David had written: >>. In fact, precisely beause of standardized testing, it is easier to include >>an objective criteria in the evalution of teachers than most other >>knowledge/information producers. However, the ultimate issue is who decides. >>You think the decision should be in the hands of the teachers, while I think >>the decision should be in the hands of the principal, who has the managerial >>responsbility to ensure that the school attracts students and performs its >>function.<<<
me: >> The principal? why the love of one-person dictatorship?... it doesn't work >> well in corporations, so why should it work well with schools? And to whom >> is the principal responsible? do the people who actually do the work, deal >> with students on a day-to-day basis, etc. get no respect, so that they can >> thrown away like used Kleenex? don't the parents have some right to >> influence the principal's decisions?<< David, now: > I want an educational system where schools compete for parents (and their > dollars). That will incentivize the school board / school organizers to hire > good principals (and fire those not getting it done), who will be > incentivized to hire good teachers (and fire those not getting it done).< Of course, I should have known that it's all about the wonderful world of Markets and the godlike Invisible Hand, which lately have worked so well in finance (for example). There are so many arguments against the voucher system and similar market-like systems in education, I don't have time to summarize them. Among other things, market competition encourages cream-skimming and then dumping of "problem" kids out of the school system. If there's still a public school system, it will be forced to accept these kids -- and then blamed because they can't live up to the standards of the "market." >>> An inevitable consequence of the government provided unionized school >>> system. Compare to private schools/catholic schools.<<< me: >> This is a big question. I'd like to see David's evidence for private and >> Catholic schools being better than the public ones. (I'm hoping that it's >> not just dogma, a fundamental faith that government can do no right.) By the >> way, not all government-provided are unionized, while some charter (i.e., >> privatized) schools have unions.<< David: > I was responding to the statement that public school teachers are obstructed > by bureacracy, I hope there is no controversy that public shools are > weighed down by an admininistrative/bureacratic stucture not suffered by > private/catholic schools. < part of the problem is that that there really is a problem with bureaucracies feeding themselves and growing out of proportion to the rest of a school (as at Loyola Marymount University, where I work). More control needs to be given to teachers (and parents) to counteract this baneful trend. But there's another problem: the public schools are subject to many more rules than the private or Catholic schools. For example, private or Catholic schools can usually ignore the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. gotta go. I won't have any time for this discussion for a few days. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
