Posts
Heard at the "Celebration":
"We have 21st century students, 20th century teachers, and 19th century schools."
This witticism was a special favorite of the empaneled Celebrants, though how exactly a sweeping condemnation of the entire U.S. public school system and its teachers jibes with the theme of Celebration, I don't know. Each time I heard it (we heard it often), I was reminded of Ed's observation, lo these many years ago, that since schools are teaching the 21st century skills, it falls to us, the parents, to teach the 19th century ones. True.
In any event, according to the panelists, the solution to our 3-century mix-up seemed to be, variously, more technology, less content, much less testing, Finnish levels of respect for teachers, accountability for parents, a focus on equity instead of excellence (Finland again), and taxpayer funding of college degrees for teachers. Plus lots and lots of Salman Khan videos for students to watch at home, freeing teachers to do the fun discussions and group projects at school. Whoopee!
I'm sure that will work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
If we really had 19th century schools, I wouldn't have to homeschool.
Right you are.
One of your best posts yet Catherine!
I had the opportunity to attend one of Gov. Dan Malloy's town hall meetings on education reform here in CT. The 1000's of teachers packed in the auditorium were demanded exactly what you describe here ... to a T.
Anonymous - thanks for the report from the front.
The "Celebration" was INTENSE --- very upsetting to an outsider (and no one present seemed to have the slightest sense that an outsider could be present).
Taxpayer funding for ed degrees is clearly a major union priority.
Think of the boondoggle for ed schools.
I wish I knew something about the sociology or psychology of groups.
I haven't managed to convey the 'feel' of the Celebration, which is different from anything you experience at a real conference.
I say 'real' conference, because the Celebration looks and acts like a conference but isn't a conference.
It's not a mass expression of grievance, either, which is what I think I've portrayed it as.
The Celebration is, first and foremost, a union event; at least that's the way it seems to me. All the union muckety-mucks are front and center, voicing anger and being rewarded with thunderous applause. At one point, Randi Weingarten actually stopped the crowd, saying, "That wasn't an applause line. If it were, I would have said it differently."
Which I found kind of remarkable. She simply assumed that union members know union leaders, like politicians, speak in applause lines. Which surprised me (although it probably shouldn't have).
But that's not what makes the Celebration so strange to an outsider.
The Celebration also features sycophantic celebrities (Brian Williams, his wife, Dr. Oz, Chelsea Clinton, etc.) who fawn over teachers as an undifferentiated mass. Teachers are 'heroic,' 'my mother was a teacher,' 'I'm really a teacher, not a famous heart surgeon,' 'What you do inside the classroom is so much harder than what I do running Microsoft,' etc.
(To his credit, Salman Khan wasn't fawning in the least, though he was highly self-deprecating.)
So you've got union heads expressing rancor and pausing after applause lines, and you've a succession of fawning minor celebrities. (Henry Winkler was the keynote on Saturday, the day I boycotted.)
(I wonder how much Chelsea Clinton was paid to appear. Your tax dollars at work)
THEN, on top of that, you have a constant stream of comments from the dais about the wretched state of American schools. THAT is the weird thing. I don't know whether I'd have the nerve to stand up there and say 'Our schools are sure doing a miserable job' --- but that's the premise and/or the overt content of most of the speakers.
This is where I'd like to know more about group (or crowd?) psychology.
What the speakers seem to do is a) tell teachers they're not worth much and then b) stridently 'side' with the teachers they've just run down.
If I were a K-12 teacher, I would find many of the things being said on stage insulting and offensive -- and yet these things are being said by champions of K-12 teachers.
My amateur analysis is that the speakers seemed to be building -- or attempting to build -- group solidarity by establishing a common enemy, and that they were b establishing that common enemy through the (to me) novel mechanism of putting teachers down.
"I wonder how much Chelsea Clinton was paid to appear."
I wondered the same thing.
If The Fonz was there, then where were Vinnie Barbarino and Arnold Horshack? Henry Winkler is making the rounds as a keynote speaker. It's interesting to Google keynote speaker sites and look at fees.
It's not the real world.
Taxpayers already fund the Master's Degree thru tuition reimbursement plus a bonus for completion. Is it the desire of the teachers that the Bachelor's Degree also be paid for by the school district?
Taxpayers already fund the Master's Degree thru tuition reimbursement plus a bonus for completion.
aaauugggghhhh!
jeez, I suppose that's right
Yes, my sense is that the union wants public funding for all higher education for teachers.
My sense is that this is a priority. They brought it up at both Celebrations (last year & this), and a teacher here in town has written a post on the Forum saying that he doesn't see how teachers can continue to fund their own educations (something like that).
It seems obvious to me that the union is building support for this initiative amongst members.
The argument is that inequality is now so immense in the U.S., and college so expensive, that we can't expect ill-paid teachers to fund their own educations.
Here in NY, that argument doesn't remotely hold water.
If The Fonz was there, then where were Vinnie Barbarino and Arnold Horshack? Henry Winkler is making the rounds as a keynote speaker. It's interesting to Google keynote speaker sites and look at fees.
right - and taxpayers fund teachers to attend this event.
My district funded .... gosh. Maybe 4 people to attend.
Nearly all of the workshops are things I would specifically want teachers **not** to attend.
Catherine, union leaders are politicians -- they have to be. They run for election. Typically, however, the non-militant union membership doesn't vote in these elections, so what the leaders campaign on, and their public stance, represents a more radical POV than the whole membership necessarily endorses.
This is true at the elementary level, anyway. Secondary teachers tend to be more political, in my experience.
As to lgm's observation, whether tuition is reimbursed or additional degrees rewarded with a bonus or some other financial compensation, depends on the local collective agreement. In my district, SOME individuals apply for and receive partial funding for Master's degrees (or whatever), but this is available only to a very few, and getting a degree does not automatically put you in a higher salary category or give you a salary bonus.
I paid for my own master's degree, and got no recompense either in salary or otherwise from the district, but I considered it an investment and it was worth every penny because I learned so much about effective instruction.
Local conditions vary. I think they are arguing for the "Finland" model, where all teacher training (indeed, all post-secondary education) is tuition-free.
I can see possible value in a modified scheme of that sort -- say, make the application process extremely competitive so that only talented people get in; then make them agree to serve a minimum of five years in a high-needs school or area. In return, they get free tuition.
I had a friend who graduated from medical school debt-free because she agreed to work in Army hospitals for a certain period of time --3 years I think -- after she was certified. The Army paid all her tuition, but I think she was responsible for her other expenses -- not sure about that.
Catherine, union leaders are politicians -- they have to be.
Right - of course!
It should have been obvious to me....but it wasn't.
The "Celebration" is one of the strangest events I've attended EVER. It's creepy as heck.
Probably part of the problem for me is that I've attended a lot of conferences (and have organized conferenes), so I keep thinking 'conference' when that's not what the thing is at all.
I think they are arguing for the "Finland" model, where all teacher training (indeed, all post-secondary education) is tuition-free.
YES!
THANK YOU!
Yes, right, exactly.
That was it. It's Finland.
The unions are fired up about Finland, for sure.
Free college, lots and lots of RESPECT for teachers, equity-not-excellence.
lgm lives here in NY, where things are WAY different from your neck of the woods (everyone else - palisadesk & I have compared notes off-list --- WAY different)
I think the Finland model has some definite positive features that we would do well to emulate -- but they are probably not the ones your "Celebrants" have in mind.
I heard Pasi Sahlberg speak a few months ago, and was intrigued enough to order his book, Finnish Lessons. It is a thought-provoking books and by no means a facile endorsement of teacher-union ideas. It appears that much of the "Finland" discussion on all sides is muddled by a lack of in-depth knowledge. People take some component out of context and flog it as proof of something they want to see enacted. The reality is quite different.
From Finnish Lessons (and some other sources I was moved to consult), the take-away points that impressed me most:
(1) Finland's school improvement efforts have been gradual, building on a reform plan several decades old. They identified system goals and changes that reflected their own situation and reflected public values.
