res- Actually, that's not what you did, Michael. You stated your point of view without making an argument for it. I can responsd by either letting it just sit there, in effect ignoring it, or I can engage you. I started a conversation.
Actually John, stating I made no argument doesn't mean its true. In my original post there were points made, you simply didn't acknowledge them and petulantly dismissed them. After completely dismissing my points, you did attempt to have a conversation about the value of John Dewey. It's a pretty common response, those on the left who are against structural reform of the system engage in. First, dismiss the points made by supporters of structural reform, attack their method of making the argument, then talk about Dewey and things associated with maintaining the status-quo.
Let's review my original post and see whether there might be some truth in what I've just said. I'll bold-type some additional comments.
My first post...
John, here's a good article describing the kind of men who won the war in Iraq. Have you ever considered what their pay is?
Clearly, in asking this question I am making a point regarding pay. I'm contrasting the performance of military personnel with teachers. If one is to argue that pay is the fundamental problem with education and teacher performance, why do we have the best military personnel in the world, while simultaneously paying them so little? Aren't teachers, for the most part, motivated by the same need to serve as military personnel? A point you elected to dismiss.
For the most part teachers are decent hard working people. I don't believe they're slacking off because they haven't gotten high enough pay.
This statement (which granted is my opinion), reminded me of what Ford went through in the late 70's. Deming asked the question then, if we doubled the pay everyone received at Ford, would the quality improve? The answer of course was no. The same kind of structural reforms needed at Ford to improve quality in the late 70's, needs to be undertaking in inner city school districts to improve the quality of education today. (I was actually thinking of Washington D.C. and Seattle when I referred to the inner city). Another point you chose to ignore.
Certainly, we would get better qualified people in the profession if the pay was higher, but, for the most part, there are hardworking dedicated people doing the job all across the country now, including the inner cities. Basically, I made the same point here.
The main problem in education is systemic and structural in nature. Teachers go into teaching knowing they will receive moderate pay. They quit (for the most part), because they are given less autonomy than a McDonalds cashier, less recognition than a mechanic, and less ability to change the system and be creative then a social security administrative bureaucrat.
This statement made a point regarding why teachers quit the profession. Why they go into teaching to begin with, and links into why we need structural reform. You may dismiss it if you like, but it's a common problem in large organizations, which have built layers of bureaucracy, rules and regulations.
People in an organizational system "do what you reward them for doing". Where the funding source comes from plays a large part in where the rewards come from. Today, politicians hold the purse strings and are therefore the funding source for the system. The system responds to that reward mechanism.
In this statement I made an argument regarding the linkage between rewards and performance. Another point you chose to ignore.
Putting the linkage of rewards back in the hands of parents by using vouchers or charters schools will create an "urgency to change", where the need to change is great. Therefore, it makes sense to attempt reform in the inner cities first, where the problems are greatest. Doing nothing but asking for more money won't change the underlying nature of the problem. As Bill said, the problem is structural in nature. Reform should start there.
In this statement I described the need to create an urgency to change. A common problem where there is no competition. Once again, you chose to ignore it.
Teachers unions are status-quo anti-change agents. Rising to the top of the teaching profession means playing ball their way.
In this statement, I described a common problem reported across the country by teachers. Rocking the boat and taking on the union and their desire to protect the structure of the system, is a guarantee you will be ostracized. Another point you chose to ignore.
Union leaders have closed their mind to creative changes, which are structural in nature.
A self-evident point, based on years of witnessing the response by unions officials to structural reform of the system. A point you also chose to ignore. |
