Waiting for Superman

I'm pretty liberal, I think, and I have been very pro-charter school. I was on the board to start a charter school (two times), and have been very involved.

One of my biggest beefs with educational theory in general is the panacea approach. I see over and over again something that works well in one context and then it's leapt upon -- there! It works! Let's do it everywhere!

It's at the "let's do it everywhere" stage that it tends to fall apart.

Charter schools fall into that category too, in my experience. A lot of them are really, really good. Especially when the whole thing started. But as it has become more widespread and more panacea-ish, the quality is definitely deteriorating. Some are still very very good. Some are even worse than the public schools that they're trying to replace.

Almost everyone who thinks is liberal... Who would not want charter schools or any way of having more imput into schools... The problem is not the unions, but the whole concept of mass produced education... Everyone learns differently, and people bring different psychology to the task... I would not want to have to teach anyone with a slave mentality that slave wages were worth a day's labor... I would not want to be a teacher makiing dick for wages teaching the value of an education... There has to be some money at the end of it... If I wanted to teach a slave to work for wages I would put a twenty dollar bill on a string and drag it in front of them until they learned to bend over and pick it up at the first opportunity... I would not expect anyone to learn that skill from a low rent teacher telling them how great the rewards are from a good education... Who has a better education, after all, than a teacher???
The lack of oversight is both a great way to foster innovation and a real temptation for ne'er-do-wells to grab some money.

This means that my enthusiasm for charter schools has become somewhat tempered since I was very involved (about 1996-2002).

So while I don't think there are any panaceas, I think one of the biggest single elements is elevating the pay and prestige of teachers. I think "Teach for America" is a really good program and is a step in that direction. Giving the really bright students an incentive to get in there and start teaching as a career. I was just reading about a really interesting school that was created in large part by former Teach for America people.

When all other things are equal -- curricula, buildings, resources, etc. -- it is the individual teachers who make the biggest difference. This is a long-term impression I've had that has been reinforced by more and more studies.

That's just one element of a really huge and really messy equation, though.

Public schools probably should be only for those kids nobody else will take. Everybody else should be attending schools owned and controlled by their own neighborhoods.

Fido wrote:

sozobe wrote:

I'm pretty liberal, I think, and I have been very pro-charter school. I was on the board to start a charter school (two times), and have been very involved.

One of my biggest beefs with educational theory in general is the panacea approach. I see over and over again something that works well in one context and then it's leapt upon -- there! It works! Let's do it everywhere!

It's at the "let's do it everywhere" stage that it tends to fall apart.

Charter schools fall into that category too, in my experience. A lot of them are really, really good. Especially when the whole thing started. But as it has become more widespread and more panacea-ish, the quality is definitely deteriorating. Some are still very very good. Some are even worse than the public schools that they're trying to replace.

Fido wrote, and is now trying to correct a previous post...
Almost everyone who thinks is liberal... Who would not want charter schools or any way of having more imput into schools... The problem is not the unions, but the whole concept of mass produced education... Everyone learns differently, and people bring different psychology to the task... I would not want to have to teach anyone with a slave mentality that slave wages were worth a day's labor... I would not want to be a teacher makiing dick for wages teaching the value of an education... There has to be some money at the end of it... If I wanted to teach a slave to work for wages I would put a twenty dollar bill on a string and drag it in front of them until they learned to bend over and pick it up at the first opportunity... I would not expect anyone to learn that skill from a low rent teacher telling them how great the rewards are from a good education... Who has a better education, after all, than a teacher???

Quote:

The lack of oversight is both a great way to foster innovation and a real temptation for ne'er-do-wells to grab some money.

This means that my enthusiasm for charter schools has become somewhat tempered since I was very involved (about 1996-2002).

So while I don't think there are any panaceas, I think one of the biggest single elements is elevating the pay and prestige of teachers. I think "Teach for America" is a really good program and is a step in that direction. Giving the really bright students an incentive to get in there and start teaching as a career. I was just reading about a really interesting school that was created in large part by former Teach for America people.

When all other things are equal -- curricula, buildings, resources, etc. -- it is the individual teachers who make the biggest difference. This is a long-term impression I've had that has been reinforced by more and more studies.

That's just one element of a really huge and really messy equation, though.

Not totally sure I follow... you're agreeing that there should be "high rent," skilled teachers (with commensurate salaries)?

So I'm not sure that this movie is, in fact, liberal, at all.