Delicious Irony

[CamEdwards]

The National Education Association just wrapped up it's annual convention in New Orleans (nothing like 9,000 drunken teachers flashing people on Bourbon Street, eh?).

One of the resolutions that was offered to the convention came from an Oklahoma teacher who wanted the NEA to support a resolution calling for a negotiated end to military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually she pulled that language, and it became a resolution opposing military action that violates international law.

I did some research on the teacher and found out that she's an 8th grade French teacher in Moore, Oklahoma. Among her faculty advisory positions:

Cinema Club

French Club

Model United Nations

She's in charge of helping kids learn more about Hollywood, the French, and the U.N.

That just cracks me up.

BTW, the resolution failed, unlike some other spiffy little endorsements.

[Franklinnoble]

That's not really ironic... I would have expected the author of such a "resolution" to hold those sort of faculty advisor positions.

[albionmoonlight]

This post reminds me, Cam, that your discussions about the NEA have caused me to view it in a different (less auspicious) light than I did previously. I tell you this fact in case you get the feeling that sometimes you are typing into the void.

[Franklinnoble]

What's wrong with typing into a void?

[CamEdwards]

thanks albion. I appreciate that.

And yes, Franklin, maybe irony isn't the right word. Maybe I should have titled the thread "surprise, surprise".

[panerd]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
This post reminds me, Cam, that your discussions about the NEA have caused me to view it in a different (less auspicious) light than I did previously. I tell you this fact in case you get the feeling that sometimes you are typing into the void.

Except for the fact that he never repsonds to pieces of his arguements that he can't defend. I believe the last NEA arguement ended with a few posts that he couldn't answer. (And like I said in that post: I am not an active member of the NEA, but knew that a lot of the stuff that was being brought up about it were complete bullshit)

EDIT: Here's a link to his debate with myself & Dawgfan where Cam kept quoting his state of Oklahoma numbers without any recognition of counter points that he couldn't disprove.

Cam quotes Oklahoma nonsense for 140 posts and doesn't respond to anyone elses' posts

[CamEdwards]

you know panerd, I responded for three pages on that issue, and the end result was you didn't get the answers you wanted, not that I refused to answer the questions.

I'm really sorry you disagree with me on the issue, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I was just trying to tell an amusing story.

By the way, you say that "a lot of the stuff that was being brought up about it [the NEA] were complete bullshit". Do you mind telling me what exactly was bullshit about anything that I said?

/flame on

[panerd]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
The National Education Association just wrapped up it's annual convention in New Orleans (nothing like 9,000 drunken teachers flashing people on Bourbon Street, eh?).

I think Las Vegas was taken by the NAB.

Originally posted by CamEdwards I did some research on the teacher and found out that she's an 8th grade French teacher in Moore, Oklahoma.

It just sounds like you have some really shitty teachers in Oklahoma. Sorry. Try looking at some of the other 49 states and see if you can get some better teachers.

[panerd]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
you know panerd, I responded for three pages on that issue, and the end result was you didn't get the answers you wanted, not that I refused to answer the questions.

I'm really sorry you disagree with me on the issue, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I was just trying to tell an amusing story.

By the way, you say that "a lot of the stuff that was being brought up about it [the NEA] were complete bullshit". Do you mind telling me what exactly was bullshit about anything that I said?

/flame on

OK. Almost all of your facts are based on student achievement. I already explained how teachers and the NEA's hands are tied by the politicians on this issue. You can't compare schools whose students have different SES and not expect to see differences in test scores.

The politicans say school A (for the sake of argument here a rich charter school) is better than school B (a school in the city where it's median income is below poverty) because they produce better test scores. I say it has nothing to do with teaching or the unions. You could put 100 shitty teachers in a well to do Oklahoma high school and I bet they outperform 100 of the nations best at one of the inner city schools. I just don't buy how we can judge the state of our educational system on one test. I have seen several "blue ribbon" schools that were run very poorly and seen a lot of Saint Louis City public schools who were giving kids everything they had. Unfortunetly everyone wants to just look at the tests and tell all of the ignorant teachers they aren't doing their jobs.

[CamEdwards]

panerd,

I think somewhere on that three page debate the original statements that I made got lost. Debating the merits of public education vs. private education is something that I'm certainly willing to do, but my original statement had to do with the NEA. The ideology of the NEA is detrimental not only to general society, but specifically to public education.

