New Standards Set for Virginia Public Schools - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and W...

I hope the new standards will be more developmentally appropriate, and that they will chart a student's progress from fall to spring each year.
Looking at an individual child's learning growth from beginning of the school year to the end (as well as monitoring achievement during the year, of course) is much more telling than comparing him/her to other children.

So the administrators take the burden off the teachers and place it on who? The administrators? Fat chance, they wear Teflon or think they do!

Lazy liberal teachers have avoided responsibility for their lack of skill ince again.

democratic waste wrote:

Lazy liberal teachers have avoided responsibility for their lack of skill ince again.

Spoken as a true ignoramus. Not all teachers are lazy or liberal.

Having several family members and friends who are teachers (majority of them republican, moderate or libertarian), I keep hearing a common theme: Laws and administration keep tying teachers' hands and limiting their ability to perform their jobs effectively.

Additionally, each student is different and progresses differently. One of the problems with No Child Left Behind is that it put additional burden on students struggling in class and held back students who were proficient. Combine that with high student/teacher ratios, disciplinary tools taken from the teachers, uninvolved parents and a slew of other things... what do you think is going to happen? Performance is going to fall. Who gets the blame? Teachers.

Taxpayers don't want to pay higher taxes, so school budgets don't allow for additional teachers to lower the ratio, limit teaching materials, don't attract teachers (very few people are interested in going into the teaching field anymore because of the BS and low pay), etc.

If you think you can do a better job, by all means... pull your kid(s) out of school and home school them. Until then, shut your pie-hole, get involved with your children's school and learning, attend school board meetings, join the PTA and actually learn about what schooling is about before talking out of your a-s-s.

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
Spoken as a true ignoramus. Not all teachers are lazy or liberal.
Having several family members and friends who are teachers (majority of them republican, moderate or libertarian), I keep hearing a common theme: Laws and administration keep tying teachers' hands and limiting their ability to perform their jobs effectively.
Additionally, each student is different and progresses differently. One of the problems with No Child Left Behind is that it put additional burden on students struggling in class and held back students who were proficient. Combine that with high student/teacher ratios, disciplinary tools taken from the teachers, uninvolved parents and a slew of other things... what do you think is going to happen? Performance is going to fall. Who gets the blame? Teachers.
Taxpayers don't want to pay higher taxes, so school budgets don't allow for additional teachers to lower the ratio, limit teaching materials, don't attract teachers (very few people are interested in going into the teaching field anymore because of the BS and low pay), etc.
If you think you can do a better job, by all means... pull your kid(s) out of school and home school them. Until then, shut your pie-hole, get involved with your children's school and learning, attend school board meetings, join the PTA and actually learn about what schooling is about before talking out of your a-s-s.

Wow, chap, you covered a lot of ground. Teachers are mostly liberal when it comes to education: mo money, mo money, mo money. Just ask individual county education associations (e.g., Fluvanna Education Association) their stances on school vouchers or relaxing home schooling regulations or school funding. They will always take the liberal, pro-NEA stance. Of course, there are individual teachers who think differently.

Now, the main problem with the so-called achievement gap (love that Orwellian talk...there will always be an achievement gap; that's why some kids become carpenters and some become scientists) is that kids are indeed different and not all kids are meant to excel at school. If doesn't mean they need to fail; they just all will not do well. That is where I agree with the "kids need to be assessed individually, not against some overall score goal" idea.

The main problem these days is absentee parents, dysfunctional households and apathy. The reason one-third of ninth graders cannot name the three branches of government is not due to stupidity; it is due to apathy. This is the fault of schools and parents: schools do not teach civics, and parents don't instill a sense of curiosity and love of learning in kids.

Class size? I am still not convinced that raising class sizes is bad. I went to private Catholic school in the 1970s; my classes were from 35 to 38 students. Now, teaches complain if classes go from 20 to 25 students and each student has to bring school supplies for other students. Yes, things were simpler then, but we were also turning out the world's leading innovators and producers. Sounds like an old fogey talking, but it is what it is.

