If poor students are always the result of poor teachers;

[donco6]

Are rotten kids the result of rotten parents?

We see people making statements like: "Well, if we work hard in my factory, our widgets come out fine - what's the matter with you teachers? If you were working hard, the students would be performing well." Which has a particular logic to it, I suppose. As long as you can consider children to be interchangeable sheets of sheet metal or engine blocks or whatever.

So, along those lines, if it's OK to blame just the teachers for how their students turn out - isn't it OK to blame parents when their kids turn out to be axe murderers?

It only seems logical. Should we begin to shun them,then? Exile them to foreign lands? Hold them up as bad examples? Sterilize them? We certainly cannot just tolerate axe murderers, right? Something MUST be DONE!

[sui generis]

1. this reminds me of a recent ski trip

We were riding up early morning in the gondola with a snowboard instructor who said his arch nemesisisisis was a Cherman Ski Instructor whose teaching style was something like "vot is de matta vith you! Ski betta! I can do it, vie can't you?"

I can of course make fun of ze eefil cherman accent because I'm a kraut myself. :P

[azurnoir]

2. a better question would the reverse

are the parents always to blame when students fail? I have seen that sentiment here too and in fact was subjected to it myself when I made a post about my experience with the elementary school system in my area and suggested that "special ed" is being used to cover up insufficient academic methods and to triage students to meet the NCLB standards

[okieinpain]

9. actually I think poor teachers are the result of poor students.

you get burned out after a while.

[azurnoir]

14. They go hand in had to a degree

but not always I have 4 kids who ages range from 32 to 13 and have been dealing with the public school system since 1983 and have seen it all teachers that range from excellent despite teaching in awful conditions all the way to teachers that were quite openly racist and sought to actively limit the educational experience of minority students and everything in between including the burnout you describe

[Taitertots]

3. For the most part rotten children are poorly raised

Poor students are likewise improperly raised. A teacher sees a student through 1/10,000th of their childhood. A parent needs to be there the other 9,999/10,000 of the time.


(Not including legitimate mental/medical problems)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. If a student gets to the 11th grade and can't read or do math, it's the parents' fault.

If an 11th grade math teacher only has 7% of his/her students proficient at math, it's the math teacher's fault.

[twiceshy]

7. It's a combination of all the above and then some........

1) Not poor (in the sense of bad) parent(s), but stressed, overwhelmed, undereducated, socio-economically deprived parents.

2) Kids who have absorbed an anti-intellectual, pop-culture mentality.

3) Teachers who may have sailed through the education curriculum but don't have strong subject matter skills.

4) Bad choice of curriculum (e.g. "see and say" versus phonics for reading). Blame the administration and central planners for this.

5) Lack of obvious opportunities in the real world - look at how our corporations hire H1B Visa holders for programming jobs, engineering, science - why bother?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Is it?

That 11th Grade teacher has two semesters to bring his or her kids up to grade level. That assumes they were at grade level when they entered 11th grade. An 11th grade math teacher can not teach 11 years of math. Shouldn't we then fire all teachers 1-10 also.

If the child is not reading at level, then that child will not be able to read the words in the Math book and keep up. So we should then fire all English teachers.

If the kids can not speak English, then I guess we should fire the head of Homeland Security and the entire Emigration and Naturalization service.

If the child's parents are poor fire them so they can stay home and help their children. Who the hell needs to eat.

The solution to Education is not a simple problem solved by coming up with the right standardized tests, teaching the test, and firing the teacher if the students don't learn.

[gkhouston]

13. If the pass rate is only 7%, I'd argue that a hell of a lot of those kids weren't

doing math at grade level long before 11th grade. Focusing all the blame on the 11th grade teacher is ridiculous.

[azurnoir]

17. agreed

:thumbsup:

[donco6]

25. I can assure you, Central Falls' students are not arriving at HS knowing math.

So, whose fault is it then? All the teachers along the way?

[roguevalley]

33. my district fights retentions, that is, they try and not allow you to use

that tool to help a kid. they promote them anyway. I retained my own nephew and he's awesome now at 31.

[seleff]

43. which math teacher,?

Was it the first grade, third grade, fifth grade, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, or eleventh grade teacher? I taught chemistry to plenty of eleventh grade students who were reading on a first to third grade level. I mean a class of 26 students with only 20% reading at or above the eighth grade level. I taught every one to the best of my ability and somehow about 70% passed the state science graduation test on their first try. But 30% didn't. Was it my fault? Who knows. It was the responsibility of my district and administrators to certify that I was performing competently in the classroom.

How about when I taught AP chemistry. The College board publishes that expected performance on the AP exam correlates with Math and Verbal SAT score in a 2:1 ratio. Students who score 550 or higher on these have a 50% probability of scoring 3 or higher. Most of my students were scoring 400 on the Math SAT and rated in the lowest tenth on national standardized math exams. Guess what, most also scored 1 or 2 on the AP exam despite my greatest efforts. The one student who was banking a 700 on the math SAT made a 4 in chemistry. I can't help but think that he would have made a 5 (highest) if he was in a suburban class with others having his math skills and work ethic. Was I the best teacher? Simply no. I did my best, but teaching in a lifelong learning process. I learn new approaches every day and try to weed out my less effective strategies and replace them with more successful ones. In the school I taught in, every teacher tried to do the same. Of course some were more skilled than others, and some more successful. Total slackers were soon gone. That's the administrator's job. But good administrators also knew when to bring in support and help for struggling teachers. Nevertheless, I had many struggles and challenges, and often felt that no matter what I did, students would not perform. In that environment it was hard to feel successful. Then when I taught summer honor's students I was told that I was the best teacher they ever had. Go figure

In the end, I think the district has to bring in the best practices, teachers and resources they can. Poor student performance might or might not necessarily correlate with poor teaching. It is up to professionals to make valid judgement. Maybe totally restaffing a school (allowing staff to reapply) may be something to try. However, what teachers will want to go back into that fire unless they have little other choice? Regardless, I have little faith that Teach for America kids are the best option.

[dmallind]

5. Plenty of blame to go around

Personally I blame the kids most of all. If you are bright enough you will learn despite your teachers. If you are as dumb as a box of rocks then the greatest educator on earth can't do much to change that. If you don't care, even more so.

Parents are to blame sure. If you don't care it's far more likely your kid won't either. If you don't seek out and demand better teachers you deserve bad ones.

But I am no carte blanche apologist for educators either. Bad ones certainly exist, and can certainly push a kid who has the potential of caring and being bright the other way. It should be possible to measure teavhing effectiveness by using relative metrics rather than absolute ones. Does your class's performance improve from start to end of school year more than the same class in other subjects (for HS and subject-specific teachers) or did they improve by a smaller or greater percentage based on initial performance when compared to other classes in same school district or state? After all who is a better teacher - somebody who inherits a class of 8th graders who average reading at a 6.3 grade level and leaves them reading at a 7.9 grade level on average (still underperforming, but much improved) or a teacher who inherits a class of 8th graders reading at an average 7.8 grade level and leaves them reading at 8.1 on average (at grade level, but with less improvement)?

It's OK to blame teachers for not improving their students' academic capabilities. What else are they there for?

[donco6]

26. We use a growth model here in Colorado

In my district, which is low performing on about any metric you can find, we far exceed the growth rates of any district in the Metro area. We think that means we're doing our job; but the kids aren't hitting the standard. What do we do?

[dmallind]

34. Well need info obviously but here's a starting point

Growth models need to be set up properly. For example if you measure % improvement to grade level and you start with a class testing at 25% and you get them up to 50% it's possible to say you drove a 100% improvement in grade level tests, and that you are therefore a better teacher than somebody who took a class at 60% and got them to 90%, which is only a 50% improvement from starting point. That teacher of course could say that not only did they get kids much closer to grade level but they ALSO moved them up 30 percentage points whereas you only moved your kids 25 percentage points. What is really needed is a smarter growth model that takes into account improvement as a ratio to postential or desired improvement.

So let's say you have that and you really ARE doing a good job because you take kids at 25% of grade level and get them to 50% whereas other schools only see improvments from 60% to 65% or from 25% to 35% just as examples. So we get the situation you describe, right? You improve your kids more than anybody else when measured properly and taking into account potential and starting point, but you still leave the kids woefully underperfomring at the end of the year - only half as good as they should be.

So what do you do? It's not in your power unless CO works differently from what I've seen but what really NEEDS to be done is pretty simple actually. Keep the kids with you for another year! That will tell whether your district can actually turn those kids from 50% to close to 100% or not. If so, it's better to graduate acceptable 19 year olds at the end of the school year (however far from your grade that is) than pass on unacceptable kids at the appropriate age. If you really are better teachers as a school or district, and the admins are willing to keep kids with you so they succeed under your tutelage, isn't that better for everyone in the end?

[donco6]

35. Well, except for the kids who are shaving in 6th grade.

And yes, that's pretty much how it works here, except it's not based on a class of kids, but individual students.

The option we've chosen is to lengthen the school day (with appropriate pay) and determine which kids need double classes on specific subjects.

We also map out each kids' career based on his trajectory of growth and go over that with each parent. It's eye-opening for them to see that Johnny has to grow 2X as much in the following year to hit proficiency and maybe his 50% attendance rate is impacting that?

[dmallind]

40. Good - sounds like CO is doing some good stuff

Nothing is perfect of course. How DO you keep generating improvements in a 6'5 245lb 14 year old who is convinced he has an NFL career to plan for and needs only to pass (and "athlete's pass" at that)? Bugger all clue personally - although if admins had the moxie to stand up to alums and communities I could start by suggesting "no C no play". How do you keep a 175 IQ 12year old interested enough in a class that contains a 85 IQ 14 year old too? That needs one on one goal setting and mentoring which needs time and staffing. Guess what gets cut in tax squeezes? You know better than I do but I can guess. There will always be failures in any system, but one that measures growth on an adequeate basis and then makes decision on that basis will do better than one that does not, and if those measures show teacher X is incapable of doing what teachers A through W can do your path should be something like this:

1) Find out what they are doing differently
2) Train them on what teachers A-W are doing to get better results in those areas
3) Monitor to see if they get closer
4) Get rid of them if not.

[donco6]

41. That's close to the Sanders TN model.

I met with him last year to go over his strategies and personal philosphy. He's been maligned quite a bit - really nice guy who cared about teachers and students.

One problem is that very, very few states have a growth model. Even fewer want to move to tracking students by classroom. It's all very political.

[nonconformist]

6. I'm pretty sure people already blame the parents when a kid does something bad

Just take a look at any thread about a kid doing something wrong... there will be a lot of "where were the parents?" and "what kind of parents does this kid have?" comments.

That said, parents are responsible to a certain degree for how their kids turn out. Just like teachers are responsible, to a degree, for the quality of education that child receives.

But really, and any parent or teacher can attest to this, there comes a time when kids are just going to do what they're going to do. They're like people that way.

[Fresh_Start]

8. +1 nt

nt

[donco6]

27. That's really my point.

Especially when it comes to dropout rates. At 17, what are you going to do? It's not illegal. The kid is probably bigger than the parent, so physical force is not an option. And with budget cuts, we end up cutting every program that might actually be fun because we have to offer the courses that are required for the graduation requirements.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. You can have children's potential stymied due to poor school administration.

If funds aren't provided for books and materials. If teacher's aren't paid a living wage. If administrators are more concerned with rules they make up rather than the children progressing in their programs. You can have the best teachers prevented from doing what they love best by administrators.

[MissMarple]

18. A good administrator can help teachers become much more effective.

Focusing the teachers as a team on academic achievement and on each individual student's growth is important. Adequate nutrition and a sensible discipline policy are necessary, as well. Some parents will never cross the thresh hold of a school, others do so willingly, and others can be encouraged. Another key ingredient is developing resiliency is children. And again, some will never be resilient, others are naturally so, and still others can become stronger with the right guidance. Nature, nurture, and doing the best with what you have. The key is a good plan, a good leader with a positive attitude who isn't afraid to move out a non performing teacher, and support from the administration. And communication, communication, communication. Oh, and the unions could step up to the plate and help facilitate this, as well.

And as a disclaimer, I am a former member of AFT. I no longer teach. I am passionate about accountability from everyone involved in the education of our children and young adults. MM

[donco6]

28. But even then - are all poorly funded schools the result of administrators?

What about legislators? Here in CO we're so underfunded, they're suing the state. And they're cutting 10% next year.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Dupe. Sorry.

[EFerrari]

15. It says so much about our culture that we look for who to blame

instead of banding together to do better by the kids. :shrug:

[dmallind]

16. And doing better is impossible unless you are honest about where we do poorly

You have to define a problem before it can be solved.

[tkmorris]

19. True enough, but

Blasting away at the nearest easy target (teachers) isn't really doing that.

[dmallind]

20. Sure, but neither is a priori assuming no teachers arecontributing to the problem

Bad welders exist. Bad police officers exist. Heck even bad supply chain people exist, and from time to time I am one of them. Bad teachers must surely exist too.

