Rhee fires 241 D.C. teachers; 165 cited for poor performance

[Golden Applesauce]

My aunt is a teacher.  She works unbelievably hard to help her kids, and her position is still in jeopardy because the school is losing funds, since the kids get such bad grades due to the bad neighborhood/poverty/high crime rate.

You fire one teacher, you fire someone who spent years and tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege to work in a classroom.  You can't tell me a person like that doesn't really care about teaching.  Just because you have some new test to rate teachers doesn't mean it's the teachers fault that kids don't do well on tests.  

I also have an aunt who is a teacher, and she works unbelievably hard as well, etc, etc.

All the good teacher's I've had have worked unbelievably hard, and I wouldn't be where I am today if not for those teachers.

But there are a lot of teachers out there who are in it for the power trip, who see their students as obstacles to good teaching, who think of themselves as generals in some kind of generational war between children and adults and treat their students as hostile forces.  There are teachers who have gone senile in their post but refuse to retire, teachers who are outright paranoid, or who flat-out do not know the material they are supposed to be teaching.  There are even teachers who mean well and put in all the time and effort and still can't win the respect of their classroom, or who spend so much time pandering to the students and trying to make things interesting that they forget to actually teach anything.

Given that children are required to go to school, we owe them a teacher who isn't wasting their time.

Are these cuts well targeted to the teachers who really are failing?  I don't know.

[Cain]

A union survey of 1,000 educators earlier this year found that 52 percent answered "no" when asked if they understood what was required of them under the new teaching framework. Seventy-five percent said they were not provided adequate examples, either on video or personal demonstration, of what constituted a high-scoring teacher performance. About the same proportion said they were not provided extra support in areas where they scored poorly on initial observations.

From the same article.  Be interesting to see if they try to fill all the vacant positions or not.  I suspect the latter, and if so, that suggests this had less to do with educational standards than using a new toy to thin out numbers in a time of budget cuts.  I would also suggest a fully staffed school, even if staffed inadequately, is still far better than than a school which cannot operate properly due to lack of staff.  Even mediocre or quite poor staff can help lift the burden off better teachers, allowing them to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

[Juana]

But there are a lot of teachers out there who are in it for the power trip, who see their students as obstacles to good teaching, who think of themselves as generals in some kind of generational war between children and adults and treat their students as hostile forces.  There are teachers who have gone senile in their post but refuse to retire, teachers who are outright paranoid, or who flat-out do not know the material they are supposed to be teaching.  There are even teachers who mean well and put in all the time and effort and still can't win the respect of their classroom, or who spend so much time pandering to the students and trying to make things interesting that they forget to actually teach anything.

Given that children are required to go to school, we owe them a teacher who isn't wasting their time.

Are these cuts well targeted to the teachers who really are failing?  I don't know.

I never, ever had or observed a teacher who was in it for power or saw students as the enemy, or was too senile to teach, and I went to school in three different states (Colorado, Texas, and California). My mother teaches in another, which I have volunteered in. In that time, I have seen a handful of bad teachers, who just didn't give a shit or couldn't win the respect of their classes or any of the other problems you pointed out. I had and observed one teacher who didn't know her shit - my botany teacher who seemed to think botany = horticulture. And that's it. Ever. Out of thirteen years of school, dozens of teachers, and even more years observing and volunteering in the poorer district in my area, in which my mother teaches.

A union survey of 1,000 educators earlier this year found that 52 percent answered "no" when asked if they understood what was required of them under the new teaching framework. Seventy-five percent said they were not provided adequate examples, either on video or personal demonstration, of what constituted a high-scoring teacher performance. About the same proportion said they were not provided extra support in areas where they scored poorly on initial observations.

From the same article.  Be interesting to see if they try to fill all the vacant positions or not.  I suspect the latter, and if so, that suggests this had less to do with educational standards than using a new toy to thin out numbers in a time of budget cuts.  I would also suggest a fully staffed school, even if staffed inadequately, is still far better than than a school which cannot operate properly due to lack of staff.  Even mediocre or quite poor staff can help lift the burden off better teachers, allowing them to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

Makes sense. California changes their shit every single year and often enough, radically. It's then just shoved at teachers, and I highly doubt they're the only ones.

Depends, I would think, on how much of this is really about budget cuts. The massive cut that hit the school district I used to work in and went to really is about the budget, though they shuffled the cuts around so that most of them (21/30) hit the poorest school in the district. Those twenty one teachers are not going to be replaced.

[Kai]

Makes a person want to consider wacking the public school system and making it completely private. Which is a horrible idea, but horrible events cause considerations of other horrible ideas. Meanwhile, other school systems across the world are increasing in quality. So much for being #1!

