![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ha! Just read a piece that points out something verrrrry interesting. In order to meet NCLB standards as a "highly qualified" teacher, students in many states need to take enough credits in math and science that, well, they're also qualified for industry jobs that pay a LOT more. As a result, more and more teachers will come out of college with sufficient qualifications to say "**** you and the horse you rode in on, I'm gonna go get a real job" the first time NCLB red tape causes them hassle.
Okay, now that I'm not in a hurry to get out the door, time to explicate a little.
Take as given that NCLB has a LOT of downsides to accompany its stated positive goals, no need to rehash those arguments. This comes down to two known problems, and how I hadn't realized until today how solving one could make the other worse.
Problem 1 (of N, N is large): It's hard enough to get people qualified to teach math and science, much less highly qualified. A disturbingly large number of science and math teachers are teaching way out of specialty, on temporary permits, etc. So, here's an "inflow" problem that NCLB is making worse, and one that's been talked about a lot in my field.
Problem 2 (of N): Many of NCLB's mandates, both direct and indirect (i.e. what the states decide on as ways to get test scores up), frustrate teachers and lead to burnout. For instance, NCLB-related frustration is now a major, if not the leading, cause of teachers leaving positions in inner city schools. This is an "outflow" problem.
So, between the two, consider our pre-college science and math faculty as being like water held in a colander that's been lined with a towel. Water trickles in and drips out. There's never enough water for all purposes, but there's some.
As science education researchers, my colleagues and I can (and do) work on solving problem 1, which is like turning the faucet on more. But here's where today's realization comes in. The more highly qualified our teachers are (especially on paper, in ways that can impress prospective employers), the lower their threshold is for the "screw you guys, I'm going into private industry" effect of problem 2. Thus, if we turn up the tap without plugging the holes, we don't get any more water in the colander than before, just a lot more mess as water sprays out just as quickly as it goes in. Maybe a little bit more pools in the bottom before it can flow out, but the disruption caused by all the splashing counters that benefit. Unfortunately, problem 2 is largely a policy issue, it's not something we can solve via research and development. So we may be in the position of making things just as bad but with higher churn if we continue working on problem 1 before things improve with regards to problem 2.
One of my colleagues notes that in a way, this just means the free market will solve things more quickly. If NCLB actually makes it harder to staff science and math classrooms, eventually the administration will notice, realize NCLB is making things worse, and change things.
Unfortunately, the time-of-change scale for educational matters, even devastatingly rapid crashes, is longer than a presidential term. And the time-to-fix is even longer. So by just letting the free market prove NCLB to be badly implemented could doom a generation to shoddier education in the name of improved education.
In summary, if you want teachers who are good at what they do, you're not going to keep them if you treat them like McPeons. And training them better will just make them realize more quickly that they don't have to stand for it anymore.
Okay, now that I'm not in a hurry to get out the door, time to explicate a little.
Take as given that NCLB has a LOT of downsides to accompany its stated positive goals, no need to rehash those arguments. This comes down to two known problems, and how I hadn't realized until today how solving one could make the other worse.
Problem 1 (of N, N is large): It's hard enough to get people qualified to teach math and science, much less highly qualified. A disturbingly large number of science and math teachers are teaching way out of specialty, on temporary permits, etc. So, here's an "inflow" problem that NCLB is making worse, and one that's been talked about a lot in my field.
Problem 2 (of N): Many of NCLB's mandates, both direct and indirect (i.e. what the states decide on as ways to get test scores up), frustrate teachers and lead to burnout. For instance, NCLB-related frustration is now a major, if not the leading, cause of teachers leaving positions in inner city schools. This is an "outflow" problem.
So, between the two, consider our pre-college science and math faculty as being like water held in a colander that's been lined with a towel. Water trickles in and drips out. There's never enough water for all purposes, but there's some.
As science education researchers, my colleagues and I can (and do) work on solving problem 1, which is like turning the faucet on more. But here's where today's realization comes in. The more highly qualified our teachers are (especially on paper, in ways that can impress prospective employers), the lower their threshold is for the "screw you guys, I'm going into private industry" effect of problem 2. Thus, if we turn up the tap without plugging the holes, we don't get any more water in the colander than before, just a lot more mess as water sprays out just as quickly as it goes in. Maybe a little bit more pools in the bottom before it can flow out, but the disruption caused by all the splashing counters that benefit. Unfortunately, problem 2 is largely a policy issue, it's not something we can solve via research and development. So we may be in the position of making things just as bad but with higher churn if we continue working on problem 1 before things improve with regards to problem 2.
One of my colleagues notes that in a way, this just means the free market will solve things more quickly. If NCLB actually makes it harder to staff science and math classrooms, eventually the administration will notice, realize NCLB is making things worse, and change things.
Unfortunately, the time-of-change scale for educational matters, even devastatingly rapid crashes, is longer than a presidential term. And the time-to-fix is even longer. So by just letting the free market prove NCLB to be badly implemented could doom a generation to shoddier education in the name of improved education.
In summary, if you want teachers who are good at what they do, you're not going to keep them if you treat them like McPeons. And training them better will just make them realize more quickly that they don't have to stand for it anymore.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject