State law affirms my belief our teachers are encouraged to be incompetent
I was reading about the eligibility requirements of Tennessee’s HOPE scholarship, which is the scholarship paid for via our new lottery. The FAQ reads:
Question 2: How do I qualify for the Tennessee HOPE Scholarship?
You must meet the following criteria:
[snip]
§ Score at least a 19 ACT (890 SAT) OR
[snip]
§ 2004 Home schooled graduates have two ways to qualify:
Score at least a 23 ACT (1060 SAT)
See that? Home schooled students must outperform public school students (which I’m sure they do anyway). There are two reasons I can think of why this occurs:
1) Our legislators realize that the average parent is a better teacher than the average teacher. This doesn’t sound unreasonable.
2) To make homeschooling that much more difficult (the likely reason, as the NEA wants to do just that).
The fact they would rather make it more difficult on home-schooled children rather odd. I tend to think that the standards should be the same for all children regardless of how they were educated.
April 21st, 2004 at 10:54 am
Home-schooling is BAD, because children need to to attend public schools to learn socialization, which apparently means teaching the kids to live under a socialist government.
April 21st, 2004 at 12:31 pm
Thibodeaux is right. Home-schooled kids don’t learn to sit still for hours at a time because someone said to. They don’t learn how to adjust themselves in the social heirarchy of jocks to nerds.
I guess legislators fear that parents are using grade inflation at home. Like teachers *never* do that!
April 21st, 2004 at 1:27 pm
I support homeschooling, Uncle, but I’m not sure TN is wrong to do this. The homeschoolers are in the same position as GED students and, without some grade point equivalent (and public schooled kids need some GPA standard) they need something fulfill that second requirement. The GED test seems a reasonable proxy.
April 21st, 2004 at 1:34 pm
Or, it could just be that Home Schooled kids don’t have a set requirement and so they need to prove themselves in the only rigid format that they are ever asked to participate in in. It could be that kids that go to public and private schools — and hey, well, looky there — this applies to PRIVATE schools as well as public education! Wow! So I guess the virtuous private schools are in bed with the big bad evil teachers! Oh, the horror of how the free market has become so corrupt! — have to demonstrate a knowledge of things not on the ACT and SAT, like history, critical thinking, etc,etc,etc, and Home School kids don’t ever have to prove a bloody thing to their parents or anyone else. It could be that that legislature recognizes that home school kids can spend all of their time cramming for the ACT — unlike regular school kids who actually have to, you know, learn a wide variety of material that doesn’t get covered on an aptitude test like the SAT.
In other words, the legislatures correctly figured out that its kinda stupid to judge the two sets of kids the same way when one set of kids has had to constantly prove their knowledge of subjects outside the parameters of the ACT and SAT tests and have to dedicate quite a bit of time to studies not connected to the ACT and SAT tests and the other set does not.
In other words, the legislatures aren’t being gullible idiots. I would think they should be applauded for that.
And socialization is not about learning to sit still or learning to have the workers control the means of production (you know, what socialism actually is) — it means learning to deal with people who are not exactly like you. Pretty important in this day an age.
April 21st, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Kevin, tie your knee to something. It’s jerking out of control.
According to my teaching friends, home schooled kids have more stringent requirements in other areas too (such as periodic aptitude tests and other means of displaying that they’re learning). Per my teacher friends (about 5 of them confirmed), the standards for these other items were higher for home schooled kids too.
And i don’t have a problem with teachers. I have a problem with teachers organizations who place teachers as a higher priority than students, which is what this rule does. These rules just make it harder to home school. Period.
And i tend to agree about socialization.
April 21st, 2004 at 1:53 pm
Uncle:
I have a problem with teachers organizations who place teachers as a higher priority than students, which is what this rule does.
I disagree, this doesn’t do that at all. Even in the worst case, it holds home-schooled kids to a higher standard than non-home-schooled kids (the reasons for this Kevin already explained), but it has nothing at all to do with teachers’ organizations. If anything it has to do with state educational standards, far more a product of politicians than of any teachers’ lobby.
Besides which, “teacher” is a crap job with crap pay (even though it shouldn’t be), and if anyone needs an organization looking out for them, it’s teachers.
If your teacher friends confirm these things about home schooling, perhaps a detailed post comparing the standards and requirements for home schooling versus those for organized schooling is in order.
April 21st, 2004 at 2:04 pm
“According to my teaching friends, home schooled kids have more stringent requirements in other areas too (such as periodic aptitude tests and other means of displaying that they’re learning). Per my teacher friends (about 5 of them confirmed), the standards for these other items were higher for home schooled kids too.”
Documentation, please, because my teacher friends say the opposite. And I know of NO requirement that home school kids take the same aptitudes tests that school kids do regularly to graduate. And even if they do have to take aptitude tests, the home schooled kids are still not under the same strict requirement schooled kids are, because the aptitude tests do not cover every subject in the same detail that school kids learn, and the home schooled kids still have the advantage of devoting all of their time to studying for the test instead of continuing to learn other subjects. There is nothing that prevents home schooled kids form learning just what is o the tests — unlike regular school children who are required to be taught in a complete and well rounded fashion
And speaking of knee jerks:
“And i don’t have a problem with teachers. I have a problem with teachers organizations who place teachers as a higher priority than students, which is what this rule does. These rules just make it harder to home school. Period.”
Bullshit. The notion that the teacher’s — whose leaders are chosen by the freaking teachers — is opposed to educating kids is bullshit. The teachers union — made up of teachers you profess to like, I might add — is not willing to let politicians and principles blame teachers for things that aren’t teachers fault — like poor discipline, having to try to educate starving kids, idiotic testing regimes instead of actual learning, and underfunded school with no air conditioning in June and hole sin the fucking roof. The teachers union is also not going o allow politicians and theorists who have never spent one day teaching kids to try and tell professionals that if they just did this one thing everything would be fine. And, to top it off, they have to listen to privatization iditos say that schools would jsut be better if they had non-unionized (read lower paying) help, despite the fact that there is noevidence school choice has ever made a district better, and plenty that says it has hurt. Without the increase in pay and benefits that the NEA has faught for, teachers — are most important jonb — would still be backing crap, and they would be forced to do idiotic things that have never worked anywhere becasue some politician has a bug up his ass.
Home school kids do not have the same standards as schooled kids because there is no guarantee that they are actually earning anything beyond what is needed to pass whatever tests they may happen to take — and their schedule allows them to devote all of their class time to studying for said tests. These rules are designed to prevent home schooled kids from wasting the states money. Period.
And you don’t even know where these rules came form — but you blame the NEA anyway.
April 21st, 2004 at 2:15 pm
Tom
I disagree, this doesn’t do that at all. Even in the worst case, it holds home-schooled kids to a higher standard than non-home-schooled kids (the reasons for this Kevin already explained), but it has nothing at all to do with teachers’ organizations.
IIRC, schools get reimbursed per diem (i.e., a fee per day per child). So it affects the money flow.
Besides which, “teacher” is a crap job with crap pay (even though it shouldn’t be), and if anyone needs an organization looking out for them, it’s teachers.
You get no argument from me there. But I tend to think that some of the polices of the NEA lead to increase costs that do not go to salaries.
If your teacher friends confirm these things about home schooling, perhaps a detailed post comparing the standards and requirements for home schooling versus those for organized schooling is in order.
Some day, when i get the time to research it, I will.
Kev
The notion that the teacher’s — whose leaders are chosen by the freaking teachers — is opposed to educating kids is bullshit.
Who said that? I said that they tend to place teachers higher on the priority list than students.
And, to top it off, they have to listen to privatization iditos say that schools would jsut be better if they had non-unionized (read lower paying) help, despite the fact that there is noevidence school choice has ever made a district better, and plenty that says it has hurt.
