Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, a false dichotomy: Doing just what we're doing now or purely local contriol with State oversight are far from the only options. Einstein would know that.

Also (and one reason I'm not in love with that quote), it's clear Einstein was a theoretical physicist - experimental physicists know that repeatability is one of the main difficulties in high-level scientific research today. You'll often do the same thing over and over and get different results.

Similarly, often government programs aren't inherently or implicitly broken - the implementation is poor, not the conceit. A do-over (more likely, a clean start-over) could indeed give tremendous results.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

A do-over (more likely, a clean start-over) could indeed give tremendous results.

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get? The DOE has been, realistically, in existence since 1980. Are our schools better or worse than prior to that year? That is 31 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get?

How many do-overs/restructurings of DOE have there been? (That's a different question from how many one thinks there should have been.)

Sorry, but I think "solutions" like "get rid of DOE and return the power to local communities," while they might sound great and appealing, are terribly simplistic approaches to a complicated problem. It's not a real solution -- it's just trading one set of problems for another set of problems.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get? The DOE has been, realistically, in existence since 1980. Are our schools better or worse than prior to that year? That is 41 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.

Without arguing over efficacy or semantics like the above, let's try it this way:

What, exactly, makes you think anybody at all on a local level of government is qualified to dictate educational policy? And I don't even mean "more qualified" than somebody else - I seriously mean, for the average community, what about the dopey, slow, limited, and largely ceremonial governments of most towns and suburbs makes you think THAT is the group who really needs more money and power pushed toward them?

And if you instead want to discuss the state level ... States puked all over themselves trying to spend stimulus funds, then cried when they didn't get more. Many state governments are run by part-time state legislators whose qualifications were "Put Up A Lot Of Signs In Yards." That's your solution? Give them more stuff to do, more money to blow?

Sorry if I'm non-plussed at the concept of removing the DoE in favor of essentially this plan:

1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.

2. ????

3. Profit.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.

2. ????

3. Profit.

No, let's instead continue like we are with a truly bloated inept bureaucracy (DOE) that thinks it knows best for everyone and every state.

The states administer and oversee the public University systems? I don't believe the Federal Govt. is involved and they (States) do, by all accounts, a good job. At least in NC we have a very good system with some pretty good leaders. I don't see why it would be an automatic fail if the states took over total control of the schools from Washington. I don't see local and state control as idiotic. They seem to do a very good job around here and they have a stake in the outcomes unlike the "idiots" (your term) at the DOE.

Sorry but Einstein was right.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't see local and state control as idiotic. They seem to do a very good job around here and they have a stake in the outcomes unlike the "idiots" (your term) at the DOE.

Perhaps you need to meet some of the local school board folks in my neck of the woods.

To be honest, I get the feeling that you think the Department of Education has a lot more power and authority than it actually has. With the exception of No Child Left Behind (only 10 years old, not 31), the bulk of decision-making authority is already with the states and local school boards. And of course, it's essentially NCLB that Matt Damon was criticizing and that many of us have been criticizing.

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Perhaps you need to meet some of the local school board folks in my neck of the woods.

To be honest, I get the feeling that you think the Department of Education has a lot more power and authority than it actually has. With the exception of No Child Left Behind (only 10 years old, not 31), the bulk of decision-making authority is already with the states and local school boards. And of course, it's essentially NCLB that Matt Damon was criticizing and that many of us have been criticizing.

Yep...NCLB is a really, really poorly executed plan that has not helped many in the past ten years. Now states are spending thousands of dollars investigating cheating scandals over standardized testing. What is it all for...what it is all proving? That schools are failing? We already knew that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by *winter*

What is it all for...what it is all proving? That schools are failing? We already knew that.

If we hadn't identified and imposed requirements on failing schools, they would have done nothing more than maintained the status quo (or slid further). Now, they're being forced to change. That they bitch and moan about it is not really shocking.

NCLB has also inspired quite a bit of innovation. In Oklahoma, we're working on testing programs which, especially in the primary ed levels, test kids constantly during the year. Problem teachers/students/districts can be identified basically in real-time.

