OT: Teacher Tenure Ruled Unconstitutional in CA

[SK in CV]

[quote=joec]
Taking a step back, in a school structure, is there really anyone who advocates for the student and children?

[/quote]

Teachers do. Every single day. Relentlessly.

[Leorocky]

The primary point in this discussion is this simple fact:

When a teacher needs to be let go for whatever reason its LIFO regardless of performance.

This is wrong. Every profession from teacher to CEO has poor performers. The crux of the lawsuit is that by protecting based on seniority, including the poor performers, you “damage” the kids. And not only do you impact one set of kids or one class, you expose decades of kids to the poor performers.

Is it unconstitutional? I have no idea. We do seem to subscribe to the concept of disparate impact in employment law, or at least our government does. This seems similar.

Some quick thoughts on some of the ancillary issues raised in this thread:

Are there “drama” Moms who try to usurp teachers? You betcha. The same type of person exists in the boardroom, the factory and every other type of workplace.

If it’s true that poor performing schools usually have the newer teachers that’s a clear example of the union ignoring the best interests of the kids. The “good” teachers should be assigned to the schools that need them the most.

Teachers don’t need job protection more so than any other profession. People who say things like “teachers will get fired just because…” have never worked in Management in the private sector. Sure it’d be nice to just be able to fire whoever you like, but reality is a complete 360. You have to get through HR and then the outside attorneys. Even layoffs these days are scrutinized for “disparate impact”, i.e. if you’re laying off 100 people and 75 are over 40 years old or female etc. you’re going to be told to go back to the drawing board.

[UCGal]

I think we can all agree that some teachers are excellent – even life changing for their students. And that some teachers are suck-tastic. Driving the love of learning out of a student and making them hate school. This has nothing to do with tenure.

That said – experienced teachers tend to be better at classroom management (keeping control of the class and keeping them focused on learning.) This is because if they haven’t mastered classroom management by a few years in – they will be driven batty and be driven to quit, themselves.

I’d live to see ALL districts run a program like the Map tests. I know PUSD uses it – and San Diego unified does not. This is a test administered at the beginning of the year, and at the end of the year. It measures where a kid’s level is. And by comparing the end of the year to the beginning of the year you can tell if improvement was achieved.

This is important for kids who are not in the middle of the bell – you want your bright kids to improve – but they may be starting out ahead of their grade level… teaching them topics they already know won’t lead to improving… just stagnation. Conversely remedial students may be starting out behind grade level. It’s unreasonable to expect them to achieve the same end of year levels as someone who’s at grade level at the beginning of the year.

These tests could be used to show if a teacher is effective… Improvement for all kids assigned to that teacher.

It requires the teacher to differentiate more than the current system does… but that helps the students.

In SDUSD – there have been some high profile cases of principals being punished for taking on their bad teachers. Dr. O at Lincoln is a recent example. I’ve heard through the grapevine that the principal at CPMA middle might be in a similar situation.

Currently there is no recourse for principals to fire bad teachers in San Diego Unified. I don’t think it’s a union thing – I think it’s a structure thing in the district. I’d like to see teachers have a voice in any discipline – but I’d also like to see principals able to effectively run their schools.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]I think we can all agree that some teachers are excellent – even life changing for their students. And that some teachers are suck-tastic. Driving the love of learning out of a student and making them hate school. This has nothing to do with tenure.

That said – experienced teachers tend to be better at classroom management (keeping control of the class and keeping them focused on learning.) This is because if they haven’t mastered classroom management by a few years in – they will be driven batty and be driven to quit, themselves.

I’d live to see ALL districts run a program like the Map tests. I know PUSD uses it – and San Diego unified does not. This is a test administered at the beginning of the year, and at the end of the year. It measures where a kid’s level is. And by comparing the end of the year to the beginning of the year you can tell if improvement was achieved.

