Posts
09 I have been reporting this story on this very blog from the onset, more than two years ago. I am not claiming any special acumen, but will note that anyone who took the issue seriously inevitably arrived at the same conclusion-- closing down schools, instituting remote learning was going to damage children’s developing minds and brains.
Eric Hanushek, of the Hoover Institution, reports on the damage done by school shutdowns in the Wall Street Journal:
By far the largest economic costs of the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. will come from shortfalls in student learning from school closures, inferior hybrid and remote instruction, and the general disruption of normal schooling. The best estimates place learning losses at the equivalent of a year or more of schooling, resulting in 6% to 9% lower lifetime earnings for the average student and much more for disadvantaged students. The country as a whole will face a less well-prepared workforce, with enormous cumulative losses to GDP over the coming decades.
Primary and secondary schools are now struggling to return as much as possible to where they were in March 2020. But the learning losses will be permanent if we just restore the pre-existing schools. The biggest problem of education during the pandemic has been depriving students of the full abilities of their most effective teachers, and recovery from the damage of these years can only come from an expanded role for these teachers.
So, what can we do?
How, then, to deal with the profound learning losses that have occurred during the pandemic? Unfortunately, we do not yet have very good ways to improve the general effectiveness of teachers. A more compelling solution lies in keeping and rewarding the most effective teachers while getting rid of the least effective ones.
It sounds good to me. The best teachers should receive rewards that are commensurate with their contributions. Because, if the children who have suffered learning loss are consigned to classes led by ineffective teachers, they will be lost for life.
Naturally, the teachers’ unions oppose such policies:
This prescription is energetically resisted by the teachers’ unions, who argue that such policies promote favoritism, drive out teachers even as we face shortages and distract from the need to improve salaries and benefits across the board. But reforms focused on teacher effectiveness have been implemented in several places, and the results show a clear path to improving the schools.
So, if we promote effective teaching, we will improve the already dismal prospects of America’s schoolchildren-- the ultimate victims of the school lockdowns.
Good luck implementing that.
4 comments:
I give, Stu. Every single teacher I know, including my daughter has been assaulted or witnessed an assault in school. And they will lose their jobs if they report it to the police.
If schools aren't safe, then what's the use?
Surely, its an important fact, but one I have not seen reported in detail. Do you have info on the issue.
I taught high school Physics for 25 years, and the entire time, paid fair share rather than join the union. Fair share means that an amount equal to union dues were deducted, given to the union, but I wasn't a member. Prior to Janus, it was mostly a symbolic gesture. My course was considered to be very rigorous, but worth the challenge as many of my students went on to become successful engineers.
I mention this to show that I'm not a union tool when I ask what is meant by an effective teacher? Social Emotional Learning (SEL), equity and diversity are priorities for administrators. The conventional objectives of a teacher such as presenting course content, helping students master the material, then evaluating their knowledge is not valued or talked about much in a modern high school. It is not at all clear what a teacher is supposed to do.
The union complaints about school politics and favoritism are legitimate. It is not unusual for administrators to assign courses to favor friends and family, with little regard for what works best for students and the school.
Consider that a school administrator with less than 5 years in the classroom is likely to be a failed teacher with little interest in education. There are quality administrators. The best ones hire and nurture good teachers, then trust them to do their jobs.
I don't know what the answer is. Teachers tend to care about education and their students, but some are lazy and willing to endure the futility of remote learning if it means they can stay home and still get paid. Administrators don't know much about education and just want to avoid getting yelled at or sued by parents. If a veteran teacher like me considers the situation to be dire and complex, be cautious about anyone with a simple answer.
Hey, Randomizer. Those who can, Do. Those who can't, Teach. Those who cant't Teach, Administrate.
Post a Comment