Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Not to take a dump on the thread, but while a student's performance surely cannot be assigned wholly to one specific teacher, a student that performs terribly can probably be used as an indictment of the student's education as a whole, no?
And that education is primarily provided by three sources: teachers/class work, friend groups/experiences, and parents/self-directed learning. My understanding is not 100% on the bleeding edge, but I believe that learning in youths is generally considered to be implemented/affected in that order, as well.
So this logic seems pretty clear to me: when entire districts suck, the teachers and administrators (who seem to somehow avoid responsibility even though they are 'management' in this instance, which is baffling) are likely in large part to blame, no? After all, it is the one consistent in our triumvirate model of learning, across the board.
I get why teachers hate NCLB, and I get that teachers are woefully underpaid in many parts of the country, and I get that the job is exceptionally hard and takes a strong toll. I just don't get this constant shifting of blame, and why outside-the-box tactics get shouted down, even by teachers who hate the 'box' (system) anyway.
|
To put it extraordinarily succinctly (in my opinion) by the time a failing child makes it to high school, it's the elementary school teachers who need to be fired.
There are way too many opportunities to correct a child's deficiencies from Kindergarten to 5th grade, or whatever your local jurisdiction defines as elementary ed.
I've worked in a failing school. They did all need to be fired, but they weren't. Goes back to what I said earlier about the chief academic officer of a school needing to be a different person from the chief executive.