Anonymous wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think the frustrations that you are seeing in this thread are a reaction to the fact that if teacher quality becomes TOO much of the focus (which it has), then when do we really get serious about lowering the poverty rate? Moreover, the disturbing part about the rising prominence of things like charters and TFA is because many of them are willing to play the "poverty doesn't matter" game. Poverty does matter; these groups just play the game themselves by doing things like heavily teaching to the tests and accepting that if kids can do well on these tests then that actually means they're "college ready." I think people are tired of playing this dumb game, particularly well qualified teachers that know it is wrong. People are tired of sitting back and watching as the "poverty doesn't matter" crowd gains more and more clout. Bill Gates knows a whole lot more about the economy and how money works than most people, isn't it worth even considering that maybe more of his focus should be on addressing rising poverty rates than on discovering the key to good teaching? That's why we have things like the National Board For Professional Teaching.

Right the idealistic, TF crowd is indoctrinated with the belief that they as novice teachers can overcome the effects of poverty. THey teach their hearts out for two or three years; the kids scores don't go up and the TFAers leave and go on with their privileged lives. What are they thinking when they leave? These efforts haven't worked. Reformers know it, but they keep repeating the cycle -- keeping adults employed while not helping kids. I'm referring to the adults who hire and train the revolving door teachers.

Teachers who have the proper attitude about student poverty haven't gotten the scores up. In fact scores are slipping. Yet school leaders think that attitude is what's needed to help poor kids learn.

There is no data to support that belief, but school leaders persevere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

Do you understand that THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AMONG POOR CHILDREN UNTIL POVERTY IS ADDRESSED?

And that TEACHERS CAN'T OVERCOME POVERTY ANY MORE THAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS CAN, SO SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS EFFECT ON THEIR STUDENTS?

That if you REFUSE TO SEE THAT, then you are HURTING CHILDREN while FEELING SUPERIOR and FEATHERING YOUR OWN NEST? assuming that you work for DCPS, that is.

And frankly, I don't hear parents defending DCPS leadership anymore. Even if they were once hopeful, they've seen that it's not been successful.

Unlike DCPS employees, parents' primary interest in DCPS is not collecting a paycheck or clinging to a failed ideology. Parents care about their kid's welfare first.

Really?! So the argument here is that poor kids can't learn from good teachers OR excel in school via self-motivation? Should we just throw in the towel, then?! While child poverty has been associated with lower academic achievement, I would ask you to please cite one study that shows that all children living in poverty are under-performing. Teachers SHOULD take responsibility for all of their students, regardless of socio-economic status. It is an educator's ethical responsibility to take each student as a whole child (family situation, socio-economic status, culture, customs, and background included) and discover the genius within. Obviously teachers can't save the world, but to infer that a child is simply uneducable because he/she is poor is giving up, and it's just plain insulting. If a teacher doesn't believe in his/her under-served/privileged student, who will??

As a long-time educator, I agree with every single word you've written. There's one exception, however--innocent children whose brains have been damaged by their drug-using moms. Even the best teachers in the world can't overcome the effects of a brain damaged during pregnancy. Certainly, we can help them learn--but to the same degree as we would want.

but NOT to the same degree as we would want

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

Do you understand that THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AMONG POOR CHILDREN UNTIL POVERTY IS ADDRESSED?

And that TEACHERS CAN'T OVERCOME POVERTY ANY MORE THAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS CAN, SO SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS EFFECT ON THEIR STUDENTS?

That if you REFUSE TO SEE THAT, then you are HURTING CHILDREN while FEELING SUPERIOR and FEATHERING YOUR OWN NEST? assuming that you work for DCPS, that is.

And frankly, I don't hear parents defending DCPS leadership anymore. Even if they were once hopeful, they've seen that it's not been successful.

Unlike DCPS employees, parents' primary interest in DCPS is not collecting a paycheck or clinging to a failed ideology. Parents care about their kid's welfare first.

Really?! So the argument here is that poor kids can't learn from good teachers OR excel in school via self-motivation? Should we just throw in the towel, then?! While child poverty has been associated with lower academic achievement, I would ask you to please cite one study that shows that all children living in poverty are under-performing. Teachers SHOULD take responsibility for all of their students, regardless of socio-economic status. It is an educator's ethical responsibility to take each student as a whole child (family situation, socio-economic status, culture, customs, and background included) and discover the genius within. Obviously teachers can't save the world, but to infer that a child is simply uneducable because he/she is poor is giving up, and it's just plain insulting. If a teacher doesn't believe in his/her under-served/privileged student, who will??

As a long-time educator, I agree with every single word you've written. There's one exception, however--innocent children whose brains have been damaged by their drug-using moms. Even the best teachers in the world can't overcome the effects of a brain damaged during pregnancy. Certainly, we can help them learn--but to the same degree as we would want.