[Golden Applesauce]

But there are a lot of teachers out there who are in it for the power trip, who see their students as obstacles to good teaching, who think of themselves as generals in some kind of generational war between children and adults and treat their students as hostile forces.  There are teachers who have gone senile in their post but refuse to retire, teachers who are outright paranoid, or who flat-out do not know the material they are supposed to be teaching.  There are even teachers who mean well and put in all the time and effort and still can't win the respect of their classroom, or who spend so much time pandering to the students and trying to make things interesting that they forget to actually teach anything.

Given that children are required to go to school, we owe them a teacher who isn't wasting their time.

Are these cuts well targeted to the teachers who really are failing?  I don't know.

I never, ever had or observed a teacher who was in it for power or saw students as the enemy, or was too senile to teach, and I went to school in three different states (Colorado, Texas, and California). My mother teaches in another, which I have volunteered in. In that time, I have seen a handful of bad teachers, who just didn't give a shit or couldn't win the respect of their classes or any of the other problems you pointed out. I had and observed one teacher who didn't know her shit - my botany teacher who seemed to think botany = horticulture. And that's it. Ever. Out of thirteen years of school, dozens of teachers, and even more years observing and volunteering in the poorer district in my area, in which my mother teaches.

All of the examples I've listed have been from personal experience.  Teacher quality varies widely, I guess.  (Incidentally, my three states were North Carolina, Tennessee, and Ohio.  Public, private, homeschool, Catholic, and mixed grades.  Not the most stable educational history... )

There are great teachers, good teachers, decent teachers, mediocre teachers, even bad teachers ... and then there's the ones who actively interfere with learning.

[Juana]

But there are a lot of teachers out there who are in it for the power trip, who see their students as obstacles to good teaching, who think of themselves as generals in some kind of generational war between children and adults and treat their students as hostile forces.  There are teachers who have gone senile in their post but refuse to retire, teachers who are outright paranoid, or who flat-out do not know the material they are supposed to be teaching.  There are even teachers who mean well and put in all the time and effort and still can't win the respect of their classroom, or who spend so much time pandering to the students and trying to make things interesting that they forget to actually teach anything.

Given that children are required to go to school, we owe them a teacher who isn't wasting their time.

Are these cuts well targeted to the teachers who really are failing?  I don't know.

I never, ever had or observed a teacher who was in it for power or saw students as the enemy, or was too senile to teach, and I went to school in three different states (Colorado, Texas, and California). My mother teaches in another, which I have volunteered in. In that time, I have seen a handful of bad teachers, who just didn't give a shit or couldn't win the respect of their classes or any of the other problems you pointed out. I had and observed one teacher who didn't know her shit - my botany teacher who seemed to think botany = horticulture. And that's it. Ever. Out of thirteen years of school, dozens of teachers, and even more years observing and volunteering in the poorer district in my area, in which my mother teaches.

All of the examples I've listed have been from personal experience.  Teacher quality varies widely, I guess.  (Incidentally, my three states were North Carolina, Tennessee, and Ohio.  Public, private, homeschool, Catholic, and mixed grades.  Not the most stable educational history... )

There are great teachers, good teachers, decent teachers, mediocre teachers, even bad teachers ... and then there's the ones who actively interfere with learning.

I can't imagine having teachers like that. Those people do not belong in the classroom, or anywhere near it. I'm hesitant to ask, but are you sure you were reading all of those teachers correctly?

[Jasper]

I can remember teachers who abused their power in the classroom.  And I can remember one who really flipped out at the kids, like actual shouting and hollering with rage freakout.  Still though, the ones who shouldn't teach have been a huge minority, in my experience. 

I had one trig teacher who I really couldn't learn from, but then when I retook trig I had the best math teacher ever, hands down.  So, yanno.

[Adios]

So the concensus is there are bad teachers.

[Cain]

The question isn't whether there are bad teachers, it is whether a new system which magically finds 20% of the sample of teachers unfit (and has what seems to be several real flaws in its execution) is really working as advertised, or is in fact being used as a soft method to cover up methodical and sweeping layoffs, and what effect this is likely to have on education in the area.

[Cain]

I also notice everyone skirting around the point that even mediocre or bad teachers (except in the worst cases) still have a role to play in schools because, as I pointed out, an understaffed school is actually going to perform worse than a fully staffed one unless every single teacher there is of mediocre or worse skill (statistically unlikely).  5-10% getting axed seems far more justifiable, especially if the layoffs were spread out as so to minimize the disruption to the educational system and they were actively seeking to fill the vacant posts.  Again though, that don't seem to be the case here, based on the available evidence.

