools will step up to the plate and meet the new realities.
2. Make teacher tenure difficult but reachable and have certain steps and rewards (tangible and intangible) for meeting these more stringent requirements.
3. Pay the teachers more to teach in "crappie" schools.
4. Quit passing everyone regardless of ability. Hold them back if the can't or won't do the work.
5. School uniforms until 10th grade.
6. Separate schools or, at least classrooms, for boys and girls until 10th grade.
7. Bring back vocational training. Quit this push for everyone to go to college. Everyone should not and there should be alternatives.

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially having some incentive for teachers to teach in "crappie" schools, whether more pay or what. However, coming from wearing uniforms from k-8th grade, there was little difference. The kids who couldn't afford new uniforms every year or have multiple versions (ie have one or two polo shirts per week vs having five) were still taunted. Kids were made fun of for how the uniforms fit them instead of clothes being out of style or whatever. I know there were two people in my class who are still dealing with eating disorders that started at this age potentially (I want to say probably) due to our peers teasing them about their bodies.

Also, I would have killed someone if I hadn't had my guy friends in middle school. The girls I went to school with were absolutely horrible. I do understand that it might be better for some children as it might allow the focus to be more towards education instead of social interests. Also while in mixed gender classrooms girls are less likely to exceed in math and science. Perhaps having different classes for boys and girls but still allowing social interaction during lunch/recess/etc? Also what about homosexual children? Would you keep them with their gender?

Other than that, hell yes to everything you said. Not everyone should go to college. It shouldn't be shameful or disgraceful to not go to college.
I feel like you should be reviewed somewhat periodically after a professor is tenured. The few I had, well one was great while the others couldn't care less.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, Ghostwriter, except for the federal/state relationship. While in theory I prefer the states' having complete control, in the modern world-wide economy, we defnitely have a national interest in education. I think the balance could perhaps be struck differently, but I think there is a federal* interest and federal role here.



* Federal in the sense of the states collectively.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CFXk4fmviG...00/crappie.jpg

What does this fish have to do with schools?

Also, community colleges are not doing that great a job and they're huge drains on taxpayer money, more often than not. Add into it that they're not able to innovate (because they're not making even enough money to keep their doors open on tuition) and that boils down to not changing teaching styles in 100 years. Primary and secondary schools have been able to innovate to some degree of success because their budgets are tied to local communities, where CC are typically tied to state funding (at least, in every state I've lived in). In states where natural disasters/terrorist attacks happen, their budgets tend to be cut first. Which sucks. I support community colleges but it's very hard for them to be successful.

I don't know what the point of keeping boys and girls separate in classrooms would do - it seems like a waste of resources, particularly for smaller school systems. Two of everything when typical class size is 15 (meaning there'd be 7 or 8 kids in each class, and if there's a lot of one gender but not enough of the rest, then what?). They're already merging with other districts to increase their class sizes and share resources, I'd hate to think that kids in rural areas would be spending 2 hours each way on a bus every day to get to and from school, especially when a lot of them are already spending an hour. That also limits extracurricular activities that occur after school - either the bus ride is too long or their parents can't pick them up at a drop off point later that night.

I understand that girls do better in single-sex math and science classrooms (although correlation is not causation), but what a drain on resources. I guess it gives folks something else to complain about the next time around though, huh?

Having grown up in a (educationally speaking) good state, and living most recently in a bad state, and several states in between, I think it would be a tragedy to take the federal government out of the equation. Just as it's not a kid's fault for being born poor, it is also not her fault to be born in Missouri. And saying the states would step up to the plate is just wrong. Frankly, in some states, fewer educated people means fewer voters which means you can more easily control the government. Would certain states take that money and make excellent use of it? Absolutely. Would others allow 50% of their students to be illiterate boobs? Again, IMO, absolutely.

What I would do if I trusted my government at all levels is a lot different than what I would be forced to do in real life. Unfortunately, what that SOUNDS like is that I prefer privatization, but the same ethics applies. Some private education companies do great jobs and some are simply in it for the Benjamins. So they can't be trusted as a wide-spread policy either.

In the meantime, I will honor the teachers, principles, school boards, mayors, and up the chain who do their jobs the way it should be done. And be glad I don't have kids because that's not ALL of them.

This is probably the most important - one of the main problems in modern childhood education is the proliferation of "one-track" schooling ... we pretend that's the best way for every child, when in reality, a mix of (pre-college/trade/technology/skilled labor/life-skills/other) tracks would be markedly more effective, and wouldn't cost much more in the way of money or manpower.

If you're going to do them till 10th grade, you might as well go ahead and go the whole way through till 12th. If combined, this would REALLY be a mess - the opposite sex in the classroom for the first time and getting to wear whatever you want for the first time? That would make People of Walmart look like NYC Fashion Week.

I kind of agree with the first (only kind of because it just treats a symptom and doesn't really get to the heart of the problem) and completely disagree with the second. As agzg said, this is completely unfeasible for most rural school districts (as are many many many options that people bring up to "improve" schools). Not to mention, it just strengthens the stereotype that girls can't learn with boys around. If they're in the same school - do you really think that kids won't know who the "brains" are in the opposite sex classroom next door?

Many schools do still offer business/agriculture/shop/votech curricula in high school. The problem is getting it through the parents' thick head that their kid is more suited for that than they are to go to college.

Our current system = fail - IMO

I equate the way we do things as the old medieval "physician" who would bleed the sick patient to get the evil impurities out. The patient would be bled and then if he did not get better he would be bled some more. If that didn't work he would bleed them some more. If the patient died he would say that they weren't bled enough. At what point do we say "enough with the bleeding we need a new cure"?

I just don't see how the pointy haired politicians and their cronies in Washington know so much more than my local pointy haired politicians and their cronies? At least we can keep a closer eye on the local pointy hairs.

I raise my hand and go, I know, I know ooh, ooh, ooh!

Yes, Horshack what is the answer, says Mr. Kotter.

They are both "crappie"! says Horshack.:)

Sadly, I can't rebutt your argument. Even though I want you to be wrong, you're not. But I don't have a better solution that even hopes to be fair for kids in all 50 states. At least the federal system in place now WANTS to be fair. They just don't succeed.

I'd guess it's much closer to "some" than "many" - regardless, though, if it's a "tracked" program then it's much harder for parents to argue ... particularly if they're forced to buy into the program from the start.

America has cultural issues that work against it, but similar programs work well in other parts of the world. At some point, we have to get over the ultra-American ideal of telling a child with narrow options that they can do anything.

It just breaks my heart to see what has happened to so many of the "high risk" students. The drop out rate is abysmal and their chances to succeed are so diminished. We simply have to try something different and start defunding the status quo. In many schools the per pupil expenditure is well over $10K. Just throwing good money after bad isn't working.

My goodness, we really need Vocational Schools to at least offer many students an alternative and a shot at a trade. They sure as hell don't need to learn a trade in prison.

To me it seems that the system is "rotten to the core" and must be torn down and rebuilt. But that is just me ranting

I don't think it's a matter of saying "your kid can't spell cat." More like you should say "he shows a real aptitude with mechanics and will probably make more, if he continues on that track, than your Harvard educated ass will ever make."

Another part of the problem is guidance counselors. Many of them suck. They want to shove the more well-off kids into college prep (and push more prestigious colleges) and the poorer kids into the trade programs, when the accident of your birth has very little to do with what you'll actually be good at and enjoy.