R.I.P.: Nat Turner

"I went to...school in the 1970s..."
Therein lies the problem. This is the 21st Century! I too grew up in the 70s. If I taught my class the way I was taught then, we would have more problems than we do now. The main difference is parent involvement. It existed then. For the majority of students now, it doesn't exist.
As for those of you who blame school failure on liberals, you are wrong. My republican colleagues and I agree on the reasons for the problems in schools. It has nothing to do with politics.
There are two main problems in education today. The first is the lack of a work ethic in students. The second is the fact that school operating decisions are made by politicians, not educators.
Just because an individual was a student in school and/or is a parent of a student, does not qualify the individual to be an expert on how to educate. You may be an expert on yourself. You may be an expert on your child. But you are not an expert on the combination of 25 students within a classroom.

Did W set the bar too high? What does that say?

There needs to be a "stupid" icon on the judgement section. "Mean" just doesn't convey what I am feeling to those people who think all teachers are lazy, worthess, and don't want to work.

The problem is the bar is set way too low for many students and beyond reach for others with disabilities. It's a poor indicator of achievement. It's not how high or low the bar is set. The problem is the lack of validity in the bar.

Liberalace wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, chap, you covered a lot of ground. Teachers are mostly liberal when it comes to education: mo money, mo money, mo money.

Well, where do you think the majority of those money requests go? The majority goes for updated learning materials for students, educational field trips and things to make learning interesting and fun.

Yes, a portion of those calls for more money goes to salaries. How many professions do you know that require a Bachelor's/Master's degree + teaching certificate and the national average starting pay is around 35k/yr? There are many jobs out there requiring less certification that pay more than that.

This leads to only people where the desire to teach is greater than personal benefit are entering the field. Then once in the field for a while, become so disillusioned with what they have to deal with for that low pay, result in only those who with stronger love of teaching vs money remain as good teachers.

Liberalace wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, the main problem with the so-called achievement gap (love that Orwellian talk...there will always be an achievement gap)...
...
Class size? I am still not convinced that raising class sizes is bad. I went to private Catholic school in the 1970s; my classes were from 35 to 38 students. Now, teaches complain if classes go from 20 to 25 students and each student has to bring school supplies for other students. Yes, things were simpler then, but we were also turning out the world's leading innovators and producers. Sounds like an old fogey talking, but it is what it is.

Yes, there will always be an achievement gap, but lower student/teacher ratios enable teachers to more readily provide individual help in understanding the material, which can make that gap smaller. Then the achievement metrics (e.g. SOL tests) will start to look better to the bean counters.

I also agree that yes... this is the 21st century. I was once at a board meeting in a rural school district where a debate was taking place on creating a computer class and purchasing computers. One of the "old fogey" board members stood up with a piece of paper and writing utensil and stated "This is all I needed when I was in school, this is all these kids need now.".

That sort of thinking is what ends up producing adults that struggle in today's modern world where things are constantly changing very rapidly. Schools have to keep up with those changes to produce successful citizens that can contribute to society. In order to do that, it takes teaching materials and tools that need to constantly be updated and progressively more expensive.

To Liberal Christian Teacher: why would there be more problems now if class was taught the way it was in 1970's? We had 35 students in our class and no teacher's assistant, except in Kindergarten. Some of us excelled, but most of the class passed.
I don't remember any of my teachers complaining about their jobs in class like my son's teachers do. I pray for my son's teachers. Last year, he was in an honor's math class, and his teacher yelled at the certain students. That is upsetting to others in the classroom. It means she did not have control of herself. I cannot act like that in my job and still have a job.
Many teachers do not have the personality or the skills to teach. Since you are an expert on 25 students in a classroom, that wouldn't apply to you.

"Yes, a portion of those calls for more money goes to salaries. How many professions do you know that require a Bachelor's/Master's degree + teaching certificate and the national average starting pay is around 35k/yr?"

A Master's degree is not a requirement to teach, just for the record (though many do have them).
Second, to answer your question - The law profession.

blah wrote:

A Master's degree is not a requirement to teach, just for the record (though many do have them).
Second, to answer your question - The law profession.