I see what you're saying, but I think the frustrations that you are seeing in this thread are a reaction to the fact that if teacher quality becomes TOO much of the focus (which it has), then when do we really get serious about lowering the poverty rate? Moreover, the disturbing part about the rising prominence of things like charters and TFA is because many of them are willing to play the "poverty doesn't matter" game. Poverty does matter; these groups just play the game themselves by doing things like heavily teaching to the tests and accepting that if kids can do well on these tests then that actually means they're "college ready." I think people are tired of playing this dumb game, particularly well qualified teachers that know it is wrong. People are tired of sitting back and watching as the "poverty doesn't matter" crowd gains more and more clout. Bill Gates knows a whole lot more about the economy and how money works than most people, isn't it worth even considering that maybe more of his focus should be on addressing rising poverty rates than on discovering the key to good teaching? That's why we have things like the National Board For Professional Teaching.

Sure, but the bottom line is, there's a healthy debate regarding *how* we should evaluate teachers, and it's a straw man to argue that those who think teacher quality is part and parcel of school reform don't care about other aspects of school reform. We do. But there are many folks on the other side who have explicitly argued that, while of course ensuring teacher quality is part of the larger picture, that is the *only* component we shouldn't even bother with until every single other component is addressed.

I think shitty principals should be canned. I think the safety net should be strengthened. Everyone on the thread seems to agree. The only point of disagreement here is that shitty teachers should be canned as well. And that's after everyone has agreed that there are bad teachers in the system. Suddenly a reasonable effort to address what's addressable becomes "scapegoating".

I'm afraid it's this kind of buck-passing that's got us to the point we're at. Let's not take any steps to improve administration. After all, the problem is endemic poverty and poor teaching. Until we fix that, getting rid of useless administrators is not going to fix everything. Same with principals. Same with facilities (which of course is the common conservative critique).

Everyone is furious about the scapegoating and pointing fingers at everyone else. It's pathetic, and makes people want to fire everyone involved in the whole sordid mess, burn it all down, and start over with an entirely fresh set of actors. Hence the popularity of both charters and TFA and the like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps downtown they think that as soon as they solve the teacher quality problem, poverty will no longer interfere with student learning.

We're in a hot car. The windows are rolled up. It turns out the air conditioner is not working.

"We should roll down the windows."

"That won't do anything! The problem is the broken air conditioner! Also the weather!!! Until we change the weather or fix the a/c, rolling the windows down won't fix the fundamental problem!"

Here's an idea: let's wait for the weather to change, look for a a/c repair shop, *and* roll the damned windows down.

"

Good analogy.

Right now, it's as if they are having trouble getting the windows down, so they do things like break the windows and switch cars looking for one with smoothly working windows, determined that only the best windows will solve the hotness problem, because fixing the AC or moving to a cooler climate would be too hard and is beyond their purview.

Classic dodge. We've got three ways of addressing the problem. One is the most immediate, which we can do now, and which you admit will alleviate the problem somewhat. But you've got a psychological block which makes it impossible to even consider doing that one thing, even while attacking the other, more fundamental issues. I wonder why this is...

Not the person you're debating with, but have you considered the idea that right now we're not really even sure how to roll the windows down in that car? In fact, there are billionaires spending millions of dollars on studies that are trying to figure out how the windows get rolled down. What's really weird it that the same people funding these studies are also encouraging other districts to pretend they already know this AND build evaluation tools and tests as if they know it. How crazy that they never get called out of this strange behavior - furiously looking for what "effective teaching" looks like, while also helping districts build and implement tools to measure whether or not teachers were effective (in fact, the tools can even say precisely how effective they were). Of course, every time someone tries to mention it they get slapped with remarks about being anti-reform and having low expectations. Maybe more people should think about how strange it is, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps downtown they think that as soon as they solve the teacher quality problem, poverty will no longer interfere with student learning.

We're in a hot car. The windows are rolled up. It turns out the air conditioner is not working.

"We should roll down the windows."

"That won't do anything! The problem is the broken air conditioner! Also the weather!!! Until we change the weather or fix the a/c, rolling the windows down won't fix the fundamental problem!"

Here's an idea: let's wait for the weather to change, look for a a/c repair shop, *and* roll the damned windows down.

"

Good analogy.

Right now, it's as if they are having trouble getting the windows down, so they do things like break the windows and switch cars looking for one with smoothly working windows, determined that only the best windows will solve the hotness problem, because fixing the AC or moving to a cooler climate would be too hard and is beyond their purview.

Classic dodge. We've got three ways of addressing the problem. One is the most immediate, which we can do now, and which you admit will alleviate the problem somewhat. But you've got a psychological block which makes it impossible to even consider doing that one thing, even while attacking the other, more fundamental issues. I wonder why this is...

Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps downtown they think that as soon as they solve the teacher quality problem, poverty will no longer interfere with student learning.

We're in a hot car. The windows are rolled up. It turns out the air conditioner is not working.

"We should roll down the windows."

"That won't do anything! The problem is the broken air conditioner! Also the weather!!! Until we change the weather or fix the a/c, rolling the windows down won't fix the fundamental problem!"

