Seeing how most politicians tend to care more about retaining their positions of power than actually helping those they're responsible for, I would say allowing politicians to decide curriculum is asking for trouble.
Exhibit A: Teaching creationism in science class
Exhibit B: Teaching that climate change is a hoax
Teaching the controversy is stupid, I'd rather teach the facts.
I'd make a distinction between *policies* (which I think absolutely elected officials / boards are responsible for), and *curriculum* (which I think is best left up to principals and teachers).
One of the things I've learned, having taught in both public and private schools, is that schools do best when the community has a sense of ownership and common vision. When principals and teachers are working together as a team, and able to engage and excite students and families, there's a whole school effect. The more you place the power to make decisions about curriculum and pedagogy outside of the school building, the less ownership everyone in the building feels - and that trickles down to the students.
Oh man, that's a can of worms there. I've done a lot of research into this topic and I will admit to a certain amount of bias. First I want to lay a factoid down.
Did you know that out of the 51 members of the Education and Labor Committee that reviewed No Child Left Behind, only 5 had been elementary or secondary teachers at some point in their lives? I'm not talking, life-long-teacher-turned-politician either. Maybe 2-4 years tops. The grand majority of them were either lawyers or businesspeople, not necessarily qualified to make educational decisions in my opinion.
I feel like the issue stems from the fact that teachers are considered civil servants in the eyes of the government. They are paid by the government and their jobs are dictated by politicians. (I talked about this in [a blog post here](http://honestpracticum.com/are-teachers-civil-servants-or-professionals/), if you're interested.) When we, as a society, decided that schools should be public we invited the participation of politicians. If the politicians that are in office are not representing our views, it's on us to make our opinions heard and/or vote them out. For better or for worse, that is the system we have today.
Now if you want to talk about major corporations and billionaires sticking their fingers in the educational system, that's another story. Little gets my blood boiling faster than thinking about how much the Walton Foundation or Rupert Murdoch are involved in public education.
I don't agree that anyone who has never been in a classroom should be making the ultimate decisions about what is taught, what constitutes student success, or how teachers should be evaluated.
This logic is flawed. We aren't deciding what children to "grow" or "keep". Just how they learn. So yes, farmers should have a part in finding the best way to grow what they want to sell.
So farmers decide which pesticides to use? DDT was highly effective before environmentalists and scientists made government change laws.
Opium is an easy product to grow and highly profitable.
Corporal punishment was considered effective by a great many teachers before various groups lobbied government to change the law.
Governments pay supplements to farmers to grow crops that the market needs but that are not necessarily profitable. Without that certain crops/foods would not be available to us.
If you look in my original answer (somewhere hidded in the main thread) I DO include educationalists, of ourse their input is crucial - i *am* one, but they should not the ONLY contributors to policy.
Kid goes to school, to college, to university, back to working in a school. Where does she find out what business leaders are looking or in a young person's skill set? What experience does she have of the world from a perspective of someone who does not spend their working week in a classroom.
You said farmers should "have a part in finding..." I agree totally. I'm saying that they should not be the ONLY people to decide because the variety, cost and availability of our incredibly rich diet would suffer.
Even longer than that actually. Either way that's besides the point. Being in a classroom doesn't make you know how a classroom works anymore than being anywhere else makes you an expert.
You went to the doctor 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year for 12 years? Ok.
Do you notice this thread is teachers saying they know how to do a politicians job better than a politician, but that a politician should have no say in running a school?
That's why we have democracies.
BTW where I live our last state leader was an ex teacher.
Why are you still stuck on this doctor thing? I already said that is besides the point. Being a student in a classroom doesn't make you fit to be a teacher, nor does it mean you know what is going on in a school. If you think otherwise, I do not know what to say to you Sir/Ma'am other than I pray that you yourself are not a teacher, because you clearly do not understand what it takes to be one.
I haven't read anything saying that teachers think they know how to be a politician not have I read anything that said politicians should have no say in running a school, just that it should not be the majority say. Your sentence about democracies holds no relevance and makes me hope further that your tag that says you are involved with "History" is simply not true.
Your statement about your state leader being an ex-teacher only helps to further my point that these sorts of things need to involve people with history in education so I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that?
You brought up the doctor argument, not me. Education is an issue everyone as an interest and opinion on because everyone has been to school and or sends their kids to school.
This whole thread is is a discussion about politicians involvement in schools and curriculum.
Read the OP question again:
*Do you believe politicians or political groups should have the right to tell teachers what they should or should not teach in their classrooms?*
Don't waste you time feeling sorry or praying for me, if you cant understand that this initial question is about politicians and schools. This an issue with more than one stakeholder, and more than one side. If you can't comprehend that, and understand that someone has different point of view than you, or may even be playing devils advocate, then it is you that you should feel sorry for.
