It’s funny how when you are rich people will listen to you even when you speak about subjects that didn’t make you rich. The thing is who doesn’t cringe when an actor or a singer gives their opinion about something political? Well I am cringing now, you see Bill Gates, he who made billions on computer software has thrown has hat into the education arena and people are listening, though I think it’s more because of the money he throws around rather than what he is saying.
He recently said when talking about teacher experience, why would I pay somebody more to cut my lawn just because they have been cutting lawns longer. That’s right folks to him kids are as important as having his lawn cut and teachers are the equivalent of the little black kid with chubby cheeks that I pay ten bucks to do so, and let me tell you I get what I pay for. Experience and advanced degrees have no place in Bill Gates world, they don’t matter at all. What do you think? Can you think of a place or a job where education and/or experience might matter?
Well Bill Gates has already sunk his hooks into Florida by giving Hillsborough County a 100 million dollar strings attached grant and now he seeks to expand his influence. His foundation will be here in Florida holding talks, they will be held in January in Tallahassee, Panama City, Gainesville, West Palm Beach, Orlando and Naples. They are being supported by Village Square, a nonprofit organization that promotes civility in public discourse, more so however if your way of thinking is on the right. Fair enough though right, we should all be talking about education even if our point of views don’t always sync up but did you notice what city was left off the map. If you immediately said Jacksonville you are right.
The foundation has decided to snub the 23rd largest school district in the entire nation and is unconcerned with what the 1.5 million residents of North Florida have to say. I guess they don’t have time for us what with visiting the huge metropolitan areas of Naples, Panama City and West Palm Beach. It’s also my guess the foundation, which will of course be giving its suggestions to the Governor, picked areas where the opinions they already have will be reinforced.
I think this is a bit shameful, why can’ they do one more or six more talks after all the foundation can afford it and their suggestions may influence what happens to children all throughout the state not just in those areas visited. That’s what I say, though since I am not rich, or an actor or a singer, just somebody who has been a public school teacher for a decade my opinion probably won’t carry much weight. After all, teachers experience don’t seem to matter not even when the subject is teaching.
Chris Guerrieri
School Teacher
Showing posts with label experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label experience. Show all posts
Monday, December 27, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Teacher experience does matter
By Monty Neill, interim executive director at The National Center for Fair & Open Testing, known as FairTest.
According to Bill Gates and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, teacher experience does not matter very much. Duncan says we should not "pay teachers based on their educational credentials and seniority" -- that is, knowledge and experience. Gates also recently denigrated teacher experience and masters’ degrees. He cited Jennifer R King’s literature review, which shows that experience does matter, but mostly that which they gain in their first five years of teaching.
But here’s the rub: They rely entirely on standardized test scores for evidence, even though the tests fail to provide adequate evidence for drawing these conclusions.
Even Duncan agrees that currently existing state tests over-emphasize basic skills and do not assess many essential aspects of learning. (Duncan’s proposed "solution," the multi-state consortia tests, is not likely to help very much, nor will “little value to the addition” uses of those tests.)
The tests are beatable with test prep schemes, for which a teacher does not need deep subject knowledge or an understanding of how each of her students best learns. A revolving door of minimally-trained, low-paid new teachers delivering from a script may be able to boost scores on low-level tests nearly as well as more experienced teachers. Is that what we want from our schools? Is it OK if it mostly happens to low-income children, where teaching to the test is most common?
Surveys have found that parents, communities, even legislators want far more from their schools than only academics – never mind academics reduced to test prep. Their goals for schools include basic skills, critical thinking, arts and literature, preparation for skilled work, social skills, citizenship, and physical and emotional health. (See Richard Rothstein’s Grading Education, Ch 2, for one example). Teachers must help our children develop these areas of knowledge, skill and competence.
Unless the U.S. educational goal is merely to boost scores on low-level tests, we need answers to more important questions before we evaluate the worth of teacher experience or degrees.
These questions include: Are teachers with more experience better than novices at ensuring deep understanding, critical thinking, and the ability to apply knowledge? Do their capacities grow beyond the first five or ten years of experience?
Do more experienced teachers help students acquire the full range of outcomes Rothstein listed? Do they work more effectively toward comprehensive education goals with students in poverty, those with disabilities or limited English proficiency? Do they better help students become more engaged with their learning? Are they more successful in classrooms with a great deal of social, cultural and economic diversity?
