My responses to journal articles other than the Utne Reader

-- Anonymous, December 15, 1998

Answers

I recently read an article in the American Educator (Fall, 1998), by Sandra Feldman titled A Teacher Quality Manifesto. She discussed the many problems we are having across the nation regarding new prospective teachers and substitute teachers. Currently in our school district, we are experiencing a shortage of substitutes. I know that those individuals who are hired are far from qualified. Many of them cannot even follow simple directions as to what to assign for homework. Feldman proposes that we take the time to carefully screen incompetent teachers before hiring them. She believes that many of the teachers are hired because they know someone on the interview team or perhaps are a relative of the principal. I dont know that I would agree with that; however, I do agree that the interview process is too short. Feldman also says that we should be providing some sort of mentorship programs for these new teachers. Mentorship programs can be wonderful for both the mentor and mentee, but the teacher chosen to be a mentor must be a master teacher. I did not think that the person who was my mentor was the best candidate for the job. She was very helpful in many areas; however, she did not provide me with the encouragement and support that I felt I needed. Another key idea in this article is that Feldman believes that seniority is to blame for incompetent experienced teachers remaining in the field. She thinks that we should create a peer review team with master teachers, and that team should supervise those who lack the skills in the classroom. The idea is great on paper, but how many veteran teachers do you know who would allow a younger, more energetic teacher to come into their classroom to criticize their methods? I dont know such a teacher. I do agree, however, that many of the veteran teachers have lost their passion and enthusiasm to teach effectively. I know many who can tell me what they will be teaching on April 15, 1999, and they will be there. This tells me that they need someone to tell them, BE FLEXIBLE IN YOUR LESSONS! These people are so rigid. How do they possibly adapt to the changing needs of our students? I think, as Feldman, that these teachers should be told that they are not doing a good enough job, and help should be provided to those individuals. Many staff development days could be used directly for this purpose. All of us need a boost or pep talk now and again. The article was thought provoking and interesting. Feldman is somewhat of an idealist. I guess I am a bit of an idealist at times. I am one who says what is on my mind regardless of whether others agree with me or not. I appreciate her thoughtful ideas regarding teacher quality.

-- Anonymous, December 29, 1998

Hello Barbara, I thought your review was very interesting. I agree that the good substitute teachers have become few and hard to find. I'm not sure why this is. It may be , as you say , due to lack of training and mentorship. I also wonder if it is not somehow related to the overall lack of respect for our profession. Is education as a profession able to attract the "best and brightest" candidates ? Although some people still view teaching as an important career, others may be put off by it's current status. Teaching is a relatively low paying profession as compared to others with comparable training. It also carries little public support or respect. Until teaching is valued by "the many" instead of "the few", many talented people may choose other career options

-- Anonymous, January 17, 1999

This is my second professional journal entry.

I read the article "Work" by Geoffrey Canada in the Fall, 1998 issue of American Educator.

Geoffrey Canada is the President of the New York-based Rheedlen Center for Children and Families. This center helps families with various problems as well as provides jobs for the students. Canada believes it is important to get kids connected to the world of work. Especially innercity african-american boys. He feels it is the best way to model real life. He states, "Working as a child helps teach the values and ethics surrounding employment at an early age...it connects poor boys to a world that is unknown to them, a world of working adults and the normative behaviors associated with working for a living." Canada says that there is more to this idea that simply giving them a job. They train them at Rheedlen. They work with kids in the areas of "punctuality, good attendance, reliability...professional appearance, having a good attitude, and respect for authority." He also discussed the idea that kids, especially boys, don't like to work from the ground level up. If they are unhappy with the tasks they are given, they complain. This is blamed on the family/parents mostly. Kids today have it way too easy. Parents work twice as hard just to make it easier on their children. Unfortunately, this is not teaching the children any responsibilities. The Rheedlen Center employs many students, but they all have to be in school, and they have to be earning passing grades. So as G. Canada said, "while teenagers might not have figured out what passing tenth-grade English has to do with being employable later on in life, they know that passing that class has everything to do with keeping a job today. It sounds like a great way to motivate kids to succeed in school. Unfortunately, in our neighborhoods, there are not always jobs and employers willing to work with kids like Rheedlen.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

3RD PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL RESPONSE

When You Weigh the Evidence... Voucher Programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland, by Dan Murphy. American Federation of Teachers, Fall, 1998.

In the above named article, the author gives valid arguments against the idea of vouchers. He provides research and debate information from proponents as well as disinterested researchers. In reading through his argument, I found an interesting irony. The proponents of vouchers argue that the voucher program is designed to help low socioeconomic, less-advantaged students get a higher quality education at a private school. Yet evidence shows that those receiving the vouchers, even though they may be poor, have parents who are involved and are typically the brighter kids. So, who is really disadvantaged here, those kids whose parents arent well educated enough or dont care about private schools? The students who may benefit more from a quality private school are not there to receive the needed services. Instead it is the bright kids that would do well anyway. It will also be those students whose parents are in the middle income bracket who will fight for their rights to receive the vouchers. The wealthy kids are already going to private schools because their parents can afford to send them.

On the flip side of this controversy, the idea that private schools are the answer to higher success and achievement for students seems ridiculous. The author states that there is no proof that private schools, on average, produce higher achievement than public schools, and there is no proof that private schools can provide the same education for less money (23). The data the implies that schools produce higher test scores are skewed, since the students currently attending private schools are chosen by the school. They have a previous high academic record and/or they are from wealthy, well-educated families (40). The author writes about some debates about the private schools doing better than the public; the debate included the argument that private schools offered a better education with smaller class sizes. To argue that Murphy sites a professor who did some research. Professor Cecilia Rouse of Princeton University did a study on the effects of the voucher system in Milwaukee and Cleveland, and as the author states, she discovered that the public school students in small classes out performed everyone (40). The solution then seems to be to take some of the public funds going for the voucher program to go instead to public schools to allow for smaller classes. After many debates and studies done by disinterested parties, the result as Murphy states, so far, there is no unbiased, objective research proving that vouchers help students learn better (40). Most of the information from proponents is biased because they are motivated in some political way to make the voucher system happen.

The remaining information is almost too frustrating to discuss. The author addresses the idea that advocates of the voucher system feel it is cheaper to educate students in a private school, but, again, he has the research to back him when he states that it actually costs the same or more to educate in private schools. That doesnt even count all of the initial funds needed to implement a voucher program.

Murphy finishes his argument with the idea of accountability. Public schools are continually regulated with state curriculum standards, teacher certification, and they are run by elected officials. However, private schools are just that -- private. Private schools have almost complete autonomy with regard to student admissions, teacher hiring and firing, what they teach, and how they measure student achievement (if at all), Moreover, they do not have to make public any information on student test scores, school governance, or finances (41).

I feel that if private schools are using public money, of any kind, they should be accountable to the public just a public schools are. The private school was originally a privately funded organization, but it has since become very publicly funded. Our tax dollars are funding a portion of their programs. It doesnt seem to make any sense. I often wonder what motivates some of these things to happen as they do? I realize many of the changes are political, but when are we as a community going to realize how they are manipulating our tradition school system?

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999