Here's an idea: let's wait for the weather to change, look for a a/c repair shop, *and* roll the damned windows down.

"

Good analogy.

Right now, it's as if they are having trouble getting the windows down, so they do things like break the windows and switch cars looking for one with smoothly working windows, determined that only the best windows will solve the hotness problem, because fixing the AC or moving to a cooler climate would be too hard and is beyond their purview.

Perhaps downtown they think that as soon as they solve the teacher quality problem, poverty will no longer interfere with student learning.

We're in a hot car. The windows are rolled up. It turns out the air conditioner is not working.

"We should roll down the windows."

"That won't do anything! The problem is the broken air conditioner! Also the weather!!! Until we change the weather or fix the a/c, rolling the windows down won't fix the fundamental problem!"

Here's an idea: let's wait for the weather to change, look for a a/c repair shop, *and* roll the damned windows down.

"

the adults I'm talking about are not teachers, they are the people in central office focused only on teacher quality.

The fact that you don't get this is testament to the how blind DC school leaders are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the difference --I don't put success in improving kids’ academic achievement completely on the backs of teachers. I realize that factors beyond the control of teachers make a huge difference and I fear the attitude that getting the most qualified teachers (if that can even be accomplished) will solve the underachievement problem we have here in DC with some children – overwhelmingly those who are poor.

Everyone else realizes this as well. For some reason, you seem to think that only the teacher quality issue should be ignored--and everything else addressed--until such time as every parent is wealthy and involved. The fact that you phrase it as "completely on the backs of teachers" shows how much of this is paranoia and a sense of victimization rather than a rational take on the problem.

You're thinking in extremes again. I don't think the teacher quality issue should be ignored -- I think it should not be presented as a panacea to raising achievement for kids suffering from the effects of poverty. There is no panacea -- it's a complex issue. Burrowing into how to get the finest teachers in front of kids is not going to solve the problem - it just keeps adults employed and feeling self- important.

This is a total non-sequitur. Also, again you're projecting with the "thinking in extremes". You say you don't think the teacher quality issue should be ignored, and yet that's exactly what you propose. It is a complex issue. There are many moving parts. Some of them, DCPS can address. Principal quality is one of those. Building modernization is another. Teacher quality is another. Overall economic health of the student population is not.

It's been argued again and again and again on this thread and on others that "getting the finest teachers in front of kids isn't going to solve the problem." I agree; it won't by itself. Then you wrap it up by saying that trying to get the best teachers in front of kids "just keeps the adults employed and feeling self-important." Which is self-refuting horse-shit by your own admission.

And you say *I'm* thinking in extremes. You won't even allow yourself to draw the basic conclusions of your own argument.

hmmmmm......my experience has been the opposite. EVERY part of the school is focused on students who live in poverty and trying to raise lousy test scores (which as we all know tend to have a direct correlation with poverty #s). So NOTHING is done but test prep, remediation, and teaching to tests. Nothing that isn't assessed gets taught. No creative or "fun" activities. No stimulation for high-achieving kids. No focus on teacher skills except for examining test data. It's so sad.

Perhaps downtown they think that as soon as they solve the teacher quality problem, poverty will no longer interfere with student learning.

If so, it's very convenient, because it gives them a never-ending cause to work for (and make a living at).

Sort of like the end-time people -- They are not dissuaded when their prediction is off - they just set another date.

Poor kids are educable - it just take more than great teachers to do it. This simple truth doesn't fit into our current school leaders' plan, so it's written off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the difference --I don't put success in improving kids’ academic achievement completely on the backs of teachers. I realize that factors beyond the control of teachers make a huge difference and I fear the attitude that getting the most qualified teachers (if that can even be accomplished) will solve the underachievement problem we have here in DC with some children – overwhelmingly those who are poor.

Everyone else realizes this as well. For some reason, you seem to think that only the teacher quality issue should be ignored--and everything else addressed--until such time as every parent is wealthy and involved. The fact that you phrase it as "completely on the backs of teachers" shows how much of this is paranoia and a sense of victimization rather than a rational take on the problem.

You're thinking in extremes again. I don't think the teacher quality issue should be ignored -- I think it should not be presented as a panacea to raising achievement for kids suffering from the effects of poverty. There is no panacea -- it's a complex issue. Burrowing into how to get the finest teachers in front of kids is not going to solve the problem - it just keeps adults employed and feeling self- important.

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the difference --I don't put success in improving kids’ academic achievement completely on the backs of teachers. I realize that factors beyond the control of teachers make a huge difference and I fear the attitude that getting the most qualified teachers (if that can even be accomplished) will solve the underachievement problem we have here in DC with some children – overwhelmingly those who are poor.

Everyone else realizes this as well. For some reason, you seem to think that only the teacher quality issue should be ignored--and everything else addressed--until such time as every parent is wealthy and involved. The fact that you phrase it as "completely on the backs of teachers" shows how much of this is paranoia and a sense of victimization rather than a rational take on the problem.