Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by 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.

Which may not be possible in some districts that are inching up past 40 students per classroom. That's fine if you are focusing on the same topic for all students, but if you have to go back and identify deficiencies in half the students and fix those problems while still teaching on level, something is going to suffer. Large classes over 40 students in college are fine because the students who can't keep up are weeded out by pre-reqs. Grade school teachers don't get that luxury.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 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 subtration 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.

The way I understand it, some forms of value added assessment do this. They are based on a growth model and just compare the performance of the students a teacher has this year with those exact kids' previous performance. Apparently what gets called valued added varies quite a bit and is weirdly variable from year to you, so I'd want to know more about the exact model to say for sure what would work. But it certainly seems possible.

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

While I agree with a lot of what you say here, schools still spend a lot of money on the education of their students, and some aren't showing particularly good results.

I don't think anyone commenting here would be comfortable saying, well, there are some schools at which we just can't expect the students to show measurable learning.

So what it is reasonable to expect schools to produce and how do you know if the are doing it?

[*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...