OB has written a post on education and is seeking opinions.
I agree with this part:
If you just stopped distracting the teachers with the program of instruction du jour, more kids would learn to read.
But, I don't agree with some other points. For example, putting a teachers aide in a classroom does NOT make the teacher 90% more effective. In fact, the best evidence I've seen was that aides have very little impact on learning and are probably not a good use of money.
Second, the suggestion that all any teacher needs is more time with the students or more instructional materials misses the point that there is a very significant gap between the most effective and the least effective teachers where both time and materials are equivalent. Some teachers need more help in how to be effective. The best method for generating that help can be debated (programmatic help like Success for All or other DI programs, individual coaching, lesson study as a cultural component, etc.), but the need for help for the less effective teachers is obvious.
Finally, it's not Title XII, but, for the life of me, I've gone blank!
Maybe it was Title 9? No, that was equal opportunity sports. I remember it as Title 12 though.
My real point is that improving education has to start in the classroom with the teacher, materials, and students, not being imposed from above by the district or state board of education. Once you realize that is the classroom where you have can have the most bang for your buck, improving teacher quality through both merit pay and training is sort of an obvious setp.
Hiring competent aides is a problem. The best results have happened with school districts that gave the teacher hire/fire ability or that used prospective teachers as aides so they already had the knowledge, just needed more on the job training.
Contrast that with the typical district practice of making new teachers hang out in the substitute pool for years....
Posted by: Opinionated Bastard | March 02, 2005 at 12:11 PM