(2) The structure is what I've heard termed "tight-loose" -- that is, there are certain expectations and mandates that apply to all schools, but their implementation is mostly a local matter. Their curriculum is outlined but the exact lesson and how to deliver and assess them is left up to schools and communities.
(3) To have a locally-focused system work, it requires highly skilled personnel -- so they ramped up demands on teacher quality (can't imagine the unions endorsing this aspect! What if we limited elementary teaching to people with SAT scores of 1500? (CR and Math)) Finland has an extremely competitive process for teacher selection and fewer than 10% are accepted.. They also have an apprenticeship model and require candidates to do original research.
(4) Their Special Education model is one that impresses me. They provide special education services to nearly half of children before age 15 -- without any kind of classifying or labeling. They provide in-class support (not aides) for struggling students and this enables most students to remain with their age-peers and complete the required secondary education successfully. It's also much less expensive and sans litigation!
(5) While much is made of the fact they have no national testing scheme, they do provide optional testing for schools which often ask to be included, so that they can identify areas of strength and weakness. It's seen as an avenue to enhanced performance, not as a vehicle for shame and blame. Karen Pryor would approve;-)
You're kidding!
They have optional testing??
Yeah, that didn't get mentioned.
I was cruising that book at the B&N book table.
Of course, given my subsequent correspondence with the B&N functionary, I'm glad I didn't buy it.
Turns out I paid a lot more for the Richard Reeves book at the Celebration than I would have ordering it from B&N online.
The Celebrants skirted around the issue of the very selective process for teachers.
They focused on the idea of high pay, high respect, strong unions, no tests, and free college.
That's pretty much the Finnish story, according to the Celebrants. U.S. teachers should have the same respect as doctors, the same pay as doctors, free college, no accountability --- and then our schools would be great.
They went on ENDLESSLY about respect. (I mentioned that Arne Duncan has actually created a new Initiative with the acronym RESPECT.)
Same thing here in Iowa--they want their idea of Finland plus universal public preschool.
If the Iowa schools aren't as good as they could be, the conference attendees agreed that it was the fault of parents and "changing student demographics."
"They went on ENDLESSLY about respect."
Ironic, since unions are a large part of the reason that so many Americans have lost respect for the school system. You can't respect a terrible teacher who is protected from consequences by the union, and that spreads to all teachers.
they want their idea of Finland plus universal public preschool.
whoa - upped the ante, have they?
Ironic, since unions are a large part of the reason that so many Americans have lost respect for the school system.
That's another thing: unions in other countries sometimes function quite differently. As I understand it, in Germany and, I think, Denmark, public sector unions have a more cooperative relationship with legislatures.
Finland's teachers are unionized, but the Finnish model is professional: teachers have professional training & professional identities & values (so I understand).
I think the classic union model here comes out of the factory era (my history is extremely meager)....in any event, unions in this country were created for workers who were interchangeable & who didn't have professional standing or responsibilities, etc.
That is certainly the way New York's teacher unions function: a teacher is a teacher is a teacher.
The union sends this message to the public.
Just yesterday, the union took out a full page ad in our local newspaper - nobody ever takes out expensive full page ads - and proclaimed in gigantic type the horrors that 30% of the teachers in our town received layoff notices and how they want the community to come to a meeting to complain. They failed to mention that the union contract requires this. The town has to notify all teachers by April 1st if there is any chance whatsoever that their contract might not be renewed. Since the town has no clue yet what those cuts will be, then many get pink slips. This could be viewed as a sort of pay-back for pushing that requirement in the union contract, but the FULL PAGE ad never talks about that. Also, this is nothing new. This sort of thing has been going on for years. The ad doesn't mention "union" once. It is sponsored by the "Teachers Association". We have stealth unions.
The ad screams:
Support Our Children
Support Our Schools
Support Our Teachers!