Do you realize over the weekend the NEA passed a resolution calling for a ban on home schooled children to take part in extracurricular activities with public school students? Not just "unfunded home schoolers", but every one, even those that receive state or federal aid to participate in programs. Why is that? If public education is really the best option, wouldn't the NEA want these home schooled kids to take part in whatever aspect of public education they could? They're "for the children", remember?

And what about the pro-life delegation at the convention. For years now the publicly stated position of the NEA has been "the National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom." Most people would assume that makes you pro-choice, but the NEA has always said it takes no position on abortion. The pro-right delegates tried to introduce an amendment stating exactly that: the union neither endorses nor opposes abortion. It was voted down.

I abhore the social advocacy of the NEA, because they're not out to promote the best interests of all children.

As far as your arguemtn over standardized test scores... if standardized tests aren't a good way of judging teacher (or school) performance, then surely we should get rid of standardized test scores as a basis for college admittance. If you can't judge a school system based on the test scores of its students, how can you judge the students?

The argument seems to be that there's no way to judge a teacher's effectiveness. Considering every other industry has found a way to evaluate employees for raises and promotions, that just doesn't fly with me. Collective bargaining takes money that could be better spent in the classroom and gives it to bad teachers that don't deserve a raise.

Does that mean that administrative costs aren't too high? Of course not. Does that mean that parents have no responsibility? No. It just means that to try and change those aspects of the educational system without paying attention to the problems presented by the NEA and the AFT is going to result in continued mediocrity.

[BishopMVP]

I think I remember posting in that thread and an entire page or two disappearing the next day.

[dawgfan]

Cam, in the original NEA thread you did consistently avoid answering my questions and discussing my points, instead insisting on focusing on one particular theory I had floated (divorce rates) and talking about why alternatives to public education were needed.

[CamEdwards]

dawgfan... I didn't avoid any questions. You just didn't like my answers.

Your last question to me was : For the 3rd time, I'll ask you directly:

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, improving student:teacher ratios will not improve the quality of the education?

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, and assuming that most of that money is going towards student learning supplies, improvements in infrastructure, more school programs etc. and not into the pockets of administrators etc., increasing the amount of money spent on education will not improve the quality of that education?

No. I don't think improving student teacher ratios from 18:1 down to 16:1 will show much of an increase. Certainly it won't be a cost effective increase.

More money spent on STUDENTS might make a difference, but again, what good is a computer when you're not teaching kids how to multiply fractions?
What good is Encarta when he can't read?

I really don't know what you mean by improvements in infrastructure and more school programs, so I can't respond to that until you fill me in on what kind of infrastructure (bricks and mortar stuff or things like high speed internet access) and what types of programs you're talking about.

[panerd]

Here is a long response Cam, but I really hope you take the time to read it.

Three areas I will concede:
1. Teachers are definitely NOT underpaid: That’s right and this isn’t being written tongue in cheek either. We all knew that we wouldn’t be pulling in six figures when we retired and no teacher has the right to complain about our salaries. Teachers are off for over two months a year. Just by teaching summer school, I gross over $3500 a month in the summer. I would say that isn’t too bad.

2. There are some really shitty teachers out there: I would say there are 30 teachers at the school I am at that I wouldn’t want my children to have anything to do with. With about 150 teachers, that make-up is about 20%. One guy sits around and watches ESPN and teaches his kids how to play backgammon. (this is a science class) Which brings me to my next point…

3. My problem with the NEA: I don’t agree with all of your critisms of the NEA, but I must say that I am not a big fan of the organization myself. The simple fact is that the NEA protects all members, and in doing so protects crappy teachers. Obviously it would be hard to not help someone who pays you dues, but the NEA doesn't have to accept everyone's membership. As far as the political issues that you take offense to. While I don’t applaud them taking a stand on hot political topics, that is a national organization thing. (Which is very far removed from most state and local NEA chapters)

With that said, here are my three main gripes…

1. The other 80% of the teachers are not shitty: I work my tail off every day trying to find fresher and better ways to reach my students. The reality is simple, I will get the same pay raise as the guy who teaches backgammon. We both move up one spot on the pay scale for every year we teach. But I can assure you that most teachers aren’t in it for the money and want to work to make a difference regardless of what the guy next to them is making. And if we want to talk about lazy employees, how many FOFC members post here every 5 minutes during a normal workday? How come on my days off from summer school the golf courses and bars are flooded with businessmen “working so hard”? I think a classic line from office space fits perfect for the “real world”. “It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.” I don’t see many teachers with this attitude, honestly.

2. Teachers are overpaid: You know how disgusted I get when I read about how crappy teachers are. Just the other day the NY testing thread consisted of… Teachers suck. Agree. Teachers are worthless. Come off it. People love quoting the average salary of a teacher, but forget to mention that a large percentage of teachers have their master’s degree or better. And before you talk about how worthless Master’s degrees in education are, you had better check your facts. I have my Master’s in Mathematics and I know a lot of high school teachers who are certified similarly.

3. Finally the standardized test argument: Standardized tests are based on percentiles. If I gave a spelling test and my kids scores were 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, & 100 they would all get A’s. That isn’t how percentiles work. One student would be at the 99th percentile, another at the 89th, with the guy who scored a 90 at the 1st percentile. Conceivably I could get 4 out 5 questions correct and everyone else could get all 5 and I would be at the 1st percentile. In order to move up, you have to move past other people who rank ahead of you. So it isn’t that simple to move up and down. There are thousands of schools in every percentile Now I don’t argue test results are useless for individuals or even whole districts, but they are an extremely poor way to evaluate teachers. Here is an example I believe I have used on this board before. My school is a very high achieving school. Our scores range from the 75th to about 79th percentile. But that is mainly due to the parenting and SES of our students, we sadly don’t effect test scores all that much. The backgammon teacher I talked about above usually takes his kids and teaches them nothing (well, besides backgammon). His scores last year were I believe 76. The greatest teacher I have ever met teaches the same grade and subject as this fool. He is generally regarded as one of the pros of the business. His scores were at about 78. How are you going to judge teachers? It’s kind of ridiculous isn’t it? I could go to the richest district in St. Louis, and all of a sudden I am good? Or I go to the inner city schools and I suck? Test scores aren’t as fair as they always are made out to be.

If you read through this whole mess I appreciate your time. And I welcome any comments or debate. You see, I can see problems with the profession, but am not ready to label the whole educational system as a complete fraud. There are too many damned good people in my line of work to do that!

[dawgfan]

Actually Cam, go back and read the original thread - this is the first time you answered either question.

I agree that reducing ratios from 18:1 to 16:1 isn't going to produce a big improvement, but it will produce some improvement. And the issue isn't really to reduce ratios from 18:1 to 16:1 - I'd be very happy if most schools were 18:1. Unfortunately there are way too many schools at 25:1, and I believe there would be a significant improvement reducing those classes to 18:1. And, you've basically admitted my point - reducing class size ratios should improve the teaching situation. We can argue amounts and cost-effectiveness, but the core concept is valid.

As for improving school funding, you admit that money spent on learning aids like computers and programs like Encarta would be helpful, then steer the argument away by assuming that the kids wouldn't have the basic fundamentals of math and reading to take advantage of them. How is that comment germane to the question at hand? Do you assume that spending on these items necessitates that teachers won't be capable of teaching the basics?

By infrastructure I mean schools and classrooms that aren't falling apart, with modern upgrades like internet access, computers and software that aren't obsolete, a full supply of relatively up-to-date textbooks, a sufficient supply of learning aids like chemistry kits and other similar supplies. By programs I mean more opportunities for extracurricular learning like student-run in-school business, science clubs, learning fairs and study halls.

I have no problem discussing cost-effectiveness, and I don't advocate throwing money at a problem blindly. My original gripe with your position is that you took a particular set of numbers and drew a conclusion from them without acknowledging that there were other important factors at play in determining the outcome.

It's my contention that a number of social changes in our society are working against education of children, and that this is a situation that has been getting worse over time. If not for improvements in spending on education the situation would be even worse than it is; in other words, the good that has come from better student:teacher ratios and improvements in school spending has been masked by a deterioration in the social climate that hampers education.

[CamEdwards]

panerd,

I think we're closer to agreement than you might think. I KNOW there are good teachers out there. I know that the majority of teachers care about what goes on in the classroom. I've talked to enough teachers to firmly agree with what you're saying.

Again, the system rewards mediocrity. It's the same problem I ran into when I worked in state government. I had bosses tell me "don't do too much today. we don't want to look like we can handle more work." You got paid the same whether you did more than your coworkers or not. I couldn't stand that philosophy.

I also see your point on test scores. I guess my question would be what criteria would you as a teacher really like to see used to evaluate your performance so that your friend the good teacher can actually be rewarded for not watching ESPN in class?

[CamEdwards]

dawgfan, I'm not saying that if teachers had computers they wouldn't be teaching kids the fundamentals. I'm saying in too many cases, kids aren't learning the fundamentals right now.

And your main argument throughout both threads seems to be "I'll go ahead and tell you how I feel, now produce some statistics to refute my opinion." Frankly, I'm tired of doing that. Show me the statistics that tell me the U.S. has a student/teacher ration of 25:1. Show me statistics about the social changes that are making it harder to educate kids. Please. You keep asking me to produce facts, why don't you pony up some research. Otherwise, we're just arguing opinion, and it's a waste of my time because I'm not learning anything new.

[dawgfan]

Cam, I don't think we're really that far off on the issue of education. Where we break down is that you've issued a fundamental dismissal of 2 educational ideas - reduced class-sizes and increased per-student educational spending.

My intent is not and has not been to state an opinion and demand facts to dispute them. My point has always been that you drew a conclusion about class-size reduction and increased per-student education spending that was flawed both from a methodology and a common sense standpoint.

Your contention from your first post on the matter is that class-size reduction and per-student spending increases don't work because student performance hasn't increased as a result.

Where this breaks down from a methodology standpoint is that you've concluded since an increase in factor A hasn't led to an improvement in results B that increasing A doesn't improve B. The flaw here is that there are a lot more factors involved in producing result B than just factor A; by not controlling for those other factors, you cannot prove anything about A as it relates to B. Factor A could be improving result B, but those improvements are being mitigated by decreases in factor C.

From a common-sense standpoint, it doesn't make any sense that a decrease in student:teacher ratios or per-student educational spending (assuming the money is reasonably managed) would not improve the quality of education in those classrooms. That's one of the key points I've been asking you - all other things being equal, don't you think that reducing class sizes will improve the education of those students? Don't you think that increasing per-pupil spending, so long as that money is spent wisely, would improve the quality of education? You counter this by citing results showing this hasn't been the case, but the problem of course is that all other things have not been equal, and increases in spending haven't necessarily been done wisely or efficiently.

You chide me for not producing numbers or statistics to back my assertions. I'll respond that citing numbers is fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean a whole lot without a) citing your sources, and more importantly b) understanding the context in which those statistics were produced and making fair, apples-to-apples comparisions.

You've claimed that in 1950, student:teacher ratios were 22.6:1, and the ratio has dropped to 16:1 today. I ask you - where do these numbers come from? Are they measuring an average of all public-school classrooms K-12 across the country?

You do cite a study on the results of a recent California initiative to reduce class sizes: the Class Size Reduction Research Consortium (website is here). From this report you've quoted a conclusion that states that the study “...found no relationship between statewide student achievement and statewide participation in class size reduction.”

I have not read the whole report (online .pdf version is found here). But I have read the Executive Summary, and found the following headline summary which has a subtle but important difference from the conclusion you quoted. It says: "Our analysis of the relationship of CSR [the California class-size reduction program] to student achievement was inconclusive." (italics mine). This doesn't mean that there was no relationship, but rather that one couldn't be established with statistical certainty. Does this mean class-size reductions don't work? Not necessarily; as mentioned in the report, one of the prime reasons for California undertaking the CSR program was:

Evidence from the Tennessee STAR experiment had shown rather clearly that elementary students in the primary grades did better academically when in small versus larger classes K-3, and the difference was greatest for inner-city and minority students.

So why did the California CSR not show conclusive evidence of improvement? Reading further in the summary gleans some clues. In the previous thread Cam stated that there are enough qualified teachers to go around. Apparently they weren't available in California though - from the report:

Reducing class size required an enormous increase in the number of K-3 teachers in California...To meet the increased demand for teachers, many districts hired teachers without full credentials...Most of the uncredentialed teachers were hired by schools serving the most disadvantaged students...