In OKC public schools, they're now trying all kinds of things to get back on track. Some of our inner-city schools have had new principals take over who were told to clean house. We've had mass resignations of teachers these principals identified as not being part of the solution. We'll see if that produces results, but at least we're doing something--and like it or not, none of this would have happened without NCLB.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by *winter*

Yep...NCLB is a really, really poorly executed plan that has not helped many in the past ten years. Now states are spending thousands of dollars investigating cheating scandals over standardized testing. What is it all for...what it is all proving? That schools are failing? We already knew that.

The decisions for how the plan would be implemented were up to the states. I always thought it was delusional to say that every kid could be on grade level by a certain date, but a lot of what NCLB is blamed for has to do with implementation and the response of local districts to being held accountable. They elected to game the system rather than focus on real instruction.

(I'm not saying that bad tests scores are an instructional failure or that that kids' homes and parental expectations don't matter. But when the districts decided the games they would play, those games weren't required by NCLB.)

Finally, the NAEP actually does show some progress from the years of NCLB particularly with subgroup performance. Sure, it's a standardized test, but when you talk about educational outcomes, we don't maintain a whole lot of other data to evaluate the entire country at once. If we have evidence that kids are reading better than before NCLB, for example, I'd say we might have actually improved real student achievement.

ETA: someone mentioned having doubt about NCLB because teachers didn't like it. Well most people would prefer to use their own measures than embrace being judged from the outside. I think that's a pretty natural response but it doesn't mean that much objectively.

The real risks to individual teachers from NCLB itself are pretty low unless your district or principal is crazy (in which case, again, NCLB itself isn't really the problem.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

No, let's instead continue like we are with a truly bloated inept bureaucracy (DOE) that thinks it knows best for everyone and every state.

Again, fallacious logic - those aren't the only two options.

The states administer and oversee the public University systems? I don't believe the Federal Govt. is involved and they (States) do, by all accounts, a good job.

As noted multiple times here, post-secondary (essentially opt-in) education is a different ball of wax. Expectations, outcome, etc. are all massively different.

They seem to do a very good job around here and they have a stake in the outcomes unlike the "idiots" (your term) at the DOE.

I know you know this, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Without arguing over efficacy or semantics like the above, let's try it this way:

What, exactly, makes you think anybody at all on a local level of government is qualified to dictate educational policy? And I don't even mean "more qualified" than somebody else - I seriously mean, for the average community, what about the dopey, slow, limited, and largely ceremonial governments of most towns and suburbs makes you think THAT is the group who really needs more money and power pushed toward them?

And if you instead want to discuss the state level ... States puked all over themselves trying to spend stimulus funds, then cried when they didn't get more. Many state governments are run by part-time state legislators whose qualifications were "Put Up A Lot Of Signs In Yards." That's your solution? Give them more stuff to do, more money to blow?

Sorry if I'm non-plussed at the concept of removing the DoE in favor of essentially this plan:

1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.

2. ????

3. Profit.

This isn't a response about qualification, but I think local governments are at least more responsive and aware of the pressing issues in their communities. I also think officials are more invested in the results. The accountability for problem solving is pretty diffused when you get to the federal level.

I don't have a big problem with national standards or national assessments, but I'd generally like the federal government to deal with things that only the federal level can handle. Education isn't one of those things.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

This isn't a response about qualification, but I think local governments are at least more responsive and aware of the pressing issues in their communities. I also think officials are more invested in the results. The accountability for problem solving is pretty diffused when you get to the federal level.

I don't have a big problem with national standards or national assessments, but I'd generally like the federal government to deal with things that only the federal level can handle. Education isn't one of those things.

This are the problems I have though. First, while I can agree that local officials may be more likely to be responsive to pressing local issues, those local issues can be quite narrow -- things like school assignment, teaching sex ed and the like. And second, the day is long gone when communities were by and large educating the people who were going to stay in that community and live and work in the community. The people who will one day be working and contributing to community life where I live are now being educated all over the country. We all have a stake in education nationally. So maybe things like minimum standards is something only the federal government can handle.

That said, I still think a straw man is being beaten up here. The vast majority of real decisions about education are still made at the state and local level, including, as you say, how to implement NCLB. The only substantive federal involvement is standards and assessment. The issue, as I see it, is whether the assessments are working the way they should and measuring what they should.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by *winter*

That is great for OK...but here the same schools that were failing in 1993, when I was a freshman...are still failing. Honestly...there are people manipulating the data/testing so the schools can pass, otherwise they will never make any progress. That is disturbing.

In certain cities the dropout rate is 45% or higher...grads are barely literate and ill-prepared for the real world. So it's safe to say there are still schools that are passig kids through...

I respect the idea behid NCLB, because it addresses a huge problem that had been swept under the rug for many years. However I've not heard much positive about it from teachers who are in the front line in education. That bothers me- if teachers feel it isn't effective, someone needs to be listening to them!

Originally Posted by KDMafia

I think my biggest problem is that evidence of a successful education isn't always shown in test scores that occur immediately in high school. It's shown in an ability to handle college, or manage your finances, or have an ability to manage your time well. To having a balance to social and work life as well as finding hobbies and other areas that interest you. There's a reason that better schools with higher achieving students often times have the money to give to extra activities and more creative ventures. These students have most likely started in strong elementary schools and worked their way up so they can more effectively manage their money rather than focusing just on brining up test scores as well as most likely living in areas of higher tax income where the local town can support the educational system better, plus having more involved parents and kids who don't need to start working the minute they can to help support the family, or need to come home right after school to baby sit.

Testing is just a way to ignore these massive structural issues and in some situations, blame the teachers for the issue. Are there bad teachers, sure, but there are bad doctors and lawyer etc etc, that's no reason to knock an entire profession. More than anything I've seen teachers be beat down to the point where they've given up. The City of Detroit just cut salaries where teachers could be making only 24,000 a year. Why would intelligent, driven and ambitious people be attracted to a career where they are not allowed a say in their style of teaching or even their appreciation.

I don't know why everybody thinks the schools and the teachers have ANYTHING to do with why certain cities have a lot of students who are failing. I would hazard a guess that the teachers in the Detroit Public Schools primarily went to Eastern Michigan and Michigan State, just like in every other district in Michigan. I would hazard a guess that most of these teachers had essentially the same education. I know that they have all the same requirements to maintain their certification.

The difference between successful school districts and failing school districts is about:
a) Whether the families in those districts value education, make sure their students attend school every day and do their homework, and work with them to get that done
b) Whether those students live on the streets or in homes, whether the homes they live in have electricity, heat and water or not, whether those students have meals on the table
c) Whether students see any value in getting an education
d) Whether students even feel safe in school, or in their homes and neighborhoods

It's pretty clear that there are students who excel and go forward to do great things, even from the worst performing schools. Those students are getting what they need from someone... a mentor, a parent, a relative.. somebody. Somebody is taking care of those kids and somebody is doing something to help them see that getting a good education is important.

Schools aren't failing. Society is.

[OPhiAGinger]

There are great teachers who change a kid's life and there are teachers who just phone it in. I want a way to distinguish between the two and I think measuring outcome is the best way to do it.

But I also agree that you can't pin the failures of Timmy's last three teachers on this year's teacher. If he didn't master addition and subration in K-2, there's no way he's gonna grasp multiplication in 3rd grade no matter how dedicated that teacher is. So instead of basing success/failure on the raw score of today's test, why can't we base it on the amount of progress he has demonstrated since last year's test? I read about a school district in southern California who was doing that and I love the idea. Then even if Timmy is not up to grade level on his math skills, Miss Landers is still rewarded for helping him master the basics that he missed before.

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The difference between successful school districts and failing school districts is about:
a) Whether the families in those districts value education, make sure their students attend school every day and do their homework, and work with them to get that done
b) Whether those students live on the streets or in homes, whether the homes they live in have electricity, heat and water or not, whether those students have meals on the table
c) Whether students see any value in getting an education
d) Whether students even feel safe in school, or in their homes and neighborhoods.

Schools aren't failing. Society is.

ITA- this is the problem I have with NCLB- it seems to villify teachers as the "reason" kids don't succeed...when kids are at home 16 hours a day and in school 8.

However the bottom phrase is the pink elephant in the room, the thing no one wants to say out loud. People are having kids they have no idea how to raise, kids who are left to their own devices. 8 hours a day can only go so far...