This is important for kids who are not in the middle of the bell – you want your bright kids to improve – but they may be starting out ahead of their grade level… teaching them topics they already know won’t lead to improving… just stagnation. Conversely remedial students may be starting out behind grade level. It’s unreasonable to expect them to achieve the same end of year levels as someone who’s at grade level at the beginning of the year.

These tests could be used to show if a teacher is effective… Improvement for all kids assigned to that teacher.

It requires the teacher to differentiate more than the current system does… but that helps the students.

In SDUSD – there have been some high profile cases of principals being punished for taking on their bad teachers. Dr. O at Lincoln is a recent example. I’ve heard through the grapevine that the principal at CPMA middle might be in a similar situation.

Currently there is no recourse for principals to fire bad teachers in San Diego Unified. I don’t think it’s a union thing – I think it’s a structure thing in the district. I’d like to see teachers have a voice in any discipline – but I’d also like to see principals able to effectively run their schools.[/quote]

UCGal, I agree that we need to test for teacher accountability, but one of the greatest differences between a gifted vs non-gifted student is the ability to learn things quickly, and then to retain that information, and then to be able to apply that learning in a variety of ways and in different situations. Students in poor schools are less capable of this, generally, than students in the better-performing schools. This is because IQ is highly correlated with SES and both are highly correlated with how well a school performs. This is why “bad” schools tend to be concentrated in poor neighborhoods, and “good” schools tend to be concentrated in wealthier neighborhoods.

In addition to this, a class in a high-performing school will remain rather stable throughout the year, while a class in a low-performing school is much more likely to turn over. You can easily see up to half of a class leave by the end of the year in a lower-performing school because these families tend to be much more transient than families in high-SES areas.

Then, there is the issue of assistance at home. How do we account for the difference between the resources coming from home in the high-SES vs low-SES students and schools?

This is the problem with accountability. The issues are a lot more complex than most people think. It’s not a matter of teacher quality so much as it’s the demographics, SES, IQ, and parental support for the the students in the different groups.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=joec]
Taking a step back, in a school structure, is there really anyone who advocates for the student and children?

[/quote]

Teachers do. Every single day. Relentlessly.[/quote]

Exactly.

[CA renter]

[quote=Leorocky]The primary point in this discussion is this simple fact:

When a teacher needs to be let go for whatever reason its LIFO regardless of performance.

This is wrong. Every profession from teacher to CEO has poor performers. The crux of the lawsuit is that by protecting based on seniority, including the poor performers, you “damage” the kids. And not only do you impact one set of kids or one class, you expose decades of kids to the poor performers.

Is it unconstitutional? I have no idea. We do seem to subscribe to the concept of disparate impact in employment law, or at least our government does. This seems similar.

Some quick thoughts on some of the ancillary issues raised in this thread:

Are there “drama” Moms who try to usurp teachers? You betcha. The same type of person exists in the boardroom, the factory and every other type of workplace.

If it’s true that poor performing schools usually have the newer teachers that’s a clear example of the union ignoring the best interests of the kids. The “good” teachers should be assigned to the schools that need them the most.

Teachers don’t need job protection more so than any other profession. People who say things like “teachers will get fired just because…” have never worked in Management in the private sector. Sure it’d be nice to just be able to fire whoever you like, but reality is a complete 360. You have to get through HR and then the outside attorneys. Even layoffs these days are scrutinized for “disparate impact”, i.e. if you’re laying off 100 people and 75 are over 40 years old or female etc. you’re going to be told to go back to the drawing board.[/quote]

This is incorrect. You’re confusing layoffs with remedial action. The only time senior teachers are kept in favor of less senior teachers is when there are layoffs, usually due to budget cuts.

A teacher, irrespective of tenure status, can be terminated for cause; though it’s easier to fire a teacher before he/she reaches tenure status, and this is because they are being gauged to see if they are worthy of keeping when on probationary status. Tenure simply mandates due process when terminating a tenured teacher.

Additionally, I’ve worked in corporate management, and also in education. There is no comparison with regard to the need for additional protection for teachers. No private sector employee is scrutinized in the way that teachers are. Perhaps doctors or attorneys have the same type of liability, but they are insured against these events, and also have their own associations to protect them.

