Friday, January 07, 2005

ARE BETTER TEACHERS THE SOLUTION?

This guy seems to think so and he may have a point but he is putting the cart before the horse. Who but a desperate would want to stand up in front of an undisciplined and undisciplinable rabble every day? So where are all the able teachers going to come from? Teaching can't improve until schools improve -- and in many cases tough discipline would be needed to achieve that. Is it going to happen? Not likely.

In 1983 the report "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" declared that an undemanding school system was dumbing down our workforce and thus impeding our ability to compete in an information age and global economy. The report accused the nation not only of slighting standards but also of reneging on our commitment to equality. Among its recommendations for educational reform was to "make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession." With memorable phrases and hyperbolic language, "A Nation at Risk" shook up the educational establishment, describing "a rising tide of mediocrity" that threatened our future and reminding us that "history is not kind to idlers." ....

Despite the call to action of "A Nation at Risk" and the ensuing reform and additional funding, student achievement in grades K-12, at least as measured by standardized tests, languished. Of course there were students who excelled, and the Department of Education found the usual suspects: educated parents, demanding courses, homework, minimal television, and private schools.

Inexplicably, the nation flourished - even as our schools languished - entering a long period of economic growth and high individual productivity. Perhaps the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests do not correlate with economic achievement. Perhaps a cadre of advanced students propelled the nation forward and those without basic skills staffed low-wage jobs. And of course failure and conflict produce documents that attract attention, particularly the kind of attention the media give schools.

Nonetheless, we want to do better, especially for the poorest students. We also have legitimate concerns about a generation of young people educated by video games and reality television who read reluctantly and write laboriously. In a nation threatened by terrorists, we cannot afford young people ignorant of history and government, refusing to vote. In a world shaped by science and technology, Algebra I is vital and America could easily lose its competitive edge. An idealistic nation, we want and expect a high level of opportunity and achievement for all Americans - and thus No Child Left Behind.....

The Teaching Commission, headed by former IBM President Louis Gerstner, asked what could be done to fix persistent problems in American education and concluded: "an intense, sustained and effective campaign to revamp our country's teaching force." In its just-released report, "Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action," the commission goes so far as to say, "The proven value of excellent teaching...all but demolishes the notion that socioeconomic status is the most important determinant of what kids can learn." At Harvard, economist Ronald Ferguson correlated teachers' test scores with the test scores of their students, and found that teacher expertise accounts for more difference in student performance than any other factor.

Yet of all the recommendations in "A Nation at Risk" the ones least acted upon have been those relating to the teacher. The 1983 report called for rigorous educational standards in teacher-preparation programs, higher salaries, eleven-month contracts, career ladders, peer review, and master teachers. Just over 20 years later the pool of talented prospective teachers is drying up because of higher salaries and increased opportunities for women and minorities in other professions.

The good news is that there are some signs of change. No Child Left Behind requires more highly qualified teachers. Educators and a host of writers and scholars are calling for a transformed teaching profession: one with demanding entrance requirements and rigorous graduate degrees, in which knowledge of subject becomes the highest priority, and which offers a staged career, performance pay, autonomy, and accountability.

More here





CURRENT TEACHING STANDARDS IN ACTION

A comment from one of my readers:

"My sister is dating a high school principal, here in Kansas, though he was raised in NYC. This fellow has a PhD in Education. When discussing multiculturalism during our Christmas dinner he said the United States' Constitution was modeled from a confederation of Red Indian tribes that lived along the shores of the Great Lakes. This is laughable hoax that so many have fallen for. Yet, this man is a principal for a high school. I mentioned Locke, Montesquieu, Grotius, and Hobbes, but he was unsure who they were".






THOSE WONDERFUL, TOLERANT, HUMANE SAN FRANCISCANS

Another revelation of the total hypocrisy of the Left

San Francisco State University has been in the spotlight lately, and the picture that has emerged is not a flattering one. Following last month's nationwide elections, members of the SFSU chapter of the College Republicans were confronted by an angry mob simply for setting up a table and handing out political literature. Members of the International Socialist Organization, the General Union of Palestinian Students and others surrounded the Republican students, shouting at them to "get out" of SFSU. Although the exact details are still being disputed by the various parties, police reports and eyewitness accounts appear to back up the College Republicans. It seems that free political expression is no longer welcome at SFSU, at least not if one is espousing unpopular views.

A question arises: How did such a threatening environment become associated with a campus located in one of the most liberal and tolerant cities in the nation? The truth is that SFSU has a reputation for intolerance that goes back at least 10 years. In this case, Republican students, clearly a minority at SFSU, were the targets. But in the past, such animosity was directed mostly at Jewish students or those seen as supporting Israel. Jews at SFSU have been spat on, called names and physically attacked, as well as censured by the administration for defending themselves, even as their attackers went unpunished.

The case of Tatiana Menaker, a Russian Jewish emigr, and former SFSU student, is an example of the latter indignity. After committing the "crime" of responding verbally to another student's anti-Semitic epithets during a 2002 rally, she found herself persecuted by the administration. Pulled into a kangaroo court, threatened with expulsion and ordered by the university to perform 40 hours of community service (but specifically not for a Jewish organization), Menaker was later exonerated after seeking legal assistance from the Students for Academic Freedom and the local Jewish Community Relations Council. But the damage was done.

During my time as a student at SFSU (Class of 1996), I was given a preview of things to come. In 1994, the Student Union Governing Board commissioned a mural to honor the late Black Muslim revolutionary Malcolm X. Designed by members of the Pan Afrikan Student Union and painted by artist Senay Dennis (known also as Refa-1), the finished product was problematic, to say the least. Along with an image of Malcolm X, the not-so-subtle symbols of Stars of David juxtaposed with dollar signs, skulls and crossbones, and the words "African blood," had been painted. Despite the obvious allusion to anti-Semitic blood libels of old, Pan Afrikan Student Union members claimed the symbols represented Malcolm X's alleged opposition to Israel, not to Jews, as if that was some comfort.

Predictably, Jewish students were outraged, as were others truly interested in promoting tolerance on campus. African-American English Professor Lois Lyles made her opposition known by trying to paint "Stop Fascism" on the wall next to the mural. After attempting to paint over the mural on several occasions, only to find the cover-up paint removed by protesters, the administration was forced to take more permanent action. And, on May 26, 1994, under the guard of police in riot gear, the mural was sandblasted, only to be replaced with the kinder, gentler version seen on campus today. .....

The flyers hung all over campus in April 2002 displaying a Palestinian baby on a soup-can label and the words "Palestinian Children Meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license" hardly constitute legitimate criticism. Then there was a "Peace in the Middle East" rally, organized by the SFSU Hillel chapter on May 7, 2002. This seemingly innocuous event was beset by pro-Palestinian protesters bellowing such enlightened statements as "Zionists off the campus now," "Go back to Germany, where they knew how to deal with you" and "Hitler should have finished the job." In fact, the counterprotesters became so frenzied that Jewish students had to be escorted off campus under guard by San Francisco Police Department personnel. Is such blatant bigotry considered acceptable behavior when its targets are the "dreaded" Zionists? .....

As for SFSU, it remains to be seen whether the administration will exorcise the cancer of extremism on campus or allow it to fester. While pontificating about "free speech," Corrigan and the SFSU administration continue to underestimate the growing radicalism in their own backyard. As a result, what began with attacks on Jewish students has now spread outward to any students who don't share the liberal politics of the majority.

here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************

No comments: