Is democracy bad for education?

[Scotia]

I have my grandmother's school yearbook, from 1906.  The elementary-grade classes are large, maybe 45 or so (that might have been more than one classroom).  Every year the number goes down — 9th grade has maybe 15 students — until by 12th grade you have 6 students.  It's probable that those remaining 6 were fairly motivated.  If we still had jobs that could be well performed by people with an 8th grade education (or with what an 8th-grade education covered in 1906, which undoubtedly had much less science!), we could have that system again.  But.

My family history suggests that it wasn't just capability or motivation that resulted in the numbers in the class falling. My grandmother would have been in her first year or elementary school when the photograph was taken. She gained a scholarship to enable her to continue her education at high school, but had to leave aged 14 because her family needed her to contribute to the family income.  She went to work as the lowest of the servants at the home of the local mine owner. The son of the mine owner was in the boys' division of the same high school. Despite under-performing my grandmother in all subjects and being generally regarded as an indolent idiot, he continued to university, where he was eventually kicked out for passing no exams. Meanwhile my grandmother supplemented her servant's income by also helping to clean the local welfare hall and doing assorted other physical labour jobs. Her disappearance - and the disappearance of many like her - from the photo would have been because of family circumstance rather than lack of motivation (indeed, she was heartbroken at having to give up her ambition to become a history teacher). The mine owners son, who made it through school and to university, was just as lacking in motivation as the worst of my current students. 

My grandmother's is not an unusual story, at least for the part of the world in which she grew up. I have several other older friends and acquaintances who had to leave school in order to help feed and house their families. Many are widely read and interesting people who have grabbed an education where they could while working skilled or unskilled manual jobs. I suspect my story would have been very similar to my grandmother's had I not been born at a time when educational opportunities had become much more widely available.

[downer]

In practice perhaps, but the myth of "the American Dream" is what drives all kinds of policy and choices. Reality can't compete with wishful thinking.

All sorts of things drive policy, but my impression is that most in the US just give egalitarianism lip service. If any policies start to look like they will make real changes to social structure in favor of equality, then those policies get changed or ignored. Obviously a  big generalization, but largely true since the Reagan era at least.

You sort of prove my point, by implying that most of the differences in outcomes are due to differences in environment and opportunity. Even if everyone had exactly the same environment and opportunities, there would be big differences in outcomes based on peoples' natural abilities and personalities. It's this reality that society doesn't like to admit, and that wastes all kinds of resources that would be better allocated helping people achieve what is reasonable and will be useful to them, rather than some amorphous "universal" ideal.

I've never heard anyone claim that everyone has the same abilities.  Maybe there's a claim that everyone has the capacity to succeed. Maybe there's an assumption that everyone can be above average. But egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. My point is that there's no real belief in egalitarianism in the US.

[marshwiggle]

My grandmother's is not an unusual story, at least for the part of the world in which she grew up. I have several other older friends and acquaintances who had to leave school in order to help feed and house their families. Many are widely read and interesting people who have grabbed an education where they could while working skilled or unskilled manual jobs. I suspect my story would have been very similar to my grandmother's had I not been born at a time when educational opportunities had become much more widely available.

My mom started teaching about 80 years ago in a one-room school, so I've heard many of these stories. (My grandparents themselves had that kind of experience.) But even into the 50's and 60's, when kids were required to be in school, failing grades was still an option. There were also trade schools and so on for kids who were not able to hack normal "academic" school.

I've never heard anyone claim that everyone has the same abilities.  Maybe there's a claim that everyone has the capacity to succeed. Maybe there's an assumption that everyone can be above average. But egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. My point is that there's no real belief in egalitarianism in the US.

In Ontario, until about the 90's, high school was streamed into "essential", "basic", "general",and "advanced". (Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I've got the titles wrong.) Then a government came along who decided that it was better to basically throw all of them into the same classrooms and let teachers manage to tailor things to "individual" students. Sometimes educational assistants would accompany particular students supposedly to give them the extra support they needed to make them "succeed" in the integrated classroom. So students with learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and everything else are just all  lumped together in the name of "equality". It's only equal in the sense of an equally bad experience for everyone.

[polly_mer]

Which countries do it better?

The steady stream of articles that come across my inbox indicate that Canada, much of Western Europe, and select countries in Asia have much more desirable elementary/secondary/tertiary educational systems than the US in terms of community outcomes for money spent per student (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea).  Finland in particular is held up as the model for K-12 education (https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-education-beats-us-2017-5).

Test results from various measures indicate the US is not anywhere near the top.  For example, the 2015 PISA results* are frequently cited as showing the US as near the OECD average and well behind many other first-world countries (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/).  One can quibble if the PISA measures everything worth knowing (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/new-global-testing-standards-will-force-countries-to-revisit-academic-rankings/), but the US isn't being held up as a model to emulate in education.

The US has some of the top higher education institutions in the world, but that's not the same as ensuring consistency of educational experience across institutions in a given category or ensuring that everyone gets a good elementary education before being tracked into more specialized education.

*The 2018 PISA results are expected to be released in Dec 2019.

[Puget]

In Ontario, until about the 90's, high school was streamed into "essential", "basic", "general",and "advanced". (Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I've got the titles wrong.) Then a government came along who decided that it was better to basically throw all of them into the same classrooms and let teachers manage to tailor things to "individual" students. Sometimes educational assistants would accompany particular students supposedly to give them the extra support they needed to make them "succeed" in the integrated classroom. So students with learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and everything else are just all  lumped together in the name of "equality". It's only equal in the sense of an equally bad experience for everyone.

I can't speak to Canada, but most US high schools do have three tracks even if we don't call them that, with AP/IB/honors classes, regular classes, and special education (with or without some integration into regular classes with support depending on the student).

The problem is many poorer schools lack the resources to provide many advanced courses, which puts the students who would otherwise thrive in them at a distinct disadvantage, not just in terms of college prep and admissions, but also college credits for good AP/IB test scores. That's why I believe we should have equitable federal (or at the very least state) education funding-- funding schools with local property taxes and voter-approved levies leads to vast funding discrepancies which perpetuate inequality of opportunities.

[quasihumanist]

The problem is many poorer schools lack the resources to provide many advanced courses, which puts the students who would otherwise thrive in them at a distinct disadvantage, not just in terms of college prep and admissions, but also college credits for good AP/IB test scores. That's why I believe we should have equitable federal (or at the very least state) education funding-- funding schools with local property taxes and voter-approved levies leads to vast funding discrepancies which perpetuate inequality of opportunities.

Better funding would help, but there is only so much that can be reasonably done for schools with 20 students in their graduating class, some of whom are already spending two hours each day on the school bus, and where none of the students or their parents have any clue as to the educational demands of a 21st century (or, in many cases, even 20th century) economy.

[Puget]

The problem is many poorer schools lack the resources to provide many advanced courses, which puts the students who would otherwise thrive in them at a distinct disadvantage, not just in terms of college prep and admissions, but also college credits for good AP/IB test scores. That's why I believe we should have equitable federal (or at the very least state) education funding-- funding schools with local property taxes and voter-approved levies leads to vast funding discrepancies which perpetuate inequality of opportunities.

Better funding would help, but there is only so much that can be reasonably done for schools with 20 students in their graduating class, some of whom are already spending two hours each day on the school bus, and where none of the students or their parents have any clue as to the educational demands of a 21st century (or, in many cases, even 20th century) economy.

Sure, but that is a tiny minority of students in schools that small-- I'm thinking more about under-funded urban districts, but even most semi-rural areas have larger regional high schools. And regardless of what clue the parents have, if the students aren't being taught the demands of a 21st century economy that's another failure of the schools.

[spork]

I wonder why people expect anything different when many teachers don't know how to teach (public education systems in countries like Japan and Finland are supposedly much more on the ball with incorporating evidence-based teaching methods into classroom practice) and many school districts are terribly managed (check out the bullet points in the executive summary -- they are essentially the same as how K-12 schools in a state that I lived in were described twenty years ago).

But to swing this back to post-secondary ed . . . state legislatures have disinvested from public university systems for at least three decades now. I haven't seen voters elect officials who have restored state government funding of universities to previous levels.

[downer]

I wonder why people expect anything different when many teachers don't know how to teach (public education systems in countries like Japan and Finland are supposedly much more on the ball with incorporating evidence-based teaching methods into classroom practice) and many school districts are terribly managed (check out the bullet points in the executive summary -- they are essentially the same as how K-12 schools in a state that I lived in were described twenty years ago).

Am I right in thinking that now most pubic school teachers need to have a Master's degree in Education in order to teach? This has been standard in some states for a long time, and is now pretty much a universal requirement as far as I know.

I'm wondering whether there's any genuine outcomes assessment for those Master's programs in education. Do they do any good at all or are they just money-makers for universities? My impression is that while some of those Education schools have good faculty, their programs are not good at producing strong teachers. Their strengths are more in special education.

[polly_mer]

Am I right in thinking that now most pubic school teachers need to have a Master's degree in Education in order to teach? This has been standard in some states for a long time, and is now pretty much a universal requirement as far as I know.

We live in very different worlds.  My experience with preparing teachers in college programs in several states bears no resemblance to what you've stated.

A quick browse of https://www.teachercertificationdegrees.com/reciprocity/ indicates that most states require a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited school and many states require a teaching certificate/graduation from a teacher's education program.

