🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov24.063223.20405@netcom.com>, 
fred_s@netcom.com (Fredrick Scott) writes:
> And what "competency tests" do those wonderful private schools out there
> administer?  I don't know why exactly teacher's unions oppose such tests but
> if I were a teacher, I might be insulted by them and be somewhat sceptical of
> the so-called "great success" to which you refer.  Private companies do not
                                                     ------------------------
> feel the need to regularly test their engineers, executives, accountants, and
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> other professionals on subjects such people are expected to know to do their
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> jobs competantly.  So why don't you take a clue from those who advocate the
  ---------------
> wisdom of the private sector - if such tests were an econmical and cost-
> effective way of insuring the quality of your personnel, everyone would use
> 'em.  But somehow, noone else seems to...
> 
> Fred

Fred,

Thanks to tenure and the strong teachers union, there are problems found in
teaching that do not exist in the rest of the world. If I can not test the
teacher for competancy, then I must use the results of the students to measure
the success of the teacher. That means that the students will be given
standardized tests at the end of each grade. If a student fails the test they
will not be allowed to go to the next grade. If enough students fail the test
then the teacher will be terminated. Now, get a union to agree to that.

If I am not performing at my job, it doesn't matter if I have 2 days or 10
years of experience, my "job" is not protected. I can not rest on my laurels
and expect to be employed if I am not performing my assigned tasks to the
expected level. Teachers, and only teachers, have this concept that states that
they only have to perform until they get tenure, and then they can get by doing
the minimum expected. (NOTE: I am not saying that all teachers have this
feeling. In fact, those that don't generally don't want tenure.)

Let the schools have the right to terminate any teacher that doesn't teach.
Eliminate tenure. Develop standards for education that are measurable. Then
test to that measure and, if a teacher fails to pass the performance test,
terminate the teacher. Teachers should teach, not be employed because they used
to teach. You stated that profesionals (see underlined text above) need not be
tested. That is because they are tested everyday in the competitive
environment. That can not be said for teachers. Teachers have isolated
themselves in a system that has no measures of success or quality. Without a
yardstick there can be no "failure" and therefore no way to weed the garden,
the way professionals are weeded from companies when they do not produce
results.

Now, this has nothing to do with funding. My position on that remains the same.
Don't increase the funding to schools unless they have less than 25 students
per teacher and no more than 1 staff person per 6 teachers (staff person is
administartion or clerical staff, not including crossing guards and bus
drivers). This will increase the number of teachers and lower the class size
while also eliminating the overhead currently associated to running a public
school (in Los Angeles the teacher/non-teacher ratio is 2.3 to 1 ).

Education reform is required in order to address the needs and the futures of
our children. The key to this reform is to place the emphisis on education
results. That means that we must look at what generates successful students.
Once we have done that we should seek to follow a clearcut plan to measure
where we are and take periodic measurements as we follow the path forward, to
ensure that we are following the path that will generate a high quality
education for all students, as well as provide the biggest "bang for the buck".

The key blockers of education reform are those that have been protected by the
system we currently have. Tenured teachers and a union that seeks to protect
jobs, instead of protecting the children that are supposed to be taught, have
made real reform efforts almost impossible. This is also one of the few times 
that you will see the administrators walking arm-in-arm with teachers. They 
don't want reform either, as it is their jobs that will be cut. 

That is why I support associating school funding, not to students or 
students/day in class, but to teacher/non-teacher ratios and 
success/performance measurements. I also support the elimination of tenure. 
I don't know of any profession that has a system in place to protect those 
that no longer do their jobs that is as bad as tenure. I mean, these are 
OUR CHILREN and OUR CHILRENS FUTURES.

jmi
J.M. Ivler
Candidate for the California 46th District Congresional Seat - 1994

ivler@mdcbbs.com
[opinions expressed herein are the candidates, not the sites]