Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Friday April 07 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the stifling-curiosity dept.

As teacher resignation letters increasingly go public -- and viral -- new research indicates teachers are not leaving solely due to low pay and retirement, but also because of what they see as a broken education system.

In a trio of studies, Michigan State University education expert Alyssa Hadley Dunn and colleagues examined the relatively new phenomenon of teachers posting their resignation letters online. Their findings, which come as many teachers are signing next year's contacts, suggest educators at all grade and experience levels are frustrated and disheartened by a nationwide focus on standardized tests, scripted curriculum and punitive teacher-evaluation systems.

Teacher turnover costs more than $2.2 billion in the U.S. each year and has been shown to decrease student achievement in the form of reading and math test scores.

"The reasons teachers are leaving the profession has little to do with the reasons most frequently touted by education reformers, such as pay or student behavior," said Dunn, assistant professor of teacher education. "Rather, teachers are leaving largely because oppressive policies and practices are affecting their working conditions and beliefs about themselves and education."

The study quoted a teacher in Boston: "I did not feel I was leaving my job. I felt then and feel now that my job left me."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:23PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:23PM (#490414)

    You're probably right; I wanted to avoid the obvious exploitation to which being a "provider" of the family could lead. You don't want that money going to pay for Daddy's drinking, and you don't want kids getting whipped for failing to bring home the bacon.

    Perhaps students could receive "student stamps" until age 18, and could use them to buy things through some office that authorizes disbursements for one purpose or another (such as for buying supplies for the student himself; clothes, lunch food, etc.).

    It's really hard to keep the parents away from the money when the child is a minor. Most parents are total shitheads.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:57PM (#490440)

    I don't think you should try to "keep the parents away from the money". It's pretty messed up if a kid gets whipped for failing to pay for Daddy's drinking but... that is what is required to get the child learning in such an awful home. That "exploitation" provides pressure to succeed. The alternative is that the parents actively interfere with success, or perhaps just let the child run wild and never study.

    And no, I wouldn't support taking the child or otherwise interfering. Family is family, even if not the best.

    One could even skip over the child, simply paying the parents. That is probably easier. Some parents might give a portion to the kid. It could be 0%, 50%, 100%... or even 1000% for the rich.