All Teachers Fired at Underperforming School in Rhode Island

[PoliticalChic]

The median salary for New York City area workers was $50,820 in 2007

Median salaries for teachers appear to be $62K-70K





Why? My point was that anyone that expects to get wealthy by teaching public school is either stupid or misguided.



You say tomato, I say tomahto: The decline in educational quality coincided with the eruption of Feminist Intolerance for Wimmin being culturally relegated to teaching. Since then, any teacher, rightly or wrongly, will always defend their "professionalism." School boards feed this stupidity because it justifies their demand for "professional" labor, ie., labor that is not "hourly."



I might agree with you except that there is a large supply teachers in Texas, where organized Teacher Unions are Illegal.

Are you getting to that 3am drunk, almost agreeing with me???

I cannot abide this disgusting turn of events.

Its well past happy hour, and I'm not agreeing with you because your thesis is not universally supported: Since Teacher Unions don't exist in Texas, why would "many college enrollees look at what was formerly a difficult, yet rewarding progession and said 'why not?'."

While my circle of acquaintances have given me a certain expetise re: NYC, I have actually been surprised at some of the things you have stated about Texas.

Unions are illegal?

Chairperson is not a budgetary line, but rather a temp-stipend position. A good idea>

So I will claim only that my points are specific to the largest education precinct in the country: NYC.

 

[caddis]

No more than half those instructors would be hired back under a federal option

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

That is because money isn't always the answer.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

 

[jeffrockit]

In the end....none will end up getting fired

That will only be because of the teachers unions. The graduation rate at that school was 40%, If they were auto mechanics and only fixed 40% of all cars they worked on, they too would be fired. That analogy works for most jobs so why are the teachers protected....The NEA. Got to love the unions!

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the end....none will end up getting fired

That will only be because of the teachers unions. The graduation rate at that school was 40%, If they were auto mechanics and only fixed 40% of all cars they worked on, they too would be fired. That analogy works for most jobs so why are the teachers protected....The NEA. Got to love the unions!

Let's take it to the next step.

The unions don't make the laws- or determine the appropriations.

“The public school monopoly similarly revealed itself to be a wellspring of dysfunction. Its fierce opposition to initiatives like tuition tax credits (on which I worked alongside Senator Moynihan in the late 1970's) unmasked its determination to preserve control at all costs. Never mind that Catholic schools (the main focus of the Packwood-Moynihan bill) did a better job at a lower cost; never mind that many kids wanting to attend them could not afford to without financial help. Never mind that government routinely assisted students enrolled in Notre Dame and Fordham and St. Mary's. "Those kids belong to us" was the monopoly's message, "and so do all the education dollars."

a[The Democratic Party was] handcuffing itself to the unions. Meanwhile, the GOP shared my diagnosis of the problem and some of my ideas about solutions.

bThe education profession [was]… stubbornly pursuing ideas, strategies, and beliefs that simply didn't work. By 1981, Diane Ravitch and I founded the Educational Excellence Network. While many members were Democrats, all were discomfited by the regnant "progressivism" of the ed school thought world (which I came to know up-close while on the Vanderbilt faculty).

cPeople started to call me a "conservative," but I saw myself (and still do) as a radical, seeking big changes on behalf of the poor and the powerless--and one day I realized that folks called "liberals" were more interested in maintaining the power structure and pleasing the stakeholders than in meeting the needs of children and boosting the performance of schools.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Fordham Foundation and a former assistant secretary of education
THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT - January 10, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 02
.

 

[rightwinger]

Chanel the pragmatist here. How will they fill these positions with qualified people? Substitutes? Yeah that'll work - not.

A community gets the schools that they want. Curriculum and standards are set by the state, yet if you compare the test scores in Cherry Hill to those in Camden, it's like comparing Japan to Uganda. Money does not matter. Camden gets twice as much as Cherry Hill. Its the parents and gasp - dare I say it - the quality of the students. Duh.

The community did not demand this firing. And the community will be satisfied with whatever ill-qualified replacements take over. A baby sitter is still a baby sitter.

I'd love to see a followup to this in 5 years. My prediction is not very rosy.

