a mission and cynicism (realism?)

My response to this article.

First, I need to find and destroy whatever study it is claims that class size does not have a significant effect on student performance.   I understand the point being made (in this article and the study) that an effective teacher is more powerful than the teaching conditions, but I have a feeling that the study was culturally biased.  Of course 15 respectful students sitting quietly will not be much different than 30 respectful students sitting quietly.  But HELLO!!  Places exist where students come to school not accustomed to the sit-down-and-be-quiet school culture.  In these schools, 15 bouncing, yelling students are much easier to manage (and thus teach!) than 30 of them.  Not to mention, students performed noticeably better (and were more engaged) in my 18 person class than in my 36 person class.  That miserable study was not conducted at PCHS, HSHS, or any other critical needs district, so we shouldn't even try to apply its conclusions at our schools.

Alright, to the heart of the matter.  I loved Gladwell's idea to have a teacher apprenticeship system to find truly good teachers.  The fact that teaching allows for a wide range of personalities (the entertainer vs the nurturer) and skill sets (withitness and flexibility vs authority and humor vs organization and dedication etc) makes it impossible to find a secret recipe for a good teacher.  We've even talked about the prediction problem in terms of MTC and now Principal Corps.  It's just nearly impossible to predict who will stay teaching and who will leave before June is over.

 I have no problem "lowering standards" as far as test scores and formal training to invite more people into the profession as long as that change is coupled with a solid evaluation system (even though I don't really care if math teachers can write term papers, I do care that they can use proper grammar and know who the president is). But the kicker of it all was Gladwell's final question:

 What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?

Nothing in public education's history suggests that it will go to great lengths to find the best (or even good) teachers.  The system being proposed is not a shortcut (and public education craves shortcuts like Dauwalter craves Laffy Taffy).  What I mean is, I highly doubt teacher training and selection will be overhauled for the sake of improvement.  On the whole, public education is functioning.  Public education (public anything) does not move from decent to great voluntarily.  So even if this is a perfect plan, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for its implementation.