Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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, @06:54PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:54PM (#490438)

    For instance, if a person cannot repay the debt, the contract should specify what happens and how that is enforced—the debtor agreed to the rules of this game ahead of time, and made a bet.

    Guess what?

    The creditor also agreed to those rules and made a bet; perhaps those rules specify that the creditor loses his shirt, as is the case with equity investment (e.g., buying shares in a company).

    Get it yet?

  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Saturday April 08 2017, @06:32AM (1 child)

    by Spook brat (775) on Saturday April 08 2017, @06:32AM (#490726) Journal

    In a libertarian world, forcing people into involuntary servitude would not be a thing. Maybe stopping them from trespassing, but enslaving them? No.

    the contract should specify what happens and how that is enforced—the debtor agreed . . . The creditor also agreed to those rules and made a bet; perhaps those rules specify that the creditor loses his shirt. . .
    Get it yet?

    Sure, I get it. The contract says that if the debtor ceases to be able to pay interest on his debt that he becomes a slave to the creditor, so it's only fair. Except now we're condoning slavery. In a Libertarian-utopia society.

    Are you the same AC who said earlier that involuntary servitude wouldn't be a thing in Libertarian paradise?

    Anyhow, I can tell you didn't read the links I gave earlier; they weren't describing a debt entered into voluntarily by contract, it was the result of an arbitrator's judgement - reparations for theft and attempted murder. The community got together, examined the evidence, and a fine amount was determined; the defendants agreed to it, because the other options was likely to be shot by their would-be victims. They didn't have the assets to cover the damages, so they were indentured until they could produce the remainder of the debt. I have to admit, it's a plausible method for handling law-enforcement proceedings in a society without a government or police force.

    Depending on your point of view, I guess you could say that they voluntarily entered into the indenture contract (although one skipped out on it later, leaving the other two to pay his share as well as their own). Can you really say that they weren't coerced into it by the community? Think about it.

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:45PM (#490843)

      By entering a contract, one has by definition not been coerced by the enforcement of that contract; that is essentially one of the axioms from which a reasonable system arises (i.e., a system about which one can reason).

      The real problem is the lack of a well-defined contract, where all the cases are covered and understood ahead of time; a dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract, and dispute resolution is the process of coming up with a version of the contract that is better defined (a contract should ideally specify what should be done in every case, so that the game can proceed in a way that is predictable to every party).

      Now, because it is unreasonable to expect people to know and understand every kind of contractual obligation to which they've entered, I imagine that a robust framework of canonical, standardized contracts would arise, and could thus be referenced with shorthand—these ways of interacting would basically become a matter of culture that people learn intuitively for the vast majority of daily existence (after all, that's basically what culture is, anyway).

      I doubt this framework would have slavery or murder as an outcome, unless the interaction is similar to what today can lead to incarceration or the death penalty, etc.

      Also, with respect to your other comment [soylentnews.org], you should note that there are always 2 "sides" to a dispute; it is in each person's self-interest to ensure that his own contractual benefits be enforced, and similarly to ensure that he can withstand the onslaught of any other party (especially a party that engages in behavior that is not defined well, such as invasion by a foreign power, etc.). That is to say, there is a market for protection (including contract enforcement). It's also in the interests of protection services not to battle each other without good reason, because war is costly, and thus they would have incentive to come to terms, as per not only their customers' contracts, but also their own contracts with each other (such as how to handle evidence, arbitration, and so on).

      Everybody knows that a monopoly is probably a bad idea, and that a monopoly which is imposed violently is almost certainly a very bad idea; so, why don't you see that this same insight applies also to the service of providing contract enforcement or protection from aggressive non-contractual behavior? The security industry is not magical; as with any other industry, it would benefit just the same from competition within the market, growing and evolving along with the rest of society and its interlinking framework of contracts—the best check and balance and separation of powers is competition with a market, especially when this competition occurs within a culture that reveres the principle of voluntary trade as defined by contracts.