My prediction is that if you come back in five years you will see most of the same teachers. Fire all your teachers and you will not get better quality teachers to replace them.
Even if you were to get top quality teachers, you will not see marked improvement in the scores until you get better community involvement

 

[PoliticalChic]

No more than half those instructors would be hired back under a federal option

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

That is because money isn't always the answer.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

 

[Annie]

No more than half those instructors would be hired back under a federal option

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

That is because money isn't always the answer.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

Indeed, must say I'm pretty taken aback, though shouldn't be, that it's the elitist liberals who are saying that kids in one of the poorest schools in that state just can't be helped, because of their homes.

Logically they should be calling for a halt in 'head start' and other such programs, I mean the kids are all from chicken shit, no?

I've taught at-risk high schoolers. If they came to class they not only passed, they were awed at what they could learn. Most of them had dropped out earlier, choosing to return when they realized that picking up a GED wasn't in the cards and life without a diploma wasn't going to work out well.

What did I do differently than their previous civics teachers to prepare them for US/state Constitution tests? Taught them the philosophy behind it, that was all. Oh yeah, I was there an hour early and would stay until they were finished asking questions. Of the 15 that started, 12 returned the second class, 11 the third. All 11 passed at no lower than 79%, 9 above 85%.

Granted the kids need to be motivated, these kids were. How hard is it to have a kid from a program like this come and speak in a 9th or 10th grade class?

 

[bodecea]

In the end....none will end up getting fired

That will only be because of the teachers unions. The graduation rate at that school was 40%, If they were auto mechanics and only fixed 40% of all cars they worked on, they too would be fired. That analogy works for most jobs so why are the teachers protected....The NEA. Got to love the unions!

Are you saying kids are cars?

And I want to know if the administration of the school and the district are getting off scot free on this.

 

[bodecea]

No more than half those instructors would be hired back under a federal option

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

That is because money isn't always the answer.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

So, you support the model used in countries like Mexico?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

Indeed, must say I'm pretty taken aback, though shouldn't be, that it's the elitist liberals who are saying that kids in one of the poorest schools in that state just can't be helped, because of their homes.

Logically they should be calling for a halt in 'head start' and other such programs, I mean the kids are all from chicken shit, no?

I've taught at-risk high schoolers. If they came to class they not only passed, they were awed at what they could learn. Most of them had dropped out earlier, choosing to return when they realized that picking up a GED wasn't in the cards and life without a diploma wasn't going to work out well.

What did I do differently than their previous civics teachers to prepare them for US/state Constitution tests? Taught them the philosophy behind it, that was all. Oh yeah, I was there an hour early and would stay until they were finished asking questions. Of the 15 that started, 12 returned the second class, 11 the third. All 11 passed at no lower than 79%, 9 above 85%.

Granted the kids need to be motivated, these kids were. How hard is it to have a kid from a program like this come and speak in a 9th or 10th grade class?

I find your post inspiring.


But I'm for halting Head Start based on President Obama's promise to end programs that don't work.

"The researchers collected 41 measures of lasting cognitive effects; of those 41 measures, only one was significant and positive while the remaining 40 showed no statistically significant difference.
The one significant effect was for receptive vocabulary, which showed no significant advantage for Head Start students after kindergarten but somehow re-emerged at the end of 1st grade.
For students randomly assigned to Head Start or not at the age of 3:
The researchers also collected 41 measures of lasting cognitive effects; this time they found two statistically significant positive effects and one statistically significant negative effect.
Again, 38 of the 41 measures of lasting effects showed no difference and the few significant effects, which could be produced by chance, showed mixed results.
It is safe to say from this very rigorous evaluation that Head Start had no lasting effect on the academic preparation of students, says Jay Greene, a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "

Head Start Basically Has No Effect | Goldwater Institute


"...kids get no lasting benefits from participating in the program. By the end of kindergarten and first grade, students who had been in Head Start are no further ahead academically or behaviorally than students who lost the lottery to enter the program.
Empirical evidence shows that D.C. vouchers work; that program should be expanded, not killed. The evidence also shows that Head Start is a long-running failure; that program should be wound down, not funded with new billions. Even diverting a few hundred million from Head Start into a reauthorized D.C. voucher program would go some way toward restoring the administration’s credibility."
So Much for the Evidence by Jay P. Greene, City Journal 3 February 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm surprised no one has commented on this line.
My experience has taught me that yes, there are a small number of poor teachers, but that is common with any occupation but only a fool would blame poor performance on an entire teaching staff.