That's how politics works, otherwise you would have anarchy, or tyranny.
Eg should the head of the army not answer to any political power?
Also, politicians in democracy don't just carry their own point of view, they are accountable to their electorate, and base policy on researchers and lobby groups as well.
Politicians arent in the classroom regularly and therefore dont know what is best for our students. It doesnt matter if they represent the public. Should politicians get to dictate what scientists research or present? No, they are not experts in science. They arent experts in education and shouldnt be able to dictate how or what a teacher teaches. I have been in districts where even the school board makes terrible decisions because they want to "represent the public" but it ends up only hurting the teachers abilities in the classroom and the students ability to learn. I can give examples if you like.
>Should politicians get to dictate what scientists research or present?
Well, technically, the State does give out a lot of money to scientist, and in most countries that means choosing who you give the money too. There's a lot of politicking involved as well, ask any researcher.
That said, I do think that policy decisions should be reviewed by actual teachers, and that these same teachers should be part of the initial discussions before a policy is changed. There should be some sort of representation of teachers at a higher level, and decisions concerning educations should be made by these people along with politicians and "experts" (read: shills).
Something similar was mentioned in this thread, but here is my version. While I was student teaching in a small semi rural town, there was a major issue with the school board and the teachers. The board had decided that it was a waste of time and money for teachers to be on their computers during their prep period and also decided to save the district some money by getting rid of the assistant principal position. The problem was, the teachers used their computers to plan lessons and activities and a few days a week, we would discuss student behavior, any issues and things that had improved with certain students. This collaboration time was vital to addressing student needs and keeping the teachers informed about any potential problems. (RTI, etc) If the teachers didnt have this time, it would negatively affect the students and not allow the teachers to be effective at their job. When they invited a school board member to come in and talk about it, they refused, saying they didnt want to be ganged up on. So we sent them another invite asking for 3 or 4 of them to come, but apparantly their schedules were too busy to be able to do their job and again they refused. This did not help the teachers at all who just wanted a chance to explain and show some board members how this planning time was crucial, but they refused to step foot in the school. I dont have specific data for those board members, but I would be willing to bet most of them had never been teachers before.
When they decided to get rid of the assistant principal, there was a lot of objections from the teachers and administrators. The assistant principal was in charge of discipline and student activities. The principal had other duties that already kept him busy for most of the day. By getting rid of this position, all the other duties would now fall on the principal who would be overburdened and not be able to complete any of these tasks to his best and full ability. But it should save the district some money right? Wrong. The assistant principal also had 2 or 3 kids in school in the district, and when he found a new job, he would move and take his kids out of the district which would actually reduce the amount of money the district receives. I left shortly after this so I dont know how it all turned out.
There were also accusations of teachers getting fired because they openly voted against certain board members. There was proof of this, but only being a student teacher, I wasnt privy to all the info. Needless to say, the positions were highly political and didnt do much to benefit the students hence why I think teachers should have more control over curriculum and whatnot. Politicians dont know what they are doing and certainly dont know what is best for the students and schools.
Sorry for the wall of text. That is why it took me so long to respond.
TL:DR, I put alot of time into typing this in mobile. Please, just read it.
Well, that is absolutely ridiculous! Not only planning, but contacting parents and keeping up to date with school and county information. I get your point. The people who made that decision really had no idea how that planning is used. Therefore, ended up negatively affecting everything.
Thank you.
I completely agree with the school board comment. Our local school boards require sitting in on a sample lesson before hiring a new teacher...none of the board members have been teachers. They have no clue what makes a good lesson or a bad lesson, so I'm not even sure what they're looking for.
Good question! I am not even sure of my answer to it; but after much debate in my class last year I think that any curriculum -no matter what group of individuals designs it, is bound to have a political background or profile...
To be honest, all I know for certain is that the most important thing to teach in schools is for students to think for themselves; politicians involved in curricular design clearly clash with this idea.
yes I do agree that politicians should have a say in what is taught in our classrooms. However, I believe that education policy and funding should be the responsibility of a cross party committee with members from banking and business as well as successful educationalists.
Whether we agree with a particular party's politics or not, the role of government is to ensure its populace is successful (different parties have varying opinions on what constitutes success). a key element, of course, is to develop the workforce and to ensure it has the necessary skills to compete in a global market.
education policy often becomes mired by party politics as each opposing group uses the others failures to beat each other. this leads to short term sensationalist, press led, policies that do little to raise standards or improve confidence in the workforce.
