WAPO: Rhee's New Campaign is not About the Kids...

...Answer Sheet:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/michelle-rhee/rhees-new-initiative-not-all-a.html?wprss=answer-sheet

Excerpt:

What it’s not about: Giving great teachers what they say they want -- more support to do their jobs in school.

What it is about: Getting state legislatures to eliminate policies that require school districts, in the event of layoffs, to let the last-hired employees go first. This way, principals can supposedly save great young teachers and get rid of lousy older teachers.

Rhee’s intentions become transparent when one considers how to really protect great teachers: a reliable, valid, multi-part assessment system. If Rhee were so concerned about saving great teachers of any age, she would be more interested in immediately pursuing a valid assessment tool. If teachers were properly evaluated and those who don't belong in the classroom really removed, then the last-hired first-fired wouldn't be an issue, and the kids and adults would benefit.

What many don't realize is that there is an entire PD program/establishment for education administrators centered on the false assumption that our problem is bad teachers. Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.eyeoneducation.com/prodinfo.asp?number=645-4

http://www.eyeoneducation.com/Authors/whitaker_t.asp

This program has a curriculum and textbooks instructing principals on harassing (my term) teachers to get them to quit. This is about fairness, nothing more and nothing less. And people wonder why teachers need unions, due process, and collective bargaining...

Neither were any of Arne Duncan's.

...core.

...case that I believe...that older, more experienced teachers are being discriminated against. I think it's to save money. That's why I included the other two links to PD programs/texts.

She has the proof ...... her principle told her

She's the Sarah Palin of the ed deform crowd.

I have a bachelors in liberal arts, studied four foreign languages, can perform on three musical instruments. I also have a masters in early childhood and elementary education. I have been a new teacher and have worked with new and veteran teachers.

When you go into a classroom for the first time, it's almost impossible to be "the best" teacher. You are disoriented, disorganized, teaching a curriculum for the first time, you may not know the subjects all that well but enough to get by. Then add the dynamic of teaching and trying to figure out if the kids "get it" every minute of the school day.

Then consider this: because of budgets, teachers with masters degrees (6 years of college) are deferred in favor of newbies with bachelors degress. The new teaching graduates only have four years of undergraduate study. That barely covers studying pedagogical techniques and each topic of study to teach kids. Not enough time to be familiar with both teaching skills and the subjects you're going to have to teach.

OTOH, the longer you teach, the better you get. Years, decades of different children. Time to ask veteran compatriots and principals what works, how to improve. Scores of parent-teacher conferences. Your self confidence kicks in.

So, how can it be either assumed or held out as a fact that "the best teachers" are "the first in"?

It's true whether you're a preschool teacher or a college professor.

...that pits young teachers against the veterans. There are good teachers in both groups. That's where the unfairness of Rhee's policy is. It's why I added the other two links. She is not alone in this. It is a movement.

...:)

...Thanks! :hi: