It is contradictory to reward educators and principals when and if their student test scores improve simply because they improve. Improve at taking tests or improve at knowledge and understanding? There are too many contingencies out of control of teaching staff, that the family contributes, for which the school is being held responsible. Teaching by commission sounds repulsive. Some sales take longer and don't' fit into neat categories. Education does not benefit by being squeezed into business models of competition and success. There are too many outside forces that drive some children to succeed and others to fail - by choice or not - that we shouldn't blame on professionals. I had some very excellent teachers during the 7 years I attended an international K-12 academy in Kobe, Japan, more than a few of them college professionals on sabbaticals or escaping a teaching/political climate in the late 60s they found intolerable. One of them, Dr. Kresel, was a triple Ph.d whom I had for 3 years straight in high school. He nearly drove me mad with his obsessions for minutiae, but I learned from my mistakes with him as much as anything else. He would not receive bonuses under these standards today because I did not excel in his classes and did not score well on tests. I did not live up to his vaulted expectations of me, but I benefited immensely from his credentials in music, theology, English, even his arrogance and determination to give us more than we deserved, handicapped by attention spans shorter than college students. Wish I could say the same for Dr. Samuels, whose algebra class was almost impossible for me with his thick Indian accent and his notorious habit of teaching over most of our heads to the top 5 students in class. Again, this excellently trained and capable man would not succeed in this proposed business model of teaching, in spite of the fact that the students he did reach went on to excel in college. Isn't it interesting that the Japanese schools are moving away from rote education because they saw a generation of children limited in their ability to think independently and creatively, and this showed up in the marketplace? And now in the US we are moving towards more rote education in the lower grades? If necessary, a new model needs to be creatively constructed to help all of us understand the work and goals of educators in schools. We obviously need better definitions not just goals. We have a mental disconnect, a transitional bridge to cross. The older models and images don't fit the reality of today's classrooms and regulatory guidelines, the new technology and the skills the marketplace and academics required. Karen Watters Cole
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 11:55 AM To: Bruce Leier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Collapsing schools Bruce, (BC) <<<< I do not think it impossible to maintain standards in public schools. Tough, but not impossible. The 1st step would be to stop trying to be business-like. The corporate model cannot work in an education setting. I hope you recognize that. > >>> (KH) I don't recognise that. Unless you can put up even a minimum argument for your statement (as I did for stating why officials cannot run schools), then we'll have to agree to differ and leave it there. >>>> At 11:49 07/07/02 -0500, you wrote: (BC) <<<< The model presupposes a profit for the "bosses" how ever you wish to define them. Such a pursuit undermines the goals of education. >>>> How does profit for the bosses undermine the goals of education? Don't students also profit from the process? Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
