COOPER: Governor Richardson, you have had to implement No Child Left Behind in your state. Would you scrap it? Revise it?
RICHARDSON: I would scrap it. It doesn’t work.
(APPLAUSE)
It is the law. It is not just an unfunded mandate, but the one- size-fits-all doesn’t work.
It doesn’t emphasize teacher training. It doesn’t emphasize the disabled kids.
(APPLAUSE)
It doesn’t — English learning kids don’t get help.
The worst thing it does is it takes districts and schools that are not doing well, takes their funds away, penalizes them. If a school is not doing well, we help that school.
(APPLAUSE)
The last thing we need to do, relating to teachers, is the key to a good education in this country is a strong teacher. I would have a minimum wage for all our teachers, $40,000 per year.
(APPLAUSE)
And I would emphasize science and math.(APPLAUSE)
RICHARDSON: And I would also bring, to make sure our kids that are not scoring well in science and math, 29th in the world, to unlock those minds in science and math, I would have a major federal program of art in the schools…
(APPLAUSE)
… music, dancing, sculpture, and the arts.
so that crappy teachers may be fired
<
p>
[THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE]
1. Explain incisively how this system of threat-backed educational “assessment” is crippling American education.
<
p>
2. Enjoy applause.
<
p>
3. Explain how a system of threat-backed educational “assessment” will resuscitate American education.
<
p>
4. Repeat as needed.
<
p>
That’ll work grrrreat.
It fosters the opposite of quality. It is good for seniority, though.
<
p>
It is interesting how, among liberals (and in this policy area I am decidedly not one) teachers simply cannot be assessed. Standardized tests, although they provide purportedly objective numbers, are too crude, and aren’t fair, etc. Performance reviews don’t work either, since without objective numbers and criteria, the union treats the job as if it is a property right, especially if the teacher has seniority. It is a perfect circle of job protection.
<
p>
So the guy who hasn’t made a new lesson plan since 1957, and whose classes consist of “read the chapter and answer the questions while I read the paper” stays on, year after year.
<
p>
Breaking the tenure system would be a pretty good start to reform. I’m not sure why you think this is “threat-based”; 99.997% of the working population of the USA finds a way to cope with the unremarkable fact that if you don’t do your job, or piss off the boss, you will be sacked, and they somehow still sleep at night.
<
p>
<
p>
While we’re at it, we could give parents, who know if a school is good or not, as many options as possible. Charters and more charters. Magnet schools. Vouchers, for use at parochial (gasp!) schools. I’ll settle, for now, for breaking the tenure system.
and I know you’re encapsulating lots of different negative qualities of teachers in the “read the paper” line, but I never had a teacher read the newspaper in class unless it was part of an exercise in social studies or some such.
<
p>
Never. Not once.
<
p>
It’s an effective image of laziness, and I certainly did have one teacher in particular who mailed it in; she was within a few years of retirement, tired of all us kids, and pre-defined who was worthy of her attention and help [the “good kids”] and who wasn’t [the 12 year old boys who couldn’t possibly contain their energy for a full 50 minutes, like me].
<
p>
The question I wonder is: just what percentage of teachers are clearly “mailing it in”? Is there a way to measure the positive value of tenure, such as insulating teachers from school board and local political fights [evolution comes to mind]. I’m certainly no expert on the subject, although I have spent more time learning in the classroom than almost everyone I know, and I’ve attended public, private, parochial, and international schools.
<
p>
I’ve seen folks take pot shots at “tenure” for a long time, but I’ve never seen either the pro- or the anti- proponents make a detailed, strong case. I even tried to find an anti- case by reading The Worm in the Apple, and I found it generally unconvincing at best, and downright misrepresenting data in other parts.
<
p>
So… maybe this warrants it’s own thread, and it ain’t one I’m going to start. Perhaps a knowledgeable pro- or anti- will…
But if the system cannot handle the extreme example, even if only a tiny minority of teachers, then how can it handle the merely incompetent?
<
p>
You touch on the one thing that has chapped me for along time on this: “nearing retirement.” My worst teachers were also “nearing retirement.” Based on my own anecdotal experience, the quality of teachers followed something like a bell curve with a looooong tail: a rough first few years while they found their footing, then they hit their stride, and then, eventually, the stride slackens considerably, and continually. It always frosted me that the those “nearing retirement” teachers, who seemed to be least likely to have revised a lesson plan in the last ten years, got paid the most, and by a wide margin.
<
p>
What kind of incentive is that, other than to just stick around and mark time?
<
p>
The seniority focus of the unions might be well adapted to a Ford assembly line, but sure seemed to me to pay lousy dividends in the schools.
a Poisson distrubution?
<
p>
I’m personally split on tenure, as it is now. It’s bad for new teachers who are good but challenge administration or just don’t get along with them, and it’s bad in allowing those who make it past the mark to slack off if they don’t want to. But it’s also great in ensuring the activism of good teachers against mediocre administration, once they have it. I think a middle ground could be found, where you don’t have 3+ years of being able to be fired without cause, and then decades of being invincible to even with a strong cause. It’s definitely got problems, but simple abolishment would also have serious problems.
Statistics was a loong time ago, so I don’t know the name of the distribution I am thinking about.
<
p>
As for tenure, I would take half a loaf.
<
p>
I am mildly sympathetic to protecting teachers from “political” interference, but, in practice, this sort of thing always seems to protect the hyperpolitical teachers who go way to far in the sex education department, or to ideologues like that anti-Isreali nut at North Andover, etc.