[tkmorris]

23. I agree, they most certainly do

I've met more than one in my time on Planet Earth. The reason I posted as I did was because I am assuming this thread was inspired by the recent firing of every teacher in an entire school in Rhode Island. I am not as familiar with the case as I could be but my first impression was that it was a case of placing all of the blame at the teachers feet without examining other factors. Such an approach is just as silly as blaming parents without looking at the teachers. The truth is that there are numerous factors that contribute to, or inhibit, a child's learning. Which is of course precisely what you seemed to be saying.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. As I said below, bad parents can't be fired

Government officials need a quick and easy solution because their primary objective is to be re-elected. If bad parents + bad teachers = bad students then the government is empowered to easily address the bad teachers part of the equation by the time they are up for re-election next time. Bad parenting is something that quite frankly the government may never be able to solve and even if they could it would take decades. Politicians don't have that kind of time.

[donco6]

29. But "we" already have, evidently.

When a "turnaround" requires the firing of 50% of the staff and admin, haven't we "identified" the problem?

That's really the whole problem - we've jumped on this ridiculous non-solution with no basis in fact.

[EFerrari]

32. Defining a problem is not the same as finding a scapgoat.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. We can blame parents all we want, but the government can't fire parents

If bad scores are a result of bad parenting and bad teaching the government can't do a whole lot about the former (at least in the short term), but it can do something about the latter.

Although, maybe having a public education system consisting largely of boarding schools could be a way to solve that problem.

[donco6]

30. And I really don't want to blame parents either.

At least, not solely.

In fact, the whole concept of blame implies some sort of punishment is warranted. Maybe somewhere. But in general, what I see are good people trying desperately to do something good for kids. They try everything - some good things, some stupid things, things they can afford - while wishing for things they can't.

But they're up against a myriad obstacles that extend far beyond their classroom and school. And if we don't recognize that the problems cannot be solved by myopically focusing on just the classroom, then we'll never, ever begin to solve the problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Then maybe (and I hate to use Republican cliches) government isn't the answer

The thing that government is best equipped to do is make changes in the classroom and the school. So if we ask politicians to fix our schools, what exactly do we expect them to do besides make changes to our schools and classrooms? And of course they are going to do things like testing because they want an easy way to show to the voters that they have done something.

Obama can't do anything to make parents be involved in their kids' education except encourage them to (which he does a regular basis, by the way). He can make and support changes in the classroom which he is doing. His third option is to do nothing in the classroom and politically that's not an option. Voters expect him to fix the problem and it's a problem that can't be fixed by him alone. Therefore he has to look like he's trying to.

[Bigmack]

24. Good students are always the result of good teachers....

..like me, for instance.

I taught mostly High School seniors in an upper middle class suburb. The schools never failed to pass a levy. The parents were mostly college educated and very upwardly mobile. There were tons of after school activities, and the parents supported them. The parents also pushed their kids to excel. The teachers were hired from a large pool of people wanting to teach in that district,and the pay was good, as were the benefits. Teachers helped run the schools, and not just in advisory roles. The "faculty senate" had veto power over building admin.

I could go on... and on. But I'm sure you see the situation.

We turned out great kids. Colleges loved them. I sent kids to Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, and the Academies.

Damn... I must have been good!

Or possibly, the material I had to work with, plus effort on my part did the job.

What do you think?

[slackmaster]

36. Rotten kids are often the result of rotten parents

In 52 years of observing people, I can't deny that the acorn usually doesn't fall far from the oak tree.

[donco6]

37. So, why aren't we doing something about those bad parents?

Shouldn't there be laws passed? Alarums to be raised? Panic to be spread?

[slackmaster]

38. I wish I had an easy solution for that one - Every lost generation spawns another lost generation

I think education may be the key, but I'm not sure how to deal with kids who have chronic behavior problems that result from poor upbringing.

[donco6]

39. Nail: Head

That's the problem, nobody else really does either. But I guess firing all the teachers is becoming the solution du jour.

[MicaelS]

42. When big corporations make huge profits.....

It is always because of "great management, the wise choices they made, their great ideas, etc, etc, etc."

When big corporations lose huge amounts of money, then it's never the fault of management. It's "too many laws and regulations, too many high taxes, unions, the cost of oil or gas, etc, etc,. etc."

IMLHO, the exact same thing applies to educators.

[laughingliberal]

44. Yes, and all death is due to bad doctors

If there were no bad doctors, everyone would live forever. :sarcasm:

[donco6]

45. We can make that happen on paper.

Just require a straight line improvement in mortality between now and 2020. Presto! Just like NCLB.