You can argue generally about zomg teh bad teachers until the cows come home, but let's try looking at the facts of the particular case, shall we?

[Placid Dingo]

I teach in Australia, and am still developing feelings about the systems in general.

There are teachers who work INCREDIBLY hard, and there are teachers who are waiting out the last couple of years before they retire/don't want to change industries because it means a whole new skill set.

There's a lot that can be done, the main points being

* Actively promote support additional for teachers who are in their first five years/ who are returning to teaching after a break (at prenent done where I am, but the efficiency depends on the school.)

* Actively promote sabbatical/industry change periods for teachers to give the option of gaining additional real world experience, with systems availible to ease teachers back into jobs.

* oh and the obvious CLASS SIZE DOWN, STAFF SIZE UP
* PR the shit out of teaching to actually make it appealing to the mainstream

* Offer transition support to teachers to avoid being in the situation of 'I'd leave, but i don't know what else to do...'.

*Also, make university courses A, standardised and B not a complete joke.

[Adios]

The question isn't whether there are bad teachers, it is whether a new system which magically finds 20% of the sample of teachers unfit (and has what seems to be several real flaws in its execution) is really working as advertised, or is in fact being used as a soft method to cover up methodical and sweeping layoffs, and what effect this is likely to have on education in the area.

It isn't magic, it's just being enforced for the first time.

[Adios]

I also notice everyone skirting around the point that even mediocre or bad teachers (except in the worst cases) still have a role to play in schools because, as I pointed out, an understaffed school is actually going to perform worse than a fully staffed one unless every single teacher there is of mediocre or worse skill (statistically unlikely).  5-10% getting axed seems far more justifiable, especially if the layoffs were spread out as so to minimize the disruption to the educational system and they were actively seeking to fill the vacant posts.  Again though, that don't seem to be the case here, based on the available evidence.

You can argue generally about zomg teh bad teachers until the cows come home, but let's try looking at the facts of the particular case, shall we?

A bad teacher can do far more harm than good, even as a place holder.

[Juana]

For American schools, I'd add not penalizing teachers for stupid administers (like NCLB does) to Placid Dingo's list.

The question isn't whether there are bad teachers, it is whether a new system which magically finds 20% of the sample of teachers unfit (and has what seems to be several real flaws in its execution) is really working as advertised, or is in fact being used as a soft method to cover up methodical and sweeping layoffs, and what effect this is likely to have on education in the area.

DC has a pretty sizable poor area, iirc, and that would mean a hit to already underfunded schools, even with Rhee's investments because four million is unlikely to be enough. Not this year, since according to the article, that's only about 4% of the corp (though that depends on how the layoff are dealt with), but next year, that's a huge chunk of teachers possibly gone. And like I said, a year isn't enough time, especially with the way new materials and criteria are usually handled, so I would predict a large layoff next summer, unless the union has its way.
In order to answer the methodical and sweeping bit, we'd have to get a look at teacher politics I would say.

I'm really not liking this.

She has announced plans to significantly expand the use of standardized tests so that value-added data will be available in some form at all grade levels.

Taking more time away from students and teachers who may be seriously understaffed by this time next year. "Hey, let's take up more time with tests that are supposed to tell us how they're spending their time!" Ugh.

I also notice everyone skirting around the point that even mediocre or bad teachers (except in the worst cases) still have a role to play in schools because, as I pointed out, an understaffed school is actually going to perform worse than a fully staffed one unless every single teacher there is of mediocre or worse skill (statistically unlikely).  5-10% getting axed seems far more justifiable, especially if the layoffs were spread out as so to minimize the disruption to the educational system and they were actively seeking to fill the vacant posts.  Again though, that don't seem to be the case here, based on the available evidence.

You can argue generally about zomg teh bad teachers until the cows come home, but let's try looking at the facts of the particular case, shall we?

A bad teacher can do far more harm than good, even as a place holder.

True. There is no easy answer to this, though. Frazzled, over worked, would-be-excellent-if-s/he-didn't-have-forty-kids teacher or a bad seat warmer - which do you pick?

[Requia ☣]

Uh, believe me, no-one in the US teaches for the wonderful pay and opportunities the job presents.  In fact, since teachers are required to be graduates, they'd probably earn more in the private sector anyway.

Average teacher Salary in DC is 66k a year.  Average Salary in the US for a college grad is 42k.

Edit, found average college grad-DC pay, which is 72k, I suspect that is distorted by government contractor and lobbyist jobs unique to the area.