<
p>
I am somewhat more sympathetic to protecting them against stupid administrators, many of whom seem to surrender their common sense upon assuming their post. Why is that? I don’t know, but it sure seems to be the case: witness out-of-school suspensions for showing up to school with a butter knife, prosecutions of 5 year olds for sexual harassment, and similar.
<
p>
It is also worth noting that without the unions, teachers would be on food stamps. But it is also worth noting that when it comes to improving the most difficult schools, the unions are an impediment, not a help. I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising, as the union doesn’t exist to improve education, but to help teachers earn more and do less.
<
p>
Anyway, this is more interesting to think about than whether Ernie Boch III is a meanie or a poopyhead.
at least we seem to have a lot of common ground on this one đŸ™‚
What would you do with a small rural school district that loses enrollment gradually over a ten year period, and has to cut some staff? Cut them last-in, first-out; or allow the principal some discretion?
<
p>
There are some small districts that haven’t hired any new primary teachers for ten years, where some other teachers who’ve been on the staff 20 years are subject to layoff. Should the teachers with the longest tenure be the ones protected by the union in this case?
<
p>
I was going to label this a less extreme example, guess it is a different kind of extreme example. I know that discretion can be abused, but suspect more flexible rules could help some school systems.
<
p>
At any rate, bravo for Bill Richardson. The only governor in the Democratic pack, which makes Richardson one of the more electable candidates in the pack, without even getting into issues and personal character.
Yay for Bill Richardson for laying out the issues so clearly.
<
p>
One place where I disagree with his otherwise brilliant summary of the issues: math and science are critical, but language skills and history are important, too.
<
p>
English (or Language Arts): I have worked with college graduates who don’t know how to write a business letter, don’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s,” and who repeatedly use words that don’t make sense. The ability to express oneself clearly and effectively in writing and speaking comes only with practice and guidance provided in a school setting. Foreign language study is also important in helping a student to make better sense of the ways his/her native language functions.
<
p>
History and Literature: The stories and events passed down in human culture are an essential part of communicating, finding common ground, learning from mistakes, understanding values and cultural and spiritual beliefs. I’m pretty sure that the term “Humanities” was not chosen at random to describe the areas of study or thought that provide a foundation for each culture.
<
p>
So three cheers (or perhaps a mug of butterbeer and a Quidditch cup) for Bill Richardson, but let’s not focus on science and math in a way that undermines the other good stuff. In keeping with your insightful poll, I don’t believe this quote from the more recent Harry Potter novel will spoil anything, taken out of context as it is here:
<
p>
Was earlier noticing a surprise lack of Potter-y on this site. Anyone want to run a book club thread?
I’m up to my eyeballs in reading books for school right now. Not much time to post about what I’m reading. Try again in a few months though.
The Invisibility Cloak is supposed to be, as a Deathly Hallow, a super-duper invisibility cloak, right? We hear about how all the others are crummy by comparison.
<
p>
So what was Barty Crouch, Jr. wearing at the Quidditch World Cup?
<
p>
<
p>
I come down liking the ending, after a second reading.
<
p>
The Epilogue was simulatanously superfluous and insufficient. If she was going to stick it in there, why not give a little detail about all of the other characters as well? If you won’t so that, why include it at all?
I finished the book on Sunday and my son finished on Saturday. As an English teacher, I genuflect in recognition of all that Rowling has done for young (and older) readers. As an adult, I’ve had as much fun as any 12-year-old. What a wonderful and rewarding experience.
We could add, that in the whole series, the most evil people other than Voldemort and his death eaters were politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists.
<
p>
The Ministry of Magic could use some libertarians.
best response of any candidate in any debate so far.
Bill Richardson is the most experienced and qualified to be President of the United States…the other candidates have their pluses in specific areas, but Richardson has the whole resume…on a wide range of issues.
Being pragmatic here, I’ll admit Richardson has an impressive resume, but experience isn’t everything, the guy makes John Kerry seem like a lively speaker. The guy only speaks in outline form
<
p>
“Here is what I would do: Firstly I would…Secondly…Lastly.” I bet his elementary school teachers complimented his “use of transition words” on writing assignments, and that all of his later teachers found him to be kind of irritating.
<
p>
Don’t believe me? Read the transcript.
He has the resume. He has an impressive track record. I think he is the most credible Democratic voice in foreign policy, and if he says we can walk out of Iraq now and obtain a diplomatic solution that meets our needs, I believe him.
<
p>
Sadly, he also needs to be able to energize enough folks to win an election. I would love to see that happen, because I see him with the potential to be the best president out of the current crop. But you can’t govern if you can’t lead and inspire, and he hasn’t struck that chord with the voters. Yet.
<
p>
I know it’s only July, 2007, but right now Bill is looking more like a Vice Presidential candidate. Of course, these 10 candidate debates aren’t helping, but he hasn’t exactly hit home runs on the Sunday talk shows either. The pundits on WBUR gave him a boost this week when they talked about the top 4 candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson), so maybe there is some movement brewing.
Having a Vice president who is stronger and more experienced than the President is not such a good idea…look at how it’s working now!
<
p>
I like Hillary. I like Barack. I like Edwards. But none has the gravitas that Richardson can bring to the top of the ticket.
<
p>
Biden and Dodd have experience, too…morew than hillary, Barack and John…but they are not catching fire with the Congressional job ratings lower than the President’s…
<
p>
I like a Richardson/ Clinton or Richardson/Edwards ticket…even a Richardson/Obama ticket…although I think Barack needs more seasoning…perhapa VP is perfect spot for him.