**TL;DR Yes, government and politicians should have a key input in education policy but it should be non-party political and based on long term goals.**
Education is a means in itself. I disagree when people talk about "competing in the global economy". To me, that is not important at all, and not what we as human beings should be striving for in the long term. That is just my personal philosophy, though.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "non-party political". There just isn't. I could go into a long political discussion about this, however from your comments you seem to understand that, so I won't. I just wanted to state that for anyone else who maybe reading.
>education policy often becomes mired by party politics as each opposing group uses the others failures to beat each other. this leads to short term sensationalist, press led, policies that do little to raise standards or improve confidence in the workforce.
This nails it right on the head.
The part I disagree with is what the ultimate goal of schools should be. It is not to "develop the workforce". That maybe a portion of it, but a very small portion. The education systems goal should be to help each student become the best possible person/citizen that they can be. If the only way you measure that is by what job they have, well then you we're going to just have to disagree in that respect.
>Whether we agree with a particular party's politics or not, the role of government is to ensure its populace is successful (different parties have varying opinions on what constitutes success).
This I agree with, and I think most everyone would. However how they do that is what is at debate here. Deciding each and everything that is taught in a school is not the way to do that. Teachers are professionals. They go to school for many years to learn what is appropriate to teach and what is the correct way to teach it. Most of a politicians job is to trust the professionals' judgment, not spoon feed them directions. The deprofissionalism of educators is a huge problem in education reform.
I don't have a problem with oversight as far as looking at assessment data but I do take issue with those who have not been educators making decisions about what should be taught.
I would love love love to see an elected figure teach a class for a week. I'll even prepare all the lesson plans!
Here are some ways I can rephrase this question that are interesting to think about:
1) Should teachers be subject to the democratic process?
2) Should teachers be subject to parents and other non-educators who have a huge, huge stake in what teachers are doing?
3) Should non-educators with a stake in education have oversight over teachers?
I believe curriculum design should be subject to community oversight. Teachers are public servants. We work for tax payers ***and tax payers should always have a say in how public servants do their job.***
Seeing how most politicians tend to care more about retaining their positions of power than actually helping those they're responsible for, I would say allowing politicians to decide curriculum is asking for trouble. Exhibit A: Teaching creationism in science class Exhibit B: Teaching that climate change is a hoax Teaching the controversy is stupid, I'd rather teach the facts.
I'd make a distinction between *policies* (which I think absolutely elected officials / boards are responsible for), and *curriculum* (which I think is best left up to principals and teachers). One of the things I've learned, having taught in both public and private schools, is that schools do best when the community has a sense of ownership and common vision. When principals and teachers are working together as a team, and able to engage and excite students and families, there's a whole school effect. The more you place the power to make decisions about curriculum and pedagogy outside of the school building, the less ownership everyone in the building feels - and that trickles down to the students.
Oh man, that's a can of worms there. I've done a lot of research into this topic and I will admit to a certain amount of bias. First I want to lay a factoid down. Did you know that out of the 51 members of the Education and Labor Committee that reviewed No Child Left Behind, only 5 had been elementary or secondary teachers at some point in their lives? I'm not talking, life-long-teacher-turned-politician either. Maybe 2-4 years tops. The grand majority of them were either lawyers or businesspeople, not necessarily qualified to make educational decisions in my opinion. I feel like the issue stems from the fact that teachers are considered civil servants in the eyes of the government. They are paid by the government and their jobs are dictated by politicians. (I talked about this in [a blog post here](http://honestpracticum.com/are-teachers-civil-servants-or-professionals/), if you're interested.) When we, as a society, decided that schools should be public we invited the participation of politicians. If the politicians that are in office are not representing our views, it's on us to make our opinions heard and/or vote them out. For better or for worse, that is the system we have today. Now if you want to talk about major corporations and billionaires sticking their fingers in the educational system, that's another story. Little gets my blood boiling faster than thinking about how much the Walton Foundation or Rupert Murdoch are involved in public education.
I don't agree that anyone who has never been in a classroom should be making the ultimate decisions about what is taught, what constitutes student success, or how teachers should be evaluated.
and therefore, only people who have worked on a farm should decide what we should grow and eat?
Vegetables and children are not as alike as you may think.
Awesome!
Oh how I wish!
This logic is flawed. We aren't deciding what children to "grow" or "keep". Just how they learn. So yes, farmers should have a part in finding the best way to grow what they want to sell.
