Here is the editorial in yesterday's Star Ledger filled again
with absurdity and fuzzy thinking.
It begins by claiming that the current actions by
politicians and “educrats” are to "reform" seniority and tenure. Why do they
refuse to call it what it is - ELIMINATION. Since when does reform =
elimination?
They go on to claim that elimination of these rights, which
have endured for over one hundred years, will make teaching more attractive and
will help to recruit more highly qualified people.
Duh!
The editorial writer seems to think that academically talented people will
flock to colleges and universities, dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars
and devote countless hours of study to become a teacher. They will do this to get a job where they will become an "at will employee", can accrue no seniority, must
work until 65 in order to retire, will pay an ever increasing portion of their
health benefits costs, can look forward to a bankrupt pension system, be
evaluated by the test taking skills of children on tests which may or may not
be appropriate or accurate and endure constant criticism and degradation by the
media and the public.
The editorial goes on to say "teachers must earn
respect". Just exactly how can that be done in a situation where
everything about your job comes from on high and often from those who have
never taught or if they did it was
decades ago in a private school for only four or five years at most. To make things even more difficult every new administration comes with a new educational scheme, new "experts" and plethoras of mandates and paperwork.
These people tell you what to teach, when to teach it, how
to teach it and then hold you responsible when it doesn't work.
How can someone earn respect when he is held as the
scapegoat for high taxes and the "failing schools" that exist in
impoverished communities?
How can teachers earn respect when they are held responsible
for poor student performance but are given no tools to correct it? If a child
refuses to study and cooperate no teacher, not even Socrates can make them
learn.
The constant cry from the "educrats" and the
media is the teacher is required to make it interesting - engage the student.
So in other words, the teacher must be a teacher and an entertainer and a
constant cajoler or else he is a poor teacher.
And what about disruptive behavior? How is he/she to deal
with that?
Certainly corporal punishment is out as well it should be
but now even raising one's voice might be considered "bullying". How
about continually asking a student to pay attention or act appropriately? Could
that be "bullying" or "singling out"?
If students do poorly on State testing is it because of a
"poor" teacher? Is "poor student" participation in the
learning process ever considered? And how about a poor attitude fostered at home?
I must assume that the writer of this editorial is a product
of the American educational system. Considering that, I would have to agree that
there must be some poor teachers in the system and those that taught him logic and reasoning
must be among them.
PS
The article extols the virtues of Finish education. I have
posted information about that system directly underneath the editorial and
underlined some key ideas. It is interesting how it compares with our approach
to education and educators. The key factor in their successful educational system is attitude which is exactly what American education lacks.
Americans seem to be saying - "We send them to school and it's your job to make them smart and if you can't do it you're a poor teacher!"
Finns seem to be saying - "Let's work together and do whatever we can to educate our children". They avoid finger pointing and name calling and constantly invoking the new schemes dreamed up the "education experts" year in and year out.