Don’t private school idiots tend to outperform public school idiots?
Home school kids do not have the same standards as schooled kids because there is no guarantee that they are actually earning anything beyond what is needed to pass whatever tests they may happen to take
And the same is true of public schools. Social promotion, test scores and lots of children being left behind.
April 21st, 2004 at 3:17 pm
“Don’t private school idiots tend to outperform public school idiots”
No, they don’t. there has never been a privatization plan that has. The on in Milwaukee was doing so badly that they stopped keeping stats! Now, to be fair, they don’t always do worse, they just don’t do better.
“Who said that? I said that they tend to place teachers higher on the priority list than students.”
When you place something above something else, you care more about it than the thing you placed it above. I don’t think my interpretation was out of line, but if thats not what you meant, then i will take you at your word. You are still wrong about the NEA, though, for the reasons I outlined above.
“And the same is true of public schools. Social promotion, test scores and lots of children being left behind.”
But that doesn’t absolve the legislature of its responsibility to make sure that home school kids don’t take the state for a ride. The two problems are disconnected.
And, frankly, the education system in this country does extremely well when you control for economics. its a myth that the public education system is in disrepair. it is only in disrepair in the poorest neighborhoods. not to minimize the problem, but the US is not facing a general education crisis, just a specific one among the poorest kids.
April 21st, 2004 at 3:28 pm
No, they don’t. there has never been a privatization plan that has
Documentation, please.
You are still wrong about the NEA, though, for the reasons I outlined above
No, i’m not. Maybe there’s a level of degree to your argument but to say that the NEA hasn’t in anyway damaged education is a bit of a stretch. I read an article once that detailed that the costs to fire a teacher were greater than several years of salary. Thus, it was more economic to keep incompetents on board than get rid of them. Also, as les jones opined once, you can’t blame administrators for employees they can’t fire. If administrators can’t fire teachers, they can’t be held responsible for the teachers. Thank you, civil service!
I don’t think my interpretation was out of line
I have a problem with teachers organizations who place teachers as a higher priority than students does not equal teacher’s — whose leaders are chosen by the freaking teachers — is opposed to educating kids
But that doesn’t absolve the legislature of its responsibility to make sure that home school kids don’t take the state for a ride.
I realize that but stating that me, some accountant, has to have a home schooled child perform better than children educated by professional teachers is ludicrous. They’re professionals, they should do the better job and be held to higher standards. Granted, i’m advocating equal standards.
We have a slight crisis in education in terms of bang for buck. It seems the more money pumped in, the worse the schools do. It’s quite odd. I am referring to education overall and not specific schools.
April 21st, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Turns out, private schools do outperform and are cheaper according to some studies:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm
Of course, that performance is also tied to socioeconomic factors not prevailant in most private schools.
April 21st, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Or perhaps it’s as simple as ‘a danger-free classroom is more conducive to learning.’ The teachers in my circle of friends unanimously say that the only reason they pay NEA dues is to have legal representation in case of a disgruntled parent’s suit.
April 23rd, 2004 at 1:12 am
Kevin, I know several families who home school their kids. Their children have to use a curriculum approved by the state, keep a log to prove they’ve spent an appropriate amount of time doing school work, and pass regular rigorous tests to ensure they are keeping up with their traditionally schooled peers. Home schooled children are also required to pass the Tennessee gateway exams, which cover all those subjects not covered by the SAT/ACT.
Also, many school systems and communities are now allowing home schooled children access to extra-curricular activities (sport, clubs, etc) to help with any loss in “socialization.”
April 26th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
Uncle:
Turns out, private schools do outperform
Late to respond, but there’s a chicken-and-egg thing here. Are the private schools outperforming their public counterparts because they are better at what they do? Or is it because they get to choose and refuse students based on academic merit, whereas public schools have to accept any shmoe who lives in the district?
What Kevin is saying, and I agree, is that there is no evidence to date that bad students who move from “failing” public schools to private one do any better in private school — and they often do worse.
