Howard Dean vs. Joe Scarborough on Education Reform

[ellisonz]

DU Democracy for America Group post on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1105110

[mbperrin]

1. Why isn't Joe in jail?

The dead girl didn't matter?

[ellisonz]

3. Didn't matter...

...he now gets paid to bloviate and attack other people's credibility.

[tabatha]

2. Joe is a jerk.

[ellisonz]

4. Hopefully soon he will go the way of Buchanan...

...and then they can put Barney Frank on in the morning.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Scarborough cares more about busting the union than he does about improving education.

[CTyankee]

8. YES! All of his ilk are! But there's another thing they want to accomplish besides busting

the unions. And that is by accusing liberals for "the soft bigotry of low expectations" of poor children, trying to get the subject of poverty off the table for discussion in education "reform." You see, it's not poverty that's at fault. We can't blame poverty. It's those damn teachers unions.

They know damn well what they are espousing. I'm sick and tired of their pious pronouncements about the poor children being exploited by greedy unions. It's disgusting.

Joe had better be careful. In that segment he showed his true colors. He used to be more circumspect, not being so outright abrasive to the teachers unions. I think the man is just furious with how this presidential contest is shaping up. His repukes are looking ridiculous...

[ellisonz]

9. Agreed.

The hilarious thing too is that despite all the claims that Howard Dean is somehow "angry" he didn't even raise his voice in return. I don't think Howard takes JoeSca all that seriously.

I agree with you that they are playing a game with public education and that "it's disgusting."

[Scuba]

6. Who watches his show?

[RBInMaine]

7. Read on if you want to know what actually makes for good public education:

This guy like all right wingers simply has a union busting agenda on this issue and little more. First, they look at education like a for-profit business and students as little machines that just need to be "fixed" by the "best classroom mechanics." So if you just pay the best "mechanics" more money, they will do a better job "fixing" the "broken" kids. That is NOT how it works. The education process is VERY complex, and most teachers are NOT motivated by money. If they were, they would not be teaching in the first place. Some of the best teachers are assigned to the most challenging students who may only show minimal progress. That is not the fault of the teachers. There are many other factors such as family life, parenting, economic status, etc. When you are talking about middle and high school level teachers with 100 or more students, you can't evaluate those teachers exactly the same as those with smaller self-contained classrooms. Most school systems already expect teachers to get a masters degree, and most do, there is constant professional development for recertification, and schools are already filled with batteries of standardized testing and numerous interventions to assist struggling learners. The way to provide excellent education is to have a good administration which supports the staff, establishes a congenial work environment, and establishes a school culture from top to bottom that the school is about learning and growing and that bad behavior will not be tolerated. Then teachers must be expected to be good classroom managers and good instructors. Learning to be an effective teacher takes time. Usually three to five years of practice before real proficiency is reached. It is a very complex process. So this idea that these fresh-out-of-college folks are going to walk into classrooms and be "excellent" on day one is just bunk. Just pure bunk. As to schemes like charter schools, some work and some don't. Those that do work do so for the same reasons that good public schools do, as I have said above. The unions strongly support good, effective teaching and have laid out time and again how best to accomplish it (much being what I have said) and how best to evaluate teachers which is through looking at multiple areas and with the right kind of observational evaluations by multiple veteran educators. The unions just don't believe that teachers should be evaluated based solely on standardized test scores due to the myriad factors which affect standardized test score results.
the teacher is only one piece. The administration, the PARENTS, and the STUDENTS THEMSELVES must also take THEIR responsibility. Scarborough and his ilk don't know a damn thing.

[ellisonz]

10. Nice rant.

Allow me to clean it up just a little bit:

This guy like all right wingers simply has a union busting agenda on this issue and little more. First, they look at education like a for-profit business and students as little machines that just need to be "fixed" by the "best classroom mechanics." So if you just pay the best "mechanics" more money, they will do a better job "fixing" the "broken" kids. That is NOT how it works. The education process is VERY complex, and most teachers are NOT motivated by money. If they were, they would not be teaching in the first place. Some of the best teachers are assigned to the most challenging students who may only show minimal progress. That is not the fault of the teachers.

There are many other factors such as family life, parenting, economic status, etc. When you are talking about middle and high school level teachers with 100 or more students, you can't evaluate those teachers exactly the same as those with smaller self-contained classrooms. Most school systems already expect teachers to get a masters degree, and most do, there is constant professional development for recertification, and schools are already filled with batteries of standardized testing and numerous interventions to assist struggling learners. The way to provide excellent education is to have a good administration which supports the staff, establishes a congenial work environment, and establishes a school culture from top to bottom that the school is about learning and growing and that bad behavior will not be tolerated. Then teachers must be expected to be good classroom managers and good instructors. Learning to be an effective teacher takes time. Usually three to five years of practice before real proficiency is reached. It is a very complex process.

So this idea that these fresh-out-of-college folks are going to walk into classrooms and be "excellent" on day one is just bunk. Just pure bunk. As to schemes like charter schools, some work and some don't. Those that do work do so for the same reasons that good public schools do, as I have said above. The unions strongly support good, effective teaching and have laid out time and again how best to accomplish it (much being what I have said) and how best to evaluate teachers which is through looking at multiple areas and with the right kind of observational evaluations by multiple veteran educators. The unions just don't believe that teachers should be evaluated based solely on standardized test scores due to the myriad factors which affect standardized test score results.the teacher is only one piece.

The administration, the PARENTS, and the STUDENTS THEMSELVES must also take THEIR responsibility. Scarborough and his ilk don't know a damn thing.

Makes it a bit more readable, hope you don't mind.

I would just add that although I agree that "fresh-out-of-college" folks need seasoning. I think programs like TFA would be much more effective if they required a year of shadowing as a teacher assistant before being put in front of a class, thus making it a 2-year program. I think that's a very reasonable compromise, and in line with the best ideas of apprenticeship. I also think those folks should spend that year working towards a teaching credential.