The study cites an increase in uncredentialed teachers from 1.8% prior to the implementation of CSR to 12.5% after.

Also, despite budget surpluses in California earmarked for education, the spending for implementing CSR exceeded the funding for it. From the report:

Most districts in our statewide sample reported incurring operating costs for CSR that exceeded state payments for it, and these funding problems persisted, or even worsened, in recent years. Districts attempted to overcome budget shortfalls created by CSR by reducing funds for facility maintenance and administrative services. About one-third of such districts also reduced resources for professional development, computer programs, or libraries. To be able to implement the program, many schools reported having to reallocate full-sized classrooms that had been designated for special education back to K-3 classrooms, thereby forcing special education classes to use alternative spaces. CSR implementation also preempted space from such uses as music and arts, athletics, and childcare programs.

So, what we have is a program that was not fully-funded - implementing CSR required cutbacks in other areas of education spending; they were robbing Peter to pay Paul. And to fill the void of teachers that were required to implement the program, standards had to be lowered. Is it any surprise then that the results were inconclusive? The results were not all bad though; it proved to be very popular with both teachers and parents, enough so that the report recommends continuing with the CSR program, but with many suggestions for improvement, much of which revolves around ensuring adequate funding for the program, a sufficient supply of qualified teachers, a better integration of the program with other educational reforms.

To summarize my position, I'm not arguing whether reforming public-school education is preferable to charter-school and/or school voucher efforts. I acknowlege that there are problems with the current system. I recognize that there are inefficiencies in our public-education spending, and that groups such as the NEA have additional self-serving agendas above and beyond their mission to improve education.

What I am saying is that it is a faulty conclusion to say that reduction in student-teacher ratios doesn't improve the quality of education. Such gains may be mitigated by other factors that work to undermine education, and there is no guarantee that implementation of class-size reductions will be done in an efficient manner in all cases (as shown by the CSR). I think the concept is valid, but I recognize that implementation isn't always perfect and that there are other factors present that may mask the improvements that such a concept brings.

I am suggesting that social factors have changed in this country have changed for the worse over the last 50 years in ways that negatively impact education. I can't prove this assertion, and I don't have the time to look up the vast number of statistics required to attempt to back my theory. There are so many factors to consider that any attempt I could make in my limited free time would not do the subject justice. I will take some time to see if such studies have been done by others though, and if successful I will present those findings here.

Perhaps you disagree with me on this point, and that's fine - I suspect these changes have happened, but I can't prove them so I won't expect you to feel the same way.

My hope though is that you recognize that your conclusions were faulty - not that they necessarily weren't true, but that you hadn't proved your point with the evidence you presented.

[korme]

yowza, long post

[CamEdwards]

yowza, indeed.

I'm happy for us to agree that the NEA is a self serving organization with interests above and beyond their mission to improve education.

The bottom line is, you and I both have other jobs and can't devote the time needed to research the statistics to try and prove our points (which could always be refuted by further statistics).

I think I can agree to disagree and keep an open mind and an inquisitive eye towards your theory. You've at least made me curious enough to want to explore your theory on my own.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
yowza, indeed.

I'm happy for us to agree that the NEA is a self serving organization with interests above and beyond their mission to improve education.

The bottom line is, you and I both have other jobs and can't devote the time needed to research the statistics to try and prove our points (which could always be refuted by further statistics).

I think I can agree to disagree and keep an open mind and an inquisitive eye towards your theory. You've at least made me curious enough to want to explore your theory on my own.

I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I want to make clear that I'm not prepared to describe the NEA as a self-serving organization, but I do acknowledge that there are more than likely some self-serving aspects to their actions. I don't think it's fair to say that the NEA doesn't care about improving education, but I do think it's fair to criticize the methods they espouse and positions they take.

Bottom line is we both want to improve the quality of the education our children receive in this country; the sticky point is coming to an agreement of how best to achieve that.

[CamEdwards]

yep... and that's fine with me. Debate is good and healthy. As a matter of fact, I'm jazzed because I get to have a member of the NEA's Executive Committee on the show next week to talk about stuff like this.