Catherine, you might find this article in the WSJ about FInnish schools to be of interest:
What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?
especially the part where the Finnish teen who spent a year in a Michigan high school tells about her experience:
Finnish high-school senior Elina Lamponen saw the differences firsthand. She spent a year at Colon High School in Colon, Mich., where strict rules didn't translate into tougher lessons or dedicated students, Ms. Lamponen says. She would ask students whether they did their homework. They would reply: " 'Nah. So what'd you do last night?'" she recalls. History tests were often multiple choice. The rare essay question, she says, allowed very little space in which to write. In-class projects were largely "glue this to the poster for an hour," she says. Her Finnish high school forced Ms. Lamponen, a spiky-haired 19-year-old, to repeat the year when she returned.
This piece from yesterday's HuffPo is also of interest:
More From Finland
My limited reading on the topic suhhests that it's not a matter of "Equity rather than Excellence" but of "Equity AND Excellence."
The latter is a goal I certainly support.
"I can see possible value in a modified scheme of that sort -- say, make the application process extremely competitive so that only talented people get in; then make them agree to serve a minimum of five years in a high-needs school or area. In return, they get free tuition."
Right. It wouldn't even have to be 100% of ed students--even having 10-20% be scholarship winners would change the environment quite a bit.
"That's another thing: unions in other countries sometimes function quite differently."
That is also correct. Unions vary a lot internationally. When I was working in Russia, my school had a "profsoyuz" (professional union--that's a Soviet term), but as you can imagine, the Soviets did not create teachers' unions in order to have the teachers agitate for higher pay and better benefits. I was there in the post-Soviet era, and although there would be occasional murmurs about striking (my colleagues often had gone for six months with no pay), the union was mainly concerned with getting discounts on large lots of food for teachers. (We'd all line up to buy cheap chickens and eggs periodically.) The union was doing good work for the teachers, but it wasn't anything like a US teachers' union.
Ever notice how often public policy prescriptions follow this form: "Let's do stuff just like this foreign country that neither of us has ever spent a solid month in!"
Speaking of things that are different in different countries, notice how the interviewee in the Huffington Post Finland piece puts a lot of weight on the fact that Finnish teachers have to have master's degrees. It would be very, very interesting to know the difference between the Finnish master's in education and the US version.
From skimming over these articles, I wonder if the Finnish schools aren't a lot like some progressive, elite US private schools, where teachers get a lot of classroom autonomy because they are highly intelligent and highly knowledgeable. Having well-behaved students probably has a lot to do with the relatively relaxed atmosphere of Finnish schools. Actually, the situation with the Finnish teachers and students is very similar--both get lots of freedom because they are trustworthy. (Now, it would be interesting to know if there are some Finnish subgroups where this relaxed atmosphere doesn't work.)
The fact that a lot of Finnish TV is foreign language with Finnish subtitles is also very curious. Remember how there was a recent article about improving Indian literacy by putting subtitles on Indian TV.
It may be that the magic of Finnish education is in a completely different place than people are looking.
"It may be that the magic of Finnish education is in a completely different place than people are looking"
Fascinating hypothesis, Amy P! I bet you're on to something.
"It may be that the magic of Finnish education is in a completely different place than people are looking"
Fascinating hypothesis, Amy P! I bet you're on to something.
As far as I know, Finland's claim to fame is based on PISA, but PISA is nothing to write home about. Look at some of the sample questions. Some claim that the advantage has to do with language. They compare the Swedish minority with the Finnish majority and then look at how the language compares with Estonia and their PISA scores. Why not look at South Korea and what their educational system is like? Why only pick out Finland?
It seems that Finland doesn't do TIMSS, so we can't see how the rankings compare there. I think US educators only look at countries that reflect their own beliefs. They look for something and they find it.
"Why only pick out Finland?
"It seems that Finland doesn't do TIMSS, so we can't see how the rankings compare there. I think US educators only look at countries that reflect their own beliefs. They look for something and they find it."
I think part of what they like is that Finland makes it look so easy--so relaxed! so fun! no homework! It's a very appealing alternative to an East Asian model of work-work-work.
It is very suspicious that the Finnish secret sauce is supposed to be whatever US education people wanted to do anyway.
Post a Comment