As scaredy said in another thread regarding not wanting to become a foster parent because of the liability, the same risks apply to teachers. They need protection more than most other professionals because they have highly emotional people who are constantly trying to tell them how to do their jobs, and these people (parents, administrators, politicians, etc.) are a fickle bunch who shift from one extreme to another over time…and expect teachers to do whatever they determine is the “in” thing at the moment…or else.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali]

I agree that how to teach is probably more important that what you teach. Seriously any college kid should be able to know the material that is learned in K-12 education. Can they effectively teach it is a different question?

The problem in my eyes is the public school district does a really bad job at utilizing resources. For example let’s talk about the all-star mensa teacher that does it for the love of the job. At a high school level maybe 150 kids can be exposed to that teacher per semester under the current system. Thousands of other kids are not exposed to that star performer and a couple thousand more are exposed to the bottom 10% performers.

So now we have this star teacher that is likely teaching kids that could learn the material from any average teacher getting the advantage of learning it from one of the best. How do you get that star teacher into more classrooms. Why aren’t school district adopting and using technology to make that happen. If you could accomplish that successfully, you could give the star teacher a big raise and replace a bunch of the ineffectively classroom teachers. If I could prove massive increases in student performance by going down this path it would be rejected unfortunately.

That’s the fundamental issue. Public education and especially the representing unions isn’t about how to do public education better it’s about how to protect teachers and administrator jobs.

Fortunately we are finally seeing some investment in a better way of teaching content, i.e. the Khan Adamedy’s of the world. It’s likely inevitable that eventually better teaching technologies will make it into the classroom and replace the average classroom teacher but it’s not going to happen peacefully. You’ll have lower costs aides managing the classroom, with content coming from star content providers. Those aides might get paid petty well and they’ll have to do less work (grading and lesson planing will be centralized). There will be challenges and obstacles to overcome. Some kids might do worse in a system like this but I think it’s eventually coming.[/quote]

The reason most good teachers are good is not because they have a better lecture. It’s because they know how to engage the students in the lessons and how to pique the students’ natural curiosity when it comes to learning. IMHO, this cannot be done through a screen (and my kids follow an online curriculum for much of their work…but I can acknowledge the faults, too).

There is nothing like an engaging debate or discussion in person. Nothing like a hands-on project. Electronic learning is good for certain things, but I highly doubt it will ever be able to replace a live teacher in a classroom.

Also, you’re underestimating how important classroom management is, especially if students are going to be working on their own. An aide will not be able to deal with all of the questions and situations that will arise in the classroom, especially if students are left to their own devices.

[paramount]

[quote=CA renter]

The reason most good teachers are good is not because they have a better lecture. It’s because they know how to engage the students in the lessons and how to pique the students’ natural curiosity when it comes to learning. IMHO, this cannot be done through a screen (and my kids follow an online curriculum for much of their work…but I can acknowledge the faults, too).

There is nothing like an engaging debate or discussion in person. Nothing like a hands-on project. Electronic learning is good for certain things, but I highly doubt it will ever be able to replace a live teacher in a classroom.

[/quote]

1st of all let’s acknowledge that learning isn’t limited to a traditional classroom – sorry I had to state the obvious.

I’ve been a “backyard astronomer/observer” for over 30 years; and I’m regularly invited to schools (public and private) to put on my astronomy show for students.

I think my astronomy/STEM outreach provides a dimension to learning that teachers normally can’t provide.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount]

1st of all let’s acknowledge that learning isn’t limited to a traditional classroom – sorry I had to state the obvious.

I’ve been a “backyard astronomer/observer” for over 30 years; and I’m regularly invited to schools (public and private) to put on my astronomy show for students.

I think my astronomy/STEM outreach provides a dimension to learning that teachers normally can’t provide.[/quote]

It’s awesome that you do that, paramount. And I don’t think that anyone here is saying that learning is limited to a traditional classroom. Far from it.

