When it comes to online gradebooks, I believe there is a misguided faith in the magic of technology to "streamline" routine tasks and "solve problems" (even things we didn't realize were problems beforehand). Here's one: if parents weren't allowed to peek into teachers' gradebooks twenty years ago, what makes us think they're interested now? And furthermore--is it even a good idea to nurture grade-stalking in parents?
Here's the funny thing. Teacher tenure has never really been a fortress that protects incompetent hacks and abusers. It has functioned as a set of rules by which undesirable teachers could be--fairly--jettisoned, then have the decision to release that teacher stand. It gave teachers a reasonable period of time to establish their long-term worth (with the option to open the trap door quickly, in the early stages, for egregiously inept or shady folks). It also gave administrators and school boards a defined set of reasons why a teacher might reasonably be let go, after the district committed to hiring him.
Charters. Yes. Let's give them a chance to "work"--to (take your pick): institute grit / hire enthusiastic young non-unionized teachers / establish a rigorous core curriculum / engage parents / do something--anything, really--that traditional schools can't. Because charter.
Here's what I always wonder, when I encounter or hear about Aggressive Seat-Recliner types: what were they like in second grade? Did they shout "pick me!" and wave their hand, even as another child struggled to come up with an answer? Did they elbow their way to the head of the recess line?
There can be community-building value in fund-raising for educational needs. The backside of all that generosity, however, is the fact that people want to donate their money in targeted ways, and they want to feel good about their own munificence. Here's a short list of things people don't want to spend money on: Special education. Textbooks. Teacher salaries and benefits. Fixing the leaky school roof. New, safer tires for buses.
MI journalist Tim Skubick blasts weak-sister school music teachers who reject competition, suggesting that public ranking of ability is a fine old academic tradition, grumbling like your cranky old neighbor about giving every little Tom, Dick and Harriet an undeserved blue ribbon. You've read hundreds of columns like this, haven't you? Our Soft and Failing Youth, an evergreen theme for curmudgeons.
The level of take-sides aggression over education policy has come to an interesting place. You can't tell the players without a scorecard, in spite of partisan affiliation, union membership or aversion, the spokesperson's genuine level of expertise and experience around the policy in question--or whether someone is paying for their "opinion."
In a startling new development, the Education Achievement Authority (which lost a quarter of its students in the first year of operation) is now trying to entice students using outright deceit. They sent letters to families in surrounding, non-EAA public school districts titled "Confirmation of 2014-15 School Assignment." The letter begins: We are very happy to inform you that your child has been selected to enroll in the following EAA school for the 2014-15 school year...
In my experience, teachers routinely neglect their own health and their families in order to show up at school consistently, because they see, every hour of the day, the value of their own work. I am not referring here to the attendance records of young, healthy, enthusiastic, two-year entrepreneurial teachers in charter schools who have put off child-bearing until their leadership trajectory is established--the folks Teach for America Veep Raegen Miller seems to be ambiguously suggesting form the desirable "professional cultures" that save schools "real money."
We cannot approach teaching as an opportunity for inspiration and imagination until some core building blocks around pedagogy and content expertise are in place. Autonomy and respect, yes. But only when mastery and purpose are also in place.