A fair comparison would be a private school against an “optional” public school (i.e., one that only accepts the best students). But you won’t see that comparison, because private schools lose their luster in that light.
While we’re on the subject of privatizing schools, I’ve yet to have anyone of libertarian leanings sufficiently explain to me where the profit motivation is for locating a private school in Watts or Compton or Over-the-Rhine or Orange Mound or any number of other inner-city neighborhoods.
April 26th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
The report i link to above makes that distinction (picking and choosing students) by pointing out that Roman Catholic schools, which can be used as a surrogate for non-elite private schools, produced Proficient scores at 1.4 times or more the rate of public schools.
And yes there is some disparity caused by picking and choosing (even in RC schools, as only parents who really care about their kids’ education would put them there). But if your contention is that picking and choosing accounts for the entirety of that difference, you may be off base.
April 26th, 2004 at 4:37 pm
“Documentation, please.”
BHzzzt. you are making the claim, you prove it mate. Which, I might add, you have manifestly failed to do.
But, what the hell: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1430 and
http://www.aft.org/research/vouchers/mil/
“I read an article once that detailed that the costs to fire a teacher were greater than several years of salary. Thus, it was more economic to keep incompetents on board than get rid of them. Also, as les jones opined once, you can’t blame administrators for employees they can’t fire. If administrators can’t fire teachers, they can’t be held responsible for the teachers. Thank you, civil service!”
Really? Article please? Casue I here this all of the time, but I have NEVER seen documentation on it, never. And the civil service you so despise is what allowed Rowely to highlight the failings of the FBI and not lose her job. Thank you civil service! Protecting teachers form being fired without cause keeps are kids better educated, as a principle has to prove that a teacher is doing a bad job and cannot fire them for just making a parent angry by, you know, teaching evolution. Thank you civil service! There is no job that, when done well, has the potential for job related conflict. Teachers need those protections, or they will be removed at political whim or as the route of least resistance. And if the rules are soooooooooooo bad, then why are American students improving by almost every measure imaginable? (“Setting the record Straight”, a book, is also a very good resource) And, I repeat: without the protection and wage increases that unions have fought for, the education field would be economically untenable for most people. In that respect, they have manifestly made teaching better.
“Their children have to use a curriculum approved by the state, keep a log to prove they’ve spent an appropriate amount of time doing school work, and pass regular rigorous tests to ensure they are keeping up with their traditionally schooled peers. Home schooled children are also required to pass the Tennessee gateway exams, which cover all those subjects not covered by the SAT/ACT.”
All except the last are in the hands of their parents. Which is why the tests have to be held to a higher standard — their is no objective proof outside of the word of a very interested party that the kids a re actually learning a thing. And standardized tests do not cover all the material that the SATs/ACTs miss, and they don’t have a section, for example, that tests the ability of kids to do book reports, or research projects, etc. Nor does that alleviate the fact that while school kids are learning how to do those things, home school kids can spend all of their time cramming for the standardized tests.
April 26th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
you are making the claim
Nope. You claimed: there has never been a privatization plan that has [outperformed public schools]. I listed one above that says quite the contrary.
Article please?
If i could find it, i’d link to it but it has been well over a year since i read it. If it turns up, I’ll link it.
And while i see the benefits of civil service protection for teachers, I also see the problems with it. I’m not stating we should get rid of its benefits but address its problems.
Oh and for your links, i followed the first to the endnot it cites. Got a broken link. Figured out where the site they were referencing was and couldn’t find their source regarding the GAO’s claims.
Most of the links on your second link were broken too. And i would say a group called AFT Center on Accountability and Privatization is, uhm, not entirely without an agenda.
April 22nd, 2004 at 11:39 pm
Double Standards for Home-schooled Kids
Money from Tennessee’s new lottery goes to college scholarships for Tennessee high school students. So far, so good. Thing is, the qualifications are different for home-schooled kids (who have to get a 23 on their ACT) and public- and privately-…