[UCGal]

[quote=CA renter][quote=UCGal]I think we can all agree that some teachers are excellent – even life changing for their students. And that some teachers are suck-tastic. Driving the love of learning out of a student and making them hate school. This has nothing to do with tenure.

That said – experienced teachers tend to be better at classroom management (keeping control of the class and keeping them focused on learning.) This is because if they haven’t mastered classroom management by a few years in – they will be driven batty and be driven to quit, themselves.

I’d live to see ALL districts run a program like the Map tests. I know PUSD uses it – and San Diego unified does not. This is a test administered at the beginning of the year, and at the end of the year. It measures where a kid’s level is. And by comparing the end of the year to the beginning of the year you can tell if improvement was achieved.

This is important for kids who are not in the middle of the bell – you want your bright kids to improve – but they may be starting out ahead of their grade level… teaching them topics they already know won’t lead to improving… just stagnation. Conversely remedial students may be starting out behind grade level. It’s unreasonable to expect them to achieve the same end of year levels as someone who’s at grade level at the beginning of the year.

These tests could be used to show if a teacher is effective… Improvement for all kids assigned to that teacher.

It requires the teacher to differentiate more than the current system does… but that helps the students.

In SDUSD – there have been some high profile cases of principals being punished for taking on their bad teachers. Dr. O at Lincoln is a recent example. I’ve heard through the grapevine that the principal at CPMA middle might be in a similar situation.

Currently there is no recourse for principals to fire bad teachers in San Diego Unified. I don’t think it’s a union thing – I think it’s a structure thing in the district. I’d like to see teachers have a voice in any discipline – but I’d also like to see principals able to effectively run their schools.[/quote]

UCGal, I agree that we need to test for teacher accountability, but one of the greatest differences between a gifted vs non-gifted student is the ability to learn things quickly, and then to retain that information, and then to be able to apply that learning in a variety of ways and in different situations. Students in poor schools are less capable of this, generally, than students in the better-performing schools. This is because IQ is highly correlated with SES and both are highly correlated with how well a school performs. This is why “bad” schools tend to be concentrated in poor neighborhoods, and “good” schools tend to be concentrated in wealthier neighborhoods.

In addition to this, a class in a high-performing school will remain rather stable throughout the year, while a class in a low-performing school is much more likely to turn over. You can easily see up to half of a class leave by the end of the year in a lower-performing school because these families tend to be much more transient than families in high-SES areas.

Then, there is the issue of assistance at home. How do we account for the difference between the resources coming from home in the high-SES vs low-SES students and schools?

This is the problem with accountability. The issues are a lot more complex than most people think. It’s not a matter of teacher quality so much as it’s the demographics, SES, IQ, and parental support for the the students in the different groups.[/quote]

I agree that students have different abilities to learn.

But with no metrics in place – teachers are not judged on whether the students learn anything. If there is a positive delta in what the student knows at the end of the year, vs what they knew at the beginning of the year – REGARDLESS of where they started – then the student made progress.

I have a friend with a child with significant learning disabilities. My friend has had to push hard to make sure that appropriate material is given to her son… Some of the teachers would just park him in a corner. My own experience is that a less than stellar teacher can stagnate the learning of a gifted student. Rather than giving more depth/breadth, or alternate material, to a student that has already mastered the grade level material – he was parked in the corner. My son ended up hating school because it was boring and unchallenging. (I changed schools after this. He totally changed his outlook after I got him out of that environment.)

If a program is developed where students are pushed to learn from where they are – to improve – then all students are learning. Right now the system is set to teach to the medium… and fails the kids at either end of the spectrum.

Obviously there could be factors put in for kids with 504s and/or IEPs so that the teacher is given a pass if the improvement is less for the kids with learning disabilities. But improvement and learning should absolutely be the end goal for every student. Not parking in a corner.

[EconProf]

Exactly right, UCGal
Teachers should be evaluated on how much progress they make with their students each calendar year, not simply the average of their class at the end of the year. Call it value added, and then pay accordingly.
Teachers tend to want the easy job of working with well-to-do suburban kids with all the advantages that implies. It is easier and more fun. Naturally the higher seniority teachers gravitate to those schools, and the union rules enable this practice.
In the meantime, the truely disadvantaged inner city and minority schools are hurt by the status quo. It is interesting how unions, and the liberals that support their cause end up hurting the poor and helping the well-off.
I suggest that a teacher that inspires and helps a class of losers in a weak school go from awful to merely average in an academic year should be paid accordingly. Say, twice what an average teacher makes today. And an underperforming teacher in a wealthy school should have their next year’s pay reduced. This might encourage them to leave teaching, an added bonus. Of course, unions would oppose such an incentive-based system.

[EconProf]

Today’s copy of USA Today has some interesting data points about the status quo with existing tenure and unions in CA:
1. An average of 2.2 teachers a year are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in a state where 275,000 teachers work.
2. A CA teacher has a better chance of being struck by lightning than being fired for incompetence.
3. A teacher in CA can gain what amounts to lifetime job protection in less than two years–the deadline for deciding whether to give tenure to new, probationary teachers. When layoffs occur, the newest teachers are the first to go, even if they are top performers. Seniority rules.
This is the status quo that union defenders have to answer for. Now that parents, employers, and the broader public is demanding change, I think that is a good thing. And I really don’t mind if rich people are among those advocating change. Let’s look at the merits of the arguments, not who is pushing for the needed reforms.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Also, you’re underestimating how important classroom management is, especially if students are going to be working on their own. An aide will not be able to deal with all of the questions and situations that will arise in the classroom, especially if students are left to their own devices.[/quote]

But if kids are working on their own through content at their own pace then you don’t need to put 30 kids in a room with 1 aide. You could take 100 of the kids that this type of teaching works really well for and put then in a room without the disruptive kids. You could put disruptive kids in isolation or in smaller groups. You’re not forced to commit to this 30 people in a room dynamic.

The biggest problem I have with the education system is there has been absolutely 0 improvement in efficiency or effectiveness with the technological advancements we’ve made over the years. In my opinion I think there would have been some improvements if the School Districts weren’t so resistant to change. A private company that resistant to change would have failed by now, but because it’s public and supported by tax dollars they don’t have to change. That is where the biggest problem lies. Tenure is just one of the numerous barriers that protect the school district from having to change.

Say something that’s been fairly successful like the Preuss school. Naysayers want to dismiss those results because they don’t have to deal with the challenges that exist in poorer neighborhood schools. But maybe that’s exactly what the public schools should be doing. Take the smart kids in the poor schools and put them together with good teachers and accelerate their learning process rather than just teaching to the middle with disruptive kids causing problems for everybody. Segregate the students not by race, color or background but by IQ or desire to learn.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
Also, you’re underestimating how important classroom management is, especially if students are going to be working on their own. An aide will not be able to deal with all of the questions and situations that will arise in the classroom, especially if students are left to their own devices.[/quote]

But if kids are working on their own through content at their own pace then you don’t need to put 30 kids in a room with 1 aide. You could take 100 of the kids that this type of teaching works really well for and put then in a room without the disruptive kids. You could put disruptive kids in isolation or in smaller groups. You’re not forced to commit to this 30 people in a room dynamic.

The biggest problem I have with the education system is there has been absolutely 0 improvement in efficiency or effectiveness with the technological advancements we’ve made over the years. In my opinion I think there would have been some improvements if the School Districts weren’t so resistant to change. A private company that resistant to change would have failed by now, but because it’s public and supported by tax dollars they don’t have to change. That is where the biggest problem lies. Tenure is just one of the numerous barriers that protect the school district from having to change.