Can they better provide the ‘soft’ skills that research increasingly finds are essential to later success in life? I expect in many cases the answer would be yes, significantly so.
Since test scores don’t tell us what we need to know, we need studies that look carefully at actual student work, as well as the long-term results of schooling. This can be done, but policymakers have shied from doing it, content to rely on inexpensive low-level tests.
Finally, the attacks on experienced teachers seem more motivated by politics and budgets than by research evidence. In a period of sharp budget cuts, the claim that teacher experience does not matter is increasingly used to justify the hiring of under-prepared novices to replace experienced teachers. The novices are expected to use scripted curricula to train, not educate, their mostly low-income and minority-group students, in order to boost test scores. If test scores rise like hot air balloons, that will be presented as “evidence” of success.
These issues raise broader questions about the goal of schooling. Is it to be merely employment driven functionality, for many students just to fit requirements of jobs with little cognitive demand? Or does this nation want educated students who can participate thoughtfully in civic and social issues and be lifelong learners? Those questions are not technical and cannot be answered by changes in standardized test scores. They require the consideration and actions of an involved citizenry.
Taken from the Washington Post:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/test-scores-cant-prove-whether.html?wprss=answer-sheet
According to Bill Gates and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, teacher experience does not matter very much. Duncan says we should not "pay teachers based on their educational credentials and seniority" -- that is, knowledge and experience. Gates also recently denigrated teacher experience and masters’ degrees. He cited Jennifer R King’s literature review, which shows that experience does matter, but mostly that which they gain in their first five years of teaching.
But here’s the rub: They rely entirely on standardized test scores for evidence, even though the tests fail to provide adequate evidence for drawing these conclusions.
Even Duncan agrees that currently existing state tests over-emphasize basic skills and do not assess many essential aspects of learning. (Duncan’s proposed "solution," the multi-state consortia tests, is not likely to help very much, nor will “little value to the addition” uses of those tests.)
The tests are beatable with test prep schemes, for which a teacher does not need deep subject knowledge or an understanding of how each of her students best learns. A revolving door of minimally-trained, low-paid new teachers delivering from a script may be able to boost scores on low-level tests nearly as well as more experienced teachers. Is that what we want from our schools? Is it OK if it mostly happens to low-income children, where teaching to the test is most common?
Surveys have found that parents, communities, even legislators want far more from their schools than only academics – never mind academics reduced to test prep. Their goals for schools include basic skills, critical thinking, arts and literature, preparation for skilled work, social skills, citizenship, and physical and emotional health. (See Richard Rothstein’s Grading Education, Ch 2, for one example). Teachers must help our children develop these areas of knowledge, skill and competence.
Unless the U.S. educational goal is merely to boost scores on low-level tests, we need answers to more important questions before we evaluate the worth of teacher experience or degrees.
These questions include: Are teachers with more experience better than novices at ensuring deep understanding, critical thinking, and the ability to apply knowledge? Do their capacities grow beyond the first five or ten years of experience?
Do more experienced teachers help students acquire the full range of outcomes Rothstein listed? Do they work more effectively toward comprehensive education goals with students in poverty, those with disabilities or limited English proficiency? Do they better help students become more engaged with their learning? Are they more successful in classrooms with a great deal of social, cultural and economic diversity?
Can they better provide the ‘soft’ skills that research increasingly finds are essential to later success in life? I expect in many cases the answer would be yes, significantly so.
Since test scores don’t tell us what we need to know, we need studies that look carefully at actual student work, as well as the long-term results of schooling. This can be done, but policymakers have shied from doing it, content to rely on inexpensive low-level tests.
Finally, the attacks on experienced teachers seem more motivated by politics and budgets than by research evidence. In a period of sharp budget cuts, the claim that teacher experience does not matter is increasingly used to justify the hiring of under-prepared novices to replace experienced teachers. The novices are expected to use scripted curricula to train, not educate, their mostly low-income and minority-group students, in order to boost test scores. If test scores rise like hot air balloons, that will be presented as “evidence” of success.
These issues raise broader questions about the goal of schooling. Is it to be merely employment driven functionality, for many students just to fit requirements of jobs with little cognitive demand? Or does this nation want educated students who can participate thoughtfully in civic and social issues and be lifelong learners? Those questions are not technical and cannot be answered by changes in standardized test scores. They require the consideration and actions of an involved citizenry.
Taken from the Washington Post:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/test-scores-cant-prove-whether.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)