Waivers are standard in some school districts to allow people to teach because a warm body in the classroom to check a box is better than having to tell the state that certain classes aren't being taught.  About 30% of current teachers do not have a formal educational background in their primary teaching assignment (https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-market-series/). 

17% of teachers took a non-traditional route into teaching (ibid).  People are being encouraged to do that because we're so short on teachers in some areas (https://www.teachaway.com/blog/can-you-become-teacher-without-teaching-degree).  Teach for America and The New Teacher Project continue to exist because they are ways for people to try teaching (for even peanuttier peanuts) without the expected background.

The articles regarding public school teachers that cross my desk tend to be a lot like https://birminghamwatch.org/teacher-shortage-educators-support-bill-non-certified-teachers/, regardless of what state I'm in.

hundreds of schools each year hire educators on a one-year emergency contract. The educators must have a bachelor's degree, but no education training or experience. After that year, the individual can't have another emergency contract with a school anywhere in the state.
...
His bill would make it easier for professionals with real-world experience and ability, but not a certificate, teach for longer, Chambliss said.

In the 2017-2018 school year, more than 1,700 teachers in grades 7 to 12 were not certified to teach the English, math, social studies, science or special education classes they were assigned, according to information from the School Superintendents of Alabama. Some of those teachers may have a one-year emergency certificate or be "teaching out of field," meaning they're certified in other subjects.

Reference: https://birminghamwatch.org/teacher-shortage-educators-support-bill-non-certified-teachers/

In the world I inhabit, master's degrees are for people who have a pretty good job in the suburbs and want the next pay raise.  The rural places I live tend to scramble even to get a person with a HS diploma who can pass the background check and the tuberculosis test, the minimum requirements for substitute teachers in some places (http://www.nea.org/home/14813.htm).

[downer]

Am I right in thinking that now most pubic school teachers need to have a Master's degree in Education in order to teach? This has been standard in some states for a long time, and is now pretty much a universal requirement as far as I know.

We live in very different worlds.  My experience with preparing teachers in college programs in several states bears no resemblance to what you've stated.

A quick browse of https://www.teachercertificationdegrees.com/reciprocity/ indicates that most states require a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited school and many states require a teaching certificate/graduation from a teacher's education program.

Waivers are standard in some school districts to allow people to teach because a warm body in the classroom to check a box is better than having to tell the state that certain classes aren't being taught.  About 30% of current teachers do not have a formal educational background in their primary teaching assignment (https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-market-series/). 

17% of teachers took a non-traditional route into teaching (ibid).  People are being encouraged to do that because we're so short on teachers in some areas (https://www.teachaway.com/blog/can-you-become-teacher-without-teaching-degree).  Teach for America and The New Teacher Project continue to exist because they are ways for people to try teaching (for even peanuttier peanuts) without the expected background.

The articles regarding public school teachers that cross my desk tend to be a lot like https://birminghamwatch.org/teacher-shortage-educators-support-bill-non-certified-teachers/, regardless of what state I'm in.

That's interesting. I'm struck that although the website https://www.teachercertificationdegrees.com/ says that people only require a bachelor's degree plus a teacher preparation program, and then passing some tests, in fact the local schools require a master's degree for teachers.

Is there any info on what proportion of teachers went to education school? By state or nationally, and how that compares to other countries?

I was aware that sometimes these requirements get waived or delayed for schools where they find it hard to hire teachers, which are generally ones where the student population is challenging or the pay is low. I wonder what the turnover is of teachers in those schools. I know they tend to find it pretty hard to hold onto good teachers.

[polly_mer]

The retention aspects are addressed in the series of reports that starts with https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-market-series/ .  Even good schools aren't retaining teachers like they used to because educated people have other options that pay better and have more autonomy.

You can use Google as well as I can to search for the answers to other questions.  Report back with what you find out.

[downer]

What? Me?

OK.

The percentage of public school teachers who held a postbaccalaureate degree (i.e., a master's, education specialist, or doctor's degree) was higher in 2015–16 (57 percent) than in 1999–2000 (47 percent). In both school years, a lower percentage of elementary school teachers than secondary school teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp

Seems pretty high given that these are not required by most states. And it looks like more and more teachers are getting Master's degrees.

[spork]

That's because in the K-12 systems in many states, a master's degree, in any field, results in a step increase in salary. Salaries for public school K-12 teachers are often rock bottom compared to salaries for other jobs requiring a college degree. So there is a direct incentive to obtain an MA as easily as possible.

Some states, Indiana I think is one, require high school teachers to obtain a bachelor's degree in a subject that corresponds to what they will be teaching. So a high school math teacher needs a B.A. in math, which is good. But anyone with a B.A. in math is better served financially by entering a profession other than high school teaching. So the more stringent qualification probably results in a smaller supply of properly trained public K-12 math teachers.