Say something that’s been fairly successful like the Preuss school. Naysayers want to dismiss those results because they don’t have to deal with the challenges that exist in poorer neighborhood schools. But maybe that’s exactly what the public schools should be doing. Take the smart kids in the poor schools and put them together with good teachers and accelerate their learning process rather than just teaching to the middle with disruptive kids causing problems for everybody. Segregate the students not by race, color or background but by IQ or desire to learn.[/quote]

We’ve discussed the Preuss example (and other related issues) here:

[quote=CA renter]As to the rest of your post, you’re still working from the assumption that it’s the **teachers** who are failing these students, when those who are familiar with education will tell you that it’s the **students** and **parents** who are failing themselves. Sticking a private school where a public school once was — and educating the same population there — will not likely yield better results. As a matter of fact, because of a private school’s inability to meet the needs of special ed and higher-needs students, they would likely perform worse than the public school that was replaced.

Regarding Preuss, it’s the third requirement that explains why they do well. The first two simply mean that they accept the **highest performing students with the most dedicated parents** from low-income families where the parents don’t have college degrees. The students need a teacher’s recommendation from their previous school, and, “student applicants must demonstrate high motivation and potential to attend an academically competitive university or college,” which most likely means they have a better-than-average I.Q.

You cannot compare Preuss with a typical public school in a low-income neighborhood. They are not even close. Preuss enjoys the benefits of having VERY wealthy, private donors, in addition to the typical funds given to public or charter schools. They also have use of the UCSD campus and many of the university’s ammenities (there’s a cost component there), and UCSD students who provide FREE tutoring to these students — we use tutors for our kids, and I can assure you, it is EXTREMELY expensive. They have top-of-the-line classrooms, technology, sports facilities/equipment, and materials. Do you have any idea what all of that costs? I can assure you, their program costs more than twice what the typical public school costs.

As I’ve mentioned before, you have to consider ALL sources of income when comparing what schools spend on students. With traditional public schools, most of those income sources and costs are public information; there is very little private money, compared to what private (or special charter) schools get. Read the bottom of the piece linked here, to see how much things cost, and how they are trying to get PRIVATE funding to provide these things. It’s nice when you’re a high-profile component of a very wealthy community, with nice, wealthy people who want to “do good” in their communities. How many rich people are willing to consistently donate millions of dollars to support a single school in the gang-infested parts of the inner city?

Here is a small sampling of what Preuss offers (regular public schools can’t even begin to offer all of this, or the state would have been broke decades ago):

The Tutoring Program
To give its students extra academic help with its challenging curriculum, the Preuss School also conducts a tutoring program in partnership with the University. The program employs two different groups of tutors. One is enrolled in a class through UCSD’s Teacher Education Program; the class awards credit for a certain number of hours of tutoring per month. The other is made up of UCSD student volunteers from Thurgood Marshall College. Through these avenues, the Preuss School typically has 150-200 tutors available to help assist students at any given time.
Counseling Program
The Preuss School’s counseling staff plays a central role in the school, seeing to it that those students who are lagging behind get academic help as soon as possible and providing guidance in the college selection and application process. Students living in poverty often confront many difficult issues that call for support beyond regular school counseling, however. To help them, UCSD professor Peter Gourevitch established an endowed fund in memory of his late wife, Lisa Hirschman, a teacher and psychologist. The Hirschman Fund enables two psychotherapists and an intern to work with Preuss School students, providing them with the psychosocial services they need to overcome the problems they face.

Mutual Benefits
The benefits of the relationship between the school and UCSD are extensive and reciprocal. For example, University students volunteer at the Preuss School as tutors and mentors, and many have found the experience so rewarding that they are now considering careers in teaching. Preuss School students do internships on campus with UCSD faculty to gain experience in fields that interest them and also interact with professors when they are researching senior papers. At the same time, UCSD mathematics faculty have been turning to the school to help determine how students best learn the subject, and social sciences faculty have been examining the academic performance of Preuss School students compared with that of peers who were not selected by the lottery. Preuss School teachers have received training at the University, and students in UCSD’s teacher education program observe classes at the school. UCSD undergraduates serve as tutors for students and interns for teachers. Engineering faculty help with the school’s robotics teams.