It's been my experience that those who are most responsible for making the major decisions surrounding education are the least accountable. When a politician passes an education bill, he pats himself on the back and says "see, I care about education" and 3, 5, 10 years down the line when things are the same or worse....he is never held accountable. The same is true for a bureaucrat in any state board of education. (hell, it applies to many local school boards, superintendents, and administrators) Those with the most power, have the most say, and yet know the least about what goes on in a classroom. I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. Those that don't see the intrinsic value of presenting a well crafted lesson don't last long in the profession.



I was gonna respond to a half dozen posts here but to cut it short. Look at the statistics...there is a correlation between performance and the education level of the parents. Hmmm...maybe it has to do the what value you place on education. I won't blame the student, some are the shits and others have to deal with issues that make education a little less important than survival.. And likewise I wouldn't blame the teachers...you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit.

And conversely, a lack of money isn't the problem.

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

So, you support the model used in countries like Mexico?

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

3. Accountability.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools. Any and all school aid would be tied to the child, not given to the school, so that schools would have to encourage parents to choose that school.

All results to be published, that means how a teachers' classes do, and how the school stacks up.

That is the free market model.

Now, if a school chooses to use progressive education, and measurement gauges show it to be efficacious, so be it.

There is no one size fits all model for success, except for the hand-in-glove fit of the free market and America.

 

[Samson]

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

3. Accountability.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools.

Any and all school aid would be tied to the child.

"Tied to the child?"

What about masking tape? Could school aid be taped to children?

 

[del]

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

3. Accountability.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools.

Any and all school aid would be tied to the child.

"Tied to the child?"

What about masking tape? Could school aid be taped to children?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I know quite a few teachers and every one of them tries each day, week, month, and school year to improve....It's partially what motivates them. "

That view mirrors my experience with teachers.

But I don't share your view of students: "you can't make chick salad out of chicken shit."

This, I believe, is a comment you would retract upon further consideration.

These are 'our' children.

The problem lies in the instruction that is imposed on schools, not by teachers, parents or children.

The evidence has been in for over four decades: traditional education is the correct direction, not progressive romanticism.

This is why those in control won't allow vouchers, charters, or experimental schools which would relegate progressivism to failing schools.

So, you support the model used in countries like Mexico?

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

3. Accountability.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools. Any and all school aid would be tied to the child, not given to the school, so that schools would have to encourage parents to choose that school.

All results to be published, that means how a teachers' classes do, and how the school stacks up.

That is the free market model.

Now, if a school chooses to use progressive education, and measurement gauges show it to be efficacious, so be it.

There is no one size fits all model for success, except for the hand-in-glove fit of the free market and America.

You are, you know, arguing for progressive education. Otherwise, you still continue to misdefine the terminology. Student-centered education is progressive education, whether through government or private industry. I think you do not realize that progressive education can be either liberal or conservative in process. Oh, my.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you support the model used in countries like Mexico?

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

3. Accountability.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools. Any and all school aid would be tied to the child, not given to the school, so that schools would have to encourage parents to choose that school.

All results to be published, that means how a teachers' classes do, and how the school stacks up.

That is the free market model.

Now, if a school chooses to use progressive education, and measurement gauges show it to be efficacious, so be it.

There is no one size fits all model for success, except for the hand-in-glove fit of the free market and America.

You are, you know, arguing for progressive education. Otherwise, you still continue to misdefine the terminology. Student-centered education is progressive education, whether through government or private industry. I think you do not realize that progressive education can be either liberal or conservative in process. Oh, my.

Ah, now I see the problem: you have no understanding of the difference between the views of Progressive education, and true education. I suggest that you get the game of Clue, and play it a few times.

But, even in your ignorance, I still like you. So here is a primer:

1. Paulo Freire represents the essence of Progressive thought:
"Freire never intends “pedagogy” to refer to any method of classroom instruction based on analysis and research, or to any means of producing higher academic achievement for students. [H]e relies on Marx’s standard formulation that “the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat [and] this dictatorship only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” In one footnote, however, Freire does mention a society that has actually realized the “permanent liberation” he seeks: it “appears to be the fundamental aspect of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.”Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009

2. Traditional education insists on a body of knowledge, as opposed to Progressive:
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content, which Freire derides as “official knowledge” that serves to rationalize inequality within capitalist society."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-pedagogy.html

3. Teacher's have the knowledge, and should be able to impart same. Not to Progressives:
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed resonated with progressive educators, already committed to a “child-centered” rather than a “teacher-directed” approach to classroom instruction. Freire’s rejection of teaching content knowledge seemed to buttress what was already the ed schools’ most popular theory of learning, which argued that students should work collaboratively in constructing their own knowledge and that the teacher should be a “guide on the side,” not a “sage on the stage.”Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009

4. E.D.Hirsch's traditional approach:
"Hirsch was also convinced that the problem of inadequate background knowledge began in the early grades. Elementary school teachers thus had to be more explicit about imparting such knowledge to students—indeed, this was even more important than teaching the “skills” of reading and writing, Hirsch believed. Hirsch’s insight contravened the conventional wisdom in the nation’s education schools: that teaching facts was unimportant, and that students instead should learn “how to” skills. …expanded the argument in a 1983 article, titled “Cultural Literacy,” in The American Scholar." E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

5. Now, get this: traditional learning is knowledge-based, not 'process-based.' The progressives believe that 'an agile mind can always look it up.'
"[Hirsch] launched the Core Knowledge Foundation, which sought to create a knowledge-based curriculum for the nation’s elementary schools. A wide range of scholars assisted him in specifying the knowledge that children in grades K–8 needed to become proficient readers. For example, the Core Knowledge curriculum specifies that in English language arts, all second-graders read poems by Robert Louis Stevenson, Emily Dickinson, and Gwendolyn Brooks, as well as stories by Rudyard Kipling, E. B. White, and Hans Christian Andersen. In history and geography, the children study the world’s great rivers, ancient Rome, and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, among other subjects....[But] . [T]eachers and principals had trained at Columbia University’s Teachers College, a bastion of so-called progressive education, and militantly defended the progressive-ed doctrine that facts were pedagogically unimportant. "http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_hirsch.html

6. "Hirsch showed how destructive these instructional approaches were. The idea that schools could starve children of factual knowledge, yet somehow encourage them to be “critical thinkers” and teach them to “learn how to learn,” defied common sense. But Hirsch also summoned irrefutable evidence from the hard sciences to eviscerate progressive-ed doctrines." Ibid.

7. And, in summary, in case you are a slow learner:
"Progressive education rejects the subject matter, methods and purposes of
“traditional or classical education.” The fundamental purpose of “traditional or classical
education” was to transmit the culture to the younger generation... Among progressives the emphasis is on “process,” and there is disparagement
of “mere facts.” Suffice it to say that Hirsch has shown with devastating clarity that
reading, which could be called the most basic “skill,” cannot be done with understanding
unless the reader has the background knowledge expected by writers...There is an antipathy to testing, ranking and competition among progressives."
http://www.macalester.edu/~reedy/Samos07-ULTIssima-3[1].pdf

But if you are a curious fellow, here is the raison d’être of the Progressive:
'In Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.' (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

This is the basis of progressivism, and the reason for John Dewey's instigation of kindergarten, and of modern progressivess 'Head Start,' and early education.

Progressive ed is left wing, fraudulent, and a detriment to our children and our society.


Now there will be a short quiz: fold your paper, number one to five, no erasing, no crossing out.

Are you ready?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like you, too, PC, but you are merely regurgitating material that you did not understand, material that is based on skewed date and biased view. Rather than quarrel with you, I will leave you to it.

Remember, whatever you call it, you want education to be student-centered that allows the student to focus on (1) constructing a knowledge base, and (2) development of critical thinking principles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like you, too, PC, but you are merely regurgitating material that you did not understand, material that is based on skewed date and biased view. Rather than quarrel with you, I will leave you to it.

Remember, whatever you call it, you want education to be student-centered that allows the student to focus on (1) constructing a knowledge base, and (2) development of critical thinking principles.

Wrong again.

How about you have someone read and explain the post to you.

No, I do not believe that the student should create knowledge, or decide the curriculum.

I believe in teacher-centered, knowledge-based, fully-tested classrooms.

Facts over concepts.

 

[Samson]

But if you are a curious fellow, here is the raison d’être of the Progressive:
'In Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.' (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

This is the basis of progressivism, and the reason for John Dewey's instigation of kindergarten, and of modern progressivess 'Head Start,' and early education.

Progressive ed is left wing, fraudulent, and a detriment to our children and our society.


Now there will be a short quiz: fold your paper, number one to five, no erasing, no crossing out.

Are you ready?

Yeah, here we go:

1. How is it that Michael McGerr authored “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” yet you claim public school are influanced by progressive ideology in 2010?

2. How is it that you claim "America is Right of Center," yet practically everyone sends their kid to progressive public schools which are "left wing, fraudulent, and a detriment to our children and our society?

3. How is it that the Prince of Progressives, Obama, sends his kids to private school?

4. Would you rather wear leather or lace?

5. White wine or Whiskey?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like you, too, PC, but you are merely regurgitating material that you did not understand, material that is based on skewed date and biased view. Rather than quarrel with you, I will leave you to it.

Remember, whatever you call it, you want education to be student-centered that allows the student to focus on (1) constructing a knowledge base, and (2) development of critical thinking principles.

Wrong again.

How about you have someone read and explain the post to you.

No, I do not believe that the student should create knowledge, or decide the curriculum.

I believe in teacher-centered, knowledge-based, fully-tested classrooms.

Facts over concepts.

You still don't get it. Your continued posting on the board reveals the errors of your type of a priori based education. Your way has failed over and over. The facts are only as important as they inform the problem solving process. The process requires facilitators (teachers, if you wish), who direct the process. They are not the process. There is your error. Truly, you need to do some serious reading, studying, and thinking.

You can teach teach reading and writing. I will teach students. My students will fare far better in this world than yours.

 

[caddis]

What I support is simply:

1. Traditional techniques and curriculuae

traditionally, teachers teach in the manor and style that best fits their personality and comfort zone.

2. Careful and accurate measurement of results

What are you going to measure? Who chooses what should be measured? The teacher? The politician? The bureaucrat? I gaurantee, it will be someone who is the most removed from the classroom and the least accountable for his decisions

3. Accountability.

Your entire notion of testing/accountability is the same shit that NCLB forced on the schools. How has that done? From my POV it has led to schools ignoring what may be best for the student or the classroom and instead shifting their focus to "what will lead to higher test scores" We now have teachers teaching to the test.

To facilitate the above, I would allow freedom from most regulatlion and autonomy by schoools.

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning? Freedom and autonomy as you force a testing/accountability program on them? Maybe if schools had that freedom and autonomy in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion

Any and all school aid would be tied to the child, not given to the school, so that schools would have to encourage parents to choose that school.

I have no problem with that....Let the individual make the decision on which school they think is best not a test.

I may want my child to attend a school that offers an up to date vocational program....But wait, your testing idea doesn't evaluate such things therefore those programs will be the first scrapped when money is tight.

All results to be published, that means how a teachers' classes do, and how the school stacks up.

This is bullshit.

And to explain my chicken salad comment....I think some misunderstood it. If a hs teacher gets a kid with a 4th grade reading level and 5th grade math you can't expect that kid to score "proficient" (that's a 4 on a scale of 5) on his state mandated test. You are willing to blame the teacher for an institutional and societal failure

That is the free market model.

Are you going to let the school or the teacher decide which students they want to educate? Freedom cuts two ways