1. I'm aware it's not a requirement for primary/secondary. Even though it's outside the scope of this topic, most college instructors are required to have a Master's. Those teachers who pursue Master's degrees often do so for personal benefit as there's little financial benefit from having a Master's while teaching primary/secondary.

2. I wasn't aware some careers in law had low starting pay. Do they stay pretty low like teachers' salaries do throughout their career? I do know that law salaries have dropped over the past few years, but it used to be a lucrative career.

AntiPolitician wrote:

<quoted text>
1. I'm aware it's not a requirement for primary/secondary. Even though it's outside the scope of this topic, most college instructors are required to have a Master's. Those teachers who pursue Master's degrees often do so for personal benefit as there's little financial benefit from having a Master's while teaching primary/secondary.
2. I wasn't aware some careers in law had low starting pay. Do they stay pretty low like teachers' salaries do throughout their career? I do know that law salaries have dropped over the past few years, but it used to be a lucrative career.

1. I thought we were talking about teachers? Now we are talking about "college instructors?" A Master's degree needed for a college-level "instructor" is a lot different than a Master's needed for teaching primary/secondary. A) it is a lot cheaper, B) it is a lot shorter, C) it is not as challenging academically. D) You don't even need it for your profession so, as you noted, to bring it up in an argument about salary isn't necessary.

2. A lot of attorneys do not make very much money and have tremoundous debt, especially today.

There are professional offices jobs in Charlottesville (hospital) require a Bachelor's degree and the pay is less than $30,000. Many teachers' days begin, maybe, 7:30 am and are over by 3:30. That day would include a free period, lunch (usually a teacher's assistant takes students to cafeteria) and free time when students go to other classes like gym, library, art, music.

Touché, I misspoke. I didn't intend to say that a Master's was a requirement, but ended up writing it that way. I was explaining that a Master's is required for other teaching professions. Why do you seem to want to take this and run with it? It's detracting from the original discussion.. or do you just like to argue for the sake of argument?

blah wrote:

<quoted text>
A Master's degree needed for a college-level "instructor" is a lot different than a Master's needed for teaching primary/secondary.

By the way, did you not misspeak as well?

Didn't you say it wasn't "needed" for teaching primary/secondary?

blah wrote:

<quoted text>
... You don't even need it for your profession so, as you noted, to bring it up in an argument about salary isn't necessary.

Regardless of whether it's necessary or not, my point was to state that it doesn't make much of a difference in salary... if at all whether a primary/secondary has a Master's as it does in the majority of other professions.

AntiPolitician wrote:

Touché, I misspoke. I didn't intend to say that a Master's was a requirement, but ended up writing it that way. I was explaining that a Master's is required for other teaching professions. Why do you seem to want to take this and run with it? It's detracting from the original discussion.. or do you just like to argue for the sake of argument?
<quoted text>
By the way, did you not misspeak as well?
Didn't you say it wasn't "needed" for teaching primary/secondary?

Indeed I did. I only like to argue with people who think teachers deserve more money because they don't. They don't for so so so many reasons.

April wrote:

Many teachers' days begin, maybe, 7:30 am and are over by 3:30. That day would include a free period, lunch (usually a teacher's assistant takes students to cafeteria) and free time when students go to other classes like gym, library, art, music.

You forget to include things that teachers, while not actively instructing classes during that time are grading papers, evaluating progress, preparing lesson plans, etc. Many teachers don't have enough time to do that during the day even with free periods and take their work home with them. Many of them don't stop working on ideas of what to do for their classes over the summer and on weekends.

Trust me, despite all the perks that people think teachers have... they really don't have as much as you think and they do much more than you know. I've seen it first hand and while it may not include all teachers, the ones that I know personally, I know what they do and what they deal with.

I work 40-60hr weeks year round for not much more than what a teacher makes, and I would still rather have my job than a teacher's job.

If everyone thinks that teachers have it so easy and so wonderful... why isn't there a surplus of people trying to enter the profession? After all, they think that teachers have short work days, summers off, get paid too much for what they do, play with kids all day, etc.

I'd love to see some reasons why people complaining about teachers didn't enter the profession themselves.

I originally wanted to become a teacher, but was convinced by family and friends NOT to do it.