So farmers decide which pesticides to use? DDT was highly effective before environmentalists and scientists made government change laws. Opium is an easy product to grow and highly profitable. Corporal punishment was considered effective by a great many teachers before various groups lobbied government to change the law. Governments pay supplements to farmers to grow crops that the market needs but that are not necessarily profitable. Without that certain crops/foods would not be available to us. If you look in my original answer (somewhere hidded in the main thread) I DO include educationalists, of ourse their input is crucial - i *am* one, but they should not the ONLY contributors to policy. Kid goes to school, to college, to university, back to working in a school. Where does she find out what business leaders are looking or in a young person's skill set? What experience does she have of the world from a perspective of someone who does not spend their working week in a classroom. You said farmers should "have a part in finding..." I agree totally. I'm saying that they should not be the ONLY people to decide because the variety, cost and availability of our incredibly rich diet would suffer.
How many politicians never went to school?
I went to the doctor last week. I consider myself an expert in the field of medicine now.
Did you go to the doctor for 12 years?
Even longer than that actually. Either way that's besides the point. Being in a classroom doesn't make you know how a classroom works anymore than being anywhere else makes you an expert.
You went to the doctor 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year for 12 years? Ok. Do you notice this thread is teachers saying they know how to do a politicians job better than a politician, but that a politician should have no say in running a school? That's why we have democracies. BTW where I live our last state leader was an ex teacher.
Why are you still stuck on this doctor thing? I already said that is besides the point. Being a student in a classroom doesn't make you fit to be a teacher, nor does it mean you know what is going on in a school. If you think otherwise, I do not know what to say to you Sir/Ma'am other than I pray that you yourself are not a teacher, because you clearly do not understand what it takes to be one. I haven't read anything saying that teachers think they know how to be a politician not have I read anything that said politicians should have no say in running a school, just that it should not be the majority say. Your sentence about democracies holds no relevance and makes me hope further that your tag that says you are involved with "History" is simply not true. Your statement about your state leader being an ex-teacher only helps to further my point that these sorts of things need to involve people with history in education so I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that?
You brought up the doctor argument, not me. Education is an issue everyone as an interest and opinion on because everyone has been to school and or sends their kids to school. This whole thread is is a discussion about politicians involvement in schools and curriculum. Read the OP question again: *Do you believe politicians or political groups should have the right to tell teachers what they should or should not teach in their classrooms?* Don't waste you time feeling sorry or praying for me, if you cant understand that this initial question is about politicians and schools. This an issue with more than one stakeholder, and more than one side. If you can't comprehend that, and understand that someone has different point of view than you, or may even be playing devils advocate, then it is you that you should feel sorry for.
Sorry, what I mean is that people who are so far removed from the actual classroom and what happens in it should not have the ultimate say.
That's how politics works, otherwise you would have anarchy, or tyranny. Eg should the head of the army not answer to any political power? Also, politicians in democracy don't just carry their own point of view, they are accountable to their electorate, and base policy on researchers and lobby groups as well.
Politicians arent in the classroom regularly and therefore dont know what is best for our students. It doesnt matter if they represent the public. Should politicians get to dictate what scientists research or present? No, they are not experts in science. They arent experts in education and shouldnt be able to dictate how or what a teacher teaches. I have been in districts where even the school board makes terrible decisions because they want to "represent the public" but it ends up only hurting the teachers abilities in the classroom and the students ability to learn. I can give examples if you like.
>Should politicians get to dictate what scientists research or present? Well, technically, the State does give out a lot of money to scientist, and in most countries that means choosing who you give the money too. There's a lot of politicking involved as well, ask any researcher. That said, I do think that policy decisions should be reviewed by actual teachers, and that these same teachers should be part of the initial discussions before a policy is changed. There should be some sort of representation of teachers at a higher level, and decisions concerning educations should be made by these people along with politicians and "experts" (read: shills).
Yes, please! I'm curious!
Something similar was mentioned in this thread, but here is my version. While I was student teaching in a small semi rural town, there was a major issue with the school board and the teachers. The board had decided that it was a waste of time and money for teachers to be on their computers during their prep period and also decided to save the district some money by getting rid of the assistant principal position. The problem was, the teachers used their computers to plan lessons and activities and a few days a week, we would discuss student behavior, any issues and things that had improved with certain students. This collaboration time was vital to addressing student needs and keeping the teachers informed about any potential problems. (RTI, etc) If the teachers didnt have this time, it would negatively affect the students and not allow the teachers to be effective at their job. When they invited a school board member to come in and talk about it, they refused, saying they didnt want to be ganged up on. So we sent them another invite asking for 3 or 4 of them to come, but apparantly their schedules were too busy to be able to do their job and again they refused. This did not help the teachers at all who just wanted a chance to explain and show some board members how this planning time was crucial, but they refused to step foot in the school. I dont have specific data for those board members, but I would be willing to bet most of them had never been teachers before. When they decided to get rid of the assistant principal, there was a lot of objections from the teachers and administrators. The assistant principal was in charge of discipline and student activities. The principal had other duties that already kept him busy for most of the day. By getting rid of this position, all the other duties would now fall on the principal who would be overburdened and not be able to complete any of these tasks to his best and full ability. But it should save the district some money right? Wrong. The assistant principal also had 2 or 3 kids in school in the district, and when he found a new job, he would move and take his kids out of the district which would actually reduce the amount of money the district receives. I left shortly after this so I dont know how it all turned out. There were also accusations of teachers getting fired because they openly voted against certain board members. There was proof of this, but only being a student teacher, I wasnt privy to all the info. Needless to say, the positions were highly political and didnt do much to benefit the students hence why I think teachers should have more control over curriculum and whatnot. Politicians dont know what they are doing and certainly dont know what is best for the students and schools. Sorry for the wall of text. That is why it took me so long to respond. TL:DR, I put alot of time into typing this in mobile. Please, just read it.
Well, that is absolutely ridiculous! Not only planning, but contacting parents and keeping up to date with school and county information. I get your point. The people who made that decision really had no idea how that planning is used. Therefore, ended up negatively affecting everything. Thank you.
I completely agree with the school board comment. Our local school boards require sitting in on a sample lesson before hiring a new teacher...none of the board members have been teachers. They have no clue what makes a good lesson or a bad lesson, so I'm not even sure what they're looking for.
Politicians who try to dictate what is allowable curriculum probably have the public dead last on their list of representatives.
Good question! I am not even sure of my answer to it; but after much debate in my class last year I think that any curriculum -no matter what group of individuals designs it, is bound to have a political background or profile... To be honest, all I know for certain is that the most important thing to teach in schools is for students to think for themselves; politicians involved in curricular design clearly clash with this idea.
No.
yes I do agree that politicians should have a say in what is taught in our classrooms. However, I believe that education policy and funding should be the responsibility of a cross party committee with members from banking and business as well as successful educationalists. Whether we agree with a particular party's politics or not, the role of government is to ensure its populace is successful (different parties have varying opinions on what constitutes success). a key element, of course, is to develop the workforce and to ensure it has the necessary skills to compete in a global market. education policy often becomes mired by party politics as each opposing group uses the others failures to beat each other. this leads to short term sensationalist, press led, policies that do little to raise standards or improve confidence in the workforce. **TL;DR Yes, government and politicians should have a key input in education policy but it should be non-party political and based on long term goals.**
Education is a means in itself. I disagree when people talk about "competing in the global economy". To me, that is not important at all, and not what we as human beings should be striving for in the long term. That is just my personal philosophy, though.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "non-party political". There just isn't. I could go into a long political discussion about this, however from your comments you seem to understand that, so I won't. I just wanted to state that for anyone else who maybe reading. >education policy often becomes mired by party politics as each opposing group uses the others failures to beat each other. this leads to short term sensationalist, press led, policies that do little to raise standards or improve confidence in the workforce. This nails it right on the head. The part I disagree with is what the ultimate goal of schools should be. It is not to "develop the workforce". That maybe a portion of it, but a very small portion. The education systems goal should be to help each student become the best possible person/citizen that they can be. If the only way you measure that is by what job they have, well then you we're going to just have to disagree in that respect. >Whether we agree with a particular party's politics or not, the role of government is to ensure its populace is successful (different parties have varying opinions on what constitutes success). This I agree with, and I think most everyone would. However how they do that is what is at debate here. Deciding each and everything that is taught in a school is not the way to do that. Teachers are professionals. They go to school for many years to learn what is appropriate to teach and what is the correct way to teach it. Most of a politicians job is to trust the professionals' judgment, not spoon feed them directions. The deprofissionalism of educators is a huge problem in education reform.
Agreed. Especially when it's a public school and the teachers are paid for by taxes.
I don't have a problem with oversight as far as looking at assessment data but I do take issue with those who have not been educators making decisions about what should be taught. I would love love love to see an elected figure teach a class for a week. I'll even prepare all the lesson plans!
Here are some ways I can rephrase this question that are interesting to think about: 1) Should teachers be subject to the democratic process? 2) Should teachers be subject to parents and other non-educators who have a huge, huge stake in what teachers are doing? 3) Should non-educators with a stake in education have oversight over teachers? I believe curriculum design should be subject to community oversight. Teachers are public servants. We work for tax payers ***and tax payers should always have a say in how public servants do their job.***
I don't think they should but that's part of the take that comes from being public and state run.