In a recent speech, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg advanced the following solution to the problems of public education. It reveals, once more, how far from "getting it" public officials are in understanding what education is all about. According to the mayor:
"Education is very much, I've always thought, just like the real estate business: there are three things that matter: location, location, location is the old joke. Well in education, it is: quality of teacher, quality of teacher, quality of teacher. And I would -- if I had the ability, which nobody does really, to just design a system and say, 'ex cathedra, this is what we're going to do,' you would cut the number of teachers in half, but you would double the compensation of them, and you would weed out all the bad ones and just have good teachers. And double the class size with a better teacher is a good deal for the students."
1. A degree of classroom autonomy. Even young teachers who welcome guidance don't want to be micro-managed. Bloomberg is a micro-manager of the first order.
2. A need for helpful and positive guidance in teaching practices. Bloomberg's echelon of "new breed" school administrators is wedded to the concept of micro-managing. "Guidance" is often presented in the form of threats to raise test scores or else.
3. The opportunity to use an enriched, multi-faceted curriculum to enable the teacher to reach, inspire and motivate young learners to want to learn. Bloomberg's emphasis on standardized testing and test prep rob not only the students of the desire to learn, but the teachers with the opportunity to teach.
4. A positive attitude and appreciation of the difficult job that teachers have often in environments in which young learners have little motivation to want to learn. The rhetoric of politicians hurled at teachers and teaching has vilified them as lazy and irresponsible and has convinced a significant portion of the public that if only teachers were "good," their children would "learn." This is said without their showing the slightest awareness of the connection between good teachers and good students: good students make it possible to be a good teacher; the most important factor is the students' zip codes.
5. Some sense of job security considering the social and economic conditions in the neighborhood in which the school is located. Poor "location, location, location," Mr. mayor, makes it very difficult if not impossible for teachers to get students to read and calculate "on grade," especially since the standardized tests are not primarily related to good teaching outcomes but test taking.
Although I wouldn't consider Bloomberg in the forefront of "teacher-bashing," his apparent obliviousness to any substantial information that shows him that standardized testing does nothing positive for challenged learners reveals that he has no more concept of education than a motorist who believes that putting gas in the tank will get a car to run that doesn't have an engine.
"Quality teachers" are not easy to develop if they leave teaching after five years; "quality teachers" are not easy to keep in the education system if they are being fired or relocated when their school has "failed" because it didn't have the right zip code; potential "quality teachers" will not be attracted to a profession, no matter what the compensation, if they realize that they are being asked to waste their time and those of their students on a useless and harmful regimen of testing which robs all of them of any of the inherent motivations for learning: the joy of it.
If Mayor Bloomberg were really serious about getting "quality teachers" into the classroom, he would abolish standardized tests, limit charter schools, give more material support to struggling public schools, and, by the way, raise the minimum wage in the city of New York to $20/hour so that children in poor neighborhoods might have a chance to actually want to learn rather than worry about where they are going to sleep at night and when they will be getting another decent meal. You can't have "quality teachers" without a "quality economic and social system." If Bloomberg were to focus on those problems, many of the "quality teachers" he hopes for will suddenly appear.
He will always reach the same failed conclusions because he starts with the wrong premise.
Cuts should begin with nonteaching overpaid management if cuts are needed.
As for his halving of teachers, if a tool to measure quality teachers were suddenly invented, it would show that even the best teachers are less effective as class sizes grow.
His ideology would dismiss such proof unfortunately.
The author should note that it is not ignorance or lack of exposure to these concepts for Bloomberg. He has chosen to stick to his ideology despite being exposed to the facts.
Also, the threats in the school system are crazy. I have only worked in the school system for 8 years. I have never been treated as poorly (your a professional) with threats of firing if I even make a suggestion. In fact I was recently suspended for two days without pay for missing an assembly. I was working on a helpdesk computer problem (which is part of my assigned duties). This is the first time in over 28 years of "school" that I was ever suspended. I was told I have no recourse and she (the principle) could do anything she wanted to me!
This is unacceptable and unprofessional! I would teach here another two years if it wasn't for her. By the way she is white and we are a Native American school with 100% free meals.
1) Bloomberg (and other free-market reformers) are exclusively investing in the BACK end of teaching (evaluations, merit pay, etc) as opposed to the FRONT end - rigorous screening, improved teacher prep and support. In other words, the reform should be in overhauling the teacher profession from the foundation up - how it recruits and prepare teachers (e.g., see how Finland and Singapore do it), which will ultimately lead to teacher respect, autonomy, pay, etc. The profession is weak, debilitated by poorly prepared teachers, so it is easily attacked by outsiders.
2) For a businessman, he is surprisingly ignorant of one of biggest business axioms: investing your resources on the things that provide the biggest returns. Hint: it is not in teachers, who only account for no more than 20% of student outcomes. Investing in non-school factors, like home environment and parents (which account for around two-thirds of outcome) will provide the biggest returns. Shouldn't this be where we are investing the majority of time and money on? Investing in schools and teachers are crucial, but let's not forget that most habits of mind are already formed outside school walls.
See my blogs on both points:
http://TheEducatedSociety.com/teacher-accountability-starts-with-better-teacher-preparation/
http://TheEducatedSociety.com/applying-the-right-business-mentality-to-education/