[etni] dovrat
- From: Sharon Tzur <sharontzu5@xxxxxxx>
- To: etni <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:29:12 +0200
Dear Colleagues:
I did not read the entire Dovrat report cover to cover, but when it came out, I
did read a variety of summaries of it and followed the discussions over the
report in the press. Below is a link to a detailed summary of the Dovrat report
in English.
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EEE94632-B3D0-4D68-99DC-DE52F78FB0FC/9604/%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9D%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%AA.doc
I certainly read enough of the report and about the report to form an opinion.
I can't relate to everything in the report, but I would like to relate to some
points.
I definitely think that teachers were underrepresented - and I remember reading
that some of the educators on the committee quit because they were not happy
with the ways things were going. Furthermore, a committee designed to deal with
the problems of education should have turned to ALL teachers and had EVERY
teacher who wished fill in a detailed survey about what he/she sees as the main
problems of the educational system. This was, unfortunately, not done. I also
believe that the committee should have been headed by someone who has extensive
experience in the field of educational administration.
The report does argue that teacher status should be raised - including
salaries. However, it already "plants" some of the problems that are under
discussion now. The report plants the seeds for demanding that teachers teach
more hours, and add hours of private instruction, and remain in school every
day from 8 to 5 like other "public workers" without taking into account that we
are not like "other public workers" in terms of the demands of our job and the
conditions that we need in order to do our jobs. The report also plants the
seed of giving principals power, not only to hire and fire, but to determine
whether or not we can be promoted from one salary level to the next.
The whole report is based on an attempt to apply business principles to
education - an approach that I call into question. (and it is a largely "male"
business approach ) Business involves a lot of competition whereas in school we
strive for cooperation. Can you imagine how a staff would work if teachers were
all competing with each other for the few top slots on the salary scale? (The
top slots would go to only a small percentage of teachers.) Even in the
business world, the raw competition modals are now being adjusted in favor of
more cooperative ("female") models.
Another problem with the business approach is that it is so difficult to access
the work of a teacher - so much of what we do is impossible to quantify - and
student progress depends on many factors other than our teaching "input" - that
I just don't think there is any fair way to tie teacher's salaries to "how good
they are". I think it is more fair to base our salaries on years in service,
educational level (including in-service training) and to allow us to enjoy
g'mulim for special jobs that we take on (such as Racazim) - and that these
special jobs must include a reduction of teaching hours. (How else can we find
the time to do them?). I am not against thinking of ways to allow for the
dismissal of poor teachers or even for docking pay of teachers who are not
doing their jobs (not attending meetings, etc.), but I'm against giving
principals the kind of power over teacher suggested in the report.
A lot of the report deals with the issue of special teacher training institutes
(as opposed to university). For high school teachers, this is not really
relevant, since we are required to be college grads anyway. Personally, I
question the conclusions that teacher training institutes are inadequate. I
think that at the elementary school level and perhaps even into a year or two
of junior high school, a teacher can be adequately trained at a teacher
training institute. At these levels, pedagogical skills are more important than
in depth knowledge of a particular discipline. How much of what an undergrad
learns in, say, a Literature course, is really vital in order to teach
Literature in 4th grade? What is more important is knowing how to work with
children, how to teach and reach children, etc. These skills are often taught
better in the teacher training seminars than in the Teudat Horaah program of
the universities. Similarly, when people talk about the low standards of
acceptance into teacher training seminars, they are generally talking about
bagrut average and psychometric scores. Before Dovrat, one did not have to take
the psychometric exam in order to be accepted into a teacher training seminar.
Now they do.
I have a personal peeve against the psychometric exam - I don't think success
in the exam proves that one can be a good teacher or that poor results mean a
person can't be a good teacher. The psychometric exam, more than anything, is a
way to preserve the current elites as elites. The exam puts many groups at a
disadvantage - such as new immigrants (and to a certain extent - women - since
women tend to do more poorly than men in standardized exams in which speed is a
critical element.) Of course, to be a good teacher, a person must have above
average intelligence (or average intelligence but a willingness to work hard) -
have good verbal skills (and math skills for math teachers), and be good
achievers at school (full bagrut certificate), but I would like to see
candidates screened not just on the basis of intelligence but on the basis of
people skills - what is most critical in teaching. I do agree with Dovrat that
there should be better teaching training programs at the university and a
better screening process for teachers in their first years. I agree that new
teachers should have experienced mentors. In my opinion, new teachers should
teacher fewer classroom hours, and the mentors should be older teachers who
would have fewer classroom hours in order to truly help train new teachers. I
also thing there should be an option to have teachers work for several years
before they are given tenure.
What bothers me most about the report, is what is missing from it. I would like
to mention some of the problems that I think exist in the system today - none
of which were addressed in the report to the best of my knowledge.
classroom size - no recommendation for smaller classes
lack of teacher and administrative empowerment vis a vis the students - We have
lost our authority, and without authority and rules, there can be no effective
teaching.
lack of student accountability - the student today can basically do whatever
he/she wants and pays no consequences. We are number one in the West for
student absenteeism. I often teach classes in 12th grade where attendance
averages between 50-60%. Homework preparation averages about 25% of the class
(those present, of course). Students go up from grade to grade no matter how
poor their attendance or how many classes they have failed.
Cheating is rife at all levels and there is a very forgiving attitude towards
it. Students caught cheating in the Bagrut are almost always allowed to retake
the exam at the following Moed, so they basically do not suffer any
consequences other than the fact that the exam they cheated on does not count.
Acceptance into college depends only on bagrut grades, whereas it should be
based on the entire record of students from 9th through 12th grade as well as
teacher recommendations.
Grades do not count for students except for the bagrut yearly grade. Years ago,
grades had an impact, for they were used to stream students to the academic
stream as opposed to the technical stream. Today, in the name of political
correctness (which is embodied in the Dovrat report - which demands that,
"Public schools must be open to all students who choose to attend them. These
schools shall not screen their students".
I believe that one of the main reasons for the decline in student achievement
is the demise of technological education, which allowed students who were
technologically competent, but not that academically oriented, to do well in
school and to prepare themselves for good jobs in the future. Instead, everyone
is now streamed into the academic path, where many students experience failure,
and contribute more than their fair share to discipline problems at school They
finish school without a complete bagrut certificate, so they cannot go to
college, nor have they been prepared for any other job.
Problems of Curriculum - students carry too many subjects at once and not
enough hours are allotted for each subject. This also means that teachers have
too many students, do not see their classes enough, and never have a "critical
mass" of classes in which to effectively teach a subject. For example, in my
high school, I spent one year learning Biology, one year on Physics, and one
year on Chemistry. Each subject was given 5 or 6 weekly hours. In Israel, we
often have students in 10th grade learning all three - with only 2 or 3
allotted to each. This burden in terms of the number of subjects also means
that students live from test to test, often being tested three times a week
throughout most of the semester. There are subjects that need to be learned
every year - but many would benefit from being learned only every other, or
every third year, but for a large number of hours per week.
Methodology - New programs and methodologies are introduced without sufficient
research and piloting. We all know about the Cuisenaire Rod fiasco in Math,
with Cuisenaire rods being introduced here just as they were being thrown out
in other countries. (I'm not a Math teacher but the rods fly against my
intuition about how Math should be taught). Similarly, perfectly sensible
phonetic methods of teaching reading (and Hebrew is such a phonetic language!)
were thrown out in favor of a more global approach, which proved a failure.
When these methods are imposed on teachers and students fail as a result, it is
the teachers who are blamed rather than the curriculum that was imposed!
Nutrition - Our students do not have a proper lunch break and a nutritious meal
is not offered to them (at all, or not at a reasonable price). I shudder when I
see my students subsisting on industrial garbage food such as Manah Chamah,
followed by a cola and sweets. There are so many studies that link poor
nutrition to both discipline problems, problems of concentration, and
achievement. Furthermore, students do not have a proper place to eat. They eat
in the classrooms - and after they eat, the classrooms are filthy. They also
don't have time to eat. Our longest break at school is 20 minutes! In this
time, she/he needs to go to the bathroom, wash, buy food and eat!
Students in Israel come to school strictly to learn. There are no
extra-curricular activities that are part of school life - a school play, a
school newspaper, competitive sports teams, science club, etc. These activities
enhance students life, self-esteem, esprit d'corps, and also give teachers a
chance to interact with students in areas not directly related to the
classroom.
In short, Dovrat, which as supposed to be a comprehensive report, did not
address a large number of issues that I think are critical to getting the
Israeli educational system back on track. Because these other factors were not
related to, reading the report leaves one with the feeling that all the ills of
the system today are placed squarely on the shoulders of the teachers whereas I
believe that the teachers in Israel are certainly equal to their colleagues in
other countries and that it is other factors (such as those I've mentioned)
that have led to the decline in our students' achievements.
Yours,
Sharon Tzur
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - www.etni.org **
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts: