More school or better school?

A common choice you encounter in daily life is quality or quantity. Which do you prefer or is something distinctively better because of a certain reason. These are valid points, and when dealing with quality or quantity of school time, it's very important. On one hand, having more school days to learn better is good. On the other, having better school days allows more learning is good as well. Yet, people seem to think this is an impossible compromise. The issue of do American students need more time in school is quite incorrect, time isn't the real issue here. The real issue is the teaching that is occurring and if it is ample. I agree with the negative side on this argument only for one simple reason, time is not the main issue. Many schools have standard school schedules and work fine. The main point that the pro side brings up is an impoverished middle school that performed better because of increased time. Yet also, they do not bring up the fact that better teach was probably implemented to assist the increase in time. Also, this is only one small group of students in one state, not an overwhelming amount of pure increase statewide. These changes can't be done on a large scale because of many reasons, but the teaching time does not change that drastically. The main reason why the con side is better is because they deal with better teaching, not more. The points they bring up will not overburden and overload students with information, just give them more accurate dosages of it. A block style teaching system works wonders, I myself have dealt with it before. Along with this, pro side brings up many different arguments regarding extra time outside of school and more in school. The impoverished middle school students of MA probably never had much of any after school activity and other extra curricular activities. This is due possibly to the area they live in and the lack of support the school probably had before. After getting more attention and had studies done on it with more money, of course it will work better. But the question still is if the quality increased or if its just quantity. If you give students more teaching time they should increase across all boards. The same would happen if teaching quality increased. With better teaching, more accurate timing and a little perseverance, quality can go a long way. The pro side brought up valid reasons why more time is good, but the same could be solved with better time. With this, better time has similar effects as more time in essence, with no increase in money spent and relatively similar schedules. Changing whole school schedules is cumbersome and difficult and will have many issues, as was said in the pro side. Changing internal time of standard days and increasing the potency of teaching/teachers should give similar results. I am no professional, but I would rather have better teaching for a short amount of time than long periods with a poor teaching schedule. I feel this argument is flawed overall because the increase of both time and teaching potency would be leagues better. Having a all year school schedule would be a pain, but you would learn more hopefully. But who has the time or money for year round schooling? Not me...

Tips anyone?

So, we are reduced to asking for more money just because we are good at our jobs. Its a job, get paid and be happy you aren't one of the many who are unemployed. With that very harsh outlook on jobs, lets take a more sophisticated view on the subject. In the case of teachers in regard to merit pay, I feel its complete BS. If the system was not so broken in the first place you would not need merit pay. Paying teachers more money because they are doing well isn't a new subject. Its akin to getting a commission as a salesman, but salesmen do not get tenure and keep their jobs forever. If they do poorly they get canned, unlike teachers in most systems. The side against merit pay acknowledges this, knowing that some teachers would rather keep their pay instead of getting kicked out because they are not "successful". I am completely for separating the metaphorical chaff from the wheat in school systems, but there is something in the way. Teachers unions and their love of tenure, job security and "equality for teachers". This is important, but its a double edged sword that is hitting more teachers than anything else. Making room for new teachers and removing poor performing teachers could really help school everywhere. Under performing teachers that get more pay than other teachers because of tenure and seniority is absurd in most business practices. Its basically greed and borderline corruption. Having someone paid more just because they have tenure AND they do not support the student body proficiently is terrible. In a perfect business model, everyone works to support the business and each worker has a specific job. If these workers do not do their job well enough, everyone suffers. The same is for a school, if the 5th grade math teacher is terrible, and the 6th grade teacher is amazing, the 6th grade teacher will probably have to teach and restate what the students should have learned in 5th grade. Another way of looking at is an assembly line. If you are trying to make the perfect student, every person on the line should be excellent, and do what they do very well so the next person does not have to work harder or more. This is assembly line is how schools are supposed to work, except problem schools do not have this occurring. Yet, merit pay is only an incentive to do better, not a means to an end. If teachers ONLY got merit pay, then slacking teachers would not get enough money, and would then have to teach better to make a living. Yet,there are barriers from making progress in this field. Teachers unions, again are the "bad guy" in all this. Dominating the vote for what changes in schools. Merit pay is not the main force here, but a mere drop in the ocean of the main issue, teachers unions. Without serious reform in teachers unions, changes like merit pay will NEVER happen on a grand scale, no matter how much happens. Merit pay would be a good alternative, but at the current state of our school systems, would never ever work. So, merit pay is engulfed by other issues, and will not be solved. The only way this will be solved is if every teacher had free choice and was not held down by a union. Too bad about that. In the end, Merit pay is a cute idea, but will never work under the circumstances in all schools because of internal scuffle.

What are computers?

Before reading this issue I already had opinion on this subject. After reading this, I feel some people should reconsider the aim of this argument. In the sentence before I misspelled argument, and I was corrected by a tool called spell checker. On my laptop, which is also a tool. Computers are now almost required for all of my work and constructive behavior towards school. I do not agree with the position of computers negatively affecting student growth, as they are used as tools and are good for growth. Computers are a tool best used to support learning. I do though agree that human touch is needed, but computers should not and I doubt ever phase out a human teacher. There will be a person at least programming something on the computer, as computers don't do things on their own. I believe that computers when used as a tool reinforce certain aspects of learning that you might not be able to do all the time. For starters, having a spell checker is like having a teacher helping you all the time. You can easily turn it off, and by doing this would remove the "unfair" use of any word processor, and create a challenge. Yet, when you are learning to write, using a computer's word processor is a great way to learn how to write and structure your work. An example would be if you are writing in a red pen, and the teacher does not like this, you cant change it on paper, you would have to rewrite all of it. With a computer you could easily change a color. Although you lose valid penmanship, the fact that the modern world almost requires you to know computers and how to use them efficiently is a reason good enough to allow them as assistance. When Lowell Monk describes the human touch, humans are inherently flawed. As a teacher my not be able to teach everyone the same way, or even reach them in a way that they may learn. When he uses "The Oregon Trail" as an example, its a tool, you gain knowledge historically and data wise. Being able to navigate menus and do data input is a lot like Microsoft Excel, in where wrong numbers don't work. Bashing a random, old, poorly made simulation game is like bashing medical science in the dark ages. As knowledge and technology increases, tools we use will also benefit. We don't use decapitation for headaches anymore... Same for machines. When he brings up the archaic machines of the 80's and 90's, those were baseline machines that led to what we have today. Technology increases over time, like teaching styles. As more tools become available, I do not see why they shouldn't be capitalized. I personally feel this is a flawed argument because computers are tools and are only as good as the user. You must teach a person how to use a computer, like any other tool.  You cannot expect someone to cut down a tree with an axe without at least knowing how to use the axe. Whom is going to teach the person how to use the axe? A person. So, its an infinite loop of needing humans to learn about and create the tools. This truly is silly.

Sincerely,

Bryan Molyneux 

Some Children Pushed Aside

The discussion of NCLB and restructuring of schools is not my forte, but it is something I now have an opinion about. The fact that some schools get the mushroom treatment is somewhat depressing. The future of young people in america depend on good leadership and stable, nurturing environments. Poverty stricken urban zones and crime ridden cities are not nurturing or stable environments. I grew up in a rural area, so I do not truly know the "difficulties" that are associated with growing up in a urban area. I can tell you my school system had money pumped into like crazy. I can tell you it still sucked and had bad teachers. I can agree that change is good, but at what price? The fact that schools constantly failing probably do not have sufficient funds to support their students and help them achieve what they want to. Yet, what happens if the student body doesn't care? If a teacher settles for mediocrity or failure? If the environment does not breed safety, progress and support for its students? Then what can you do?  Nothing.  If the effort or strength to support change is not there, how will anything vary? Throwing money at a problem doesn't work, it just fuels the fire. The notion that  US school systems are worse than most first world countries is staggering. This isn't because we don't have the money to support it, we literally just haven't put enough effort in. Getting to my opinion on the subject, if people actually cared and put in the effort to change schools they would. Yet, the reason why decent change has not rolled around yet is because there is not enough force behind the effort. Of all the changes in history, whether it be suffrage or basic human rights, nothing has come around from just throwing money at it. Do wars fight themselves without money? No, they fuel them. School systems now are unbalanced with too many students, not enough money, or something in between. The chance of finding balance in a system that is plagued by underwhelming effort is impossible the way I see it. I agree heavily with recreating school systems and start from the bottom up with hope and the chance of growth on the horizon.  The discussions from the issue provided me with a background to create an opinion that is reasonable and also based on fact.  In all, I do not agree with pumping money into schools that are failing and will constantly fail when effort is not applied. The fact that starting with a new slate could help a lot, doesn't mean it will work out in the end. I feel that school systems are broken and the laws in place do not help students become the adults they want to or could be with proper knowledge for the future. If I did not state my opinion before accurately, it is that a failing school will probably still fail and that a new school has the same chance to fail as well. Nothing will be changed without effort and a proper environment for students to learn. Both of the articles discussed this and both agreed that things can change, yet only small amounts of good change actually occurred.  

Sincerely,

Bryan Molyneux

P.S.- I hope this is what we were supposed to write about...