Shared Resources
Access to such outstanding University resources as its library, athletic fields and San Diego Supercomputer Center translates into unprecedented opportunities for students and teachers. As one example, in 2003, the school dedicated a visualization center that will provide a virtual reality gateway to the world, eventually enabling students to interact in real time with images stored thousands of miles away, such as a fly-over of the surface of Mars and navigating deep inside a human cell. The center, part of the National Science Foundation’s OptiPuter project, has brought together the San Diego Supercomputer Center, the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (a partnership between UCSD and UCI) and the Visualization Center at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Connected to a high-performance network, it will permit students to work collaboratively with University faculty and graduate students on research projects.

http://www.sarahlifton.com/pdf/case_statements/Preuss_School_case.pdf
—————————–

From that same link, some possible evidence that “old, tenured teachers” are NOT the problem:

Master Teachers/Teacher Supplements
While the teachers at the Preuss School are dedicated, enthusiastic and innovative, a high percentage are comparatively new to the field. The school’s limited funds for personnel have hampered its ability to attract more experienced teachers, who command higher salaries. As a consequence, the younger teachers on the faculty, who could benefit from mentoring by the most experienced, highest-caliber teachers, lack access to this important resource for career development.

To address this need, one of the Preuss School’s highest priorities is to generate private support for teacher salary supplements and/or hiring bonuses in order to add more veteran teachers to the faculty. Specifically, the school is seeking funds to hire teacher leaders in all the core subject areas, including a literacy chair, who will be responsible for mentoring other teachers in the area of literacy.
In addition, the school is seeking contributions to implement a formal resident scholar program, providing release time for UCSD professors to work with the Preuss School faculty in their subject areas to ensure that curriculum and content are state of the art and preparing students properly for college.
[/quote]

http://piggington.com/comment/reply/15118/189839?quote=1#comment-form

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali]
But if kids are working on their own through content at their own pace then you don’t need to put 30 kids in a room with 1 aide. You could take 100 of the kids that this type of teaching works really well for and put then in a room without the disruptive kids. You could put disruptive kids in isolation or in smaller groups. You’re not forced to commit to this 30 people in a room dynamic.

The biggest problem I have with the education system is there has been absolutely 0 improvement in efficiency or effectiveness with the technological advancements we’ve made over the years. In my opinion I think there would have been some improvements if the School Districts weren’t so resistant to change. A private company that resistant to change would have failed by now, but because it’s public and supported by tax dollars they don’t have to change. That is where the biggest problem lies. Tenure is just one of the numerous barriers that protect the school district from having to change.

Say something that’s been fairly successful like the Preuss school. Naysayers want to dismiss those results because they don’t have to deal with the challenges that exist in poorer neighborhood schools. But maybe that’s exactly what the public schools should be doing. Take the smart kids in the poor schools and put them together with good teachers and accelerate their learning process rather than just teaching to the middle with disruptive kids causing problems for everybody. Segregate the students not by race, color or background but by IQ or desire to learn.[/quote]

Now for the other parts of your post, I have a personal example with my own three kids. We use an excellent online curriculum for the basics, and I still have to monitor them, explain things they still have difficulty understanding, and keep track of all of their work (even though much of it is online, we still need to make sure they are progressing at a decent rate). Though my kids are pretty well motivated, and we block out time for them every day (no phone, playdates, or other distractions during this time), it can still be a lot of work to keep them all on task throughout the day.

I would also argue that you are totally wrong about no improvements in efficiency or effectiveness with technology over the years. Most classrooms use technology to supplement lessons, and some use technology almost exclusively (usually charters, magnets, etc.).

Schools are constantly changing, but all too often, that change results in little to no improvement simply because you can’t change what’s coming into the schools. The student body is the #1 factor in how well or poorly a school will perform. You could pretty much put a group of highly gifted kids in a closet with a bunch of books, and they would come out well educated. Not so much for students with average or low IQs and no support at home.

[Author]

Posts