SENATE BILL: Atlasian Institute of Teachers Act (Law'd)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Abstain

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If this bill passes, it will be a sad day for the Atlasian education system!

[Napoleon]

If this bill passes, it will be a sad day for the Atlasian education system!

My question is what about this do the usually sane Senators actually support? I'm surprised to see Franzl voting for this.

[Oakvale]

If this bill passes, it will be a sad day for the Atlasian education system!

My question is what about this do the usually sane Senators actually support? I'm surprised to see Franzl voting for this.

This is really a very moderate bill, you might disagree with the principle behind it but it's not cause to call the proponents of it "insane".

Aye.

EDIT: To clarify, it doesn't cost a lot, won't radically alter the education system, but improve primary and secondary education for the nation's children a little bit, without being an abuse of federal power. Seems like a worthy cause to me.

[Napoleon]

I didn't call anyone insane.

Now whether a bill is moderate or not, well, I don't really focus on that. I don't care if its liberal or conservative or what have you. The flaws I see in this proposal is that- by design- it prevents people who may otherwise be qualified from getting a job, after it charges them $50 to join a stupid club and take a stupid test. Sorry if I don't think this will improve primary or secondary education.

Not only do teachers have to teach to the test, they have to be taught the test in order to teach to a test. Progress!

I'd rather see former Senators having to license candidates for the Senate, maybe that will improve the bills coming out of this place.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I didn't call anyone insane.

As is your tendency, you implied and insult rather than saying it outright, so that you can hide later.  By noting your surprise at how "sane" Senators voted, you implied that only the insane would support this.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What is done here is essentially what's done in real life in Ontario. Oh, the horror! Teacher-candidates have to pay to join a stupid little club! If that's your reasoning, I hope you'll be vetoing Senator Showstalker's recent bill too.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Me neither, even though it's a perfectly valid piece of legislation that many in the senate worked hard to pass.

[Simfan34]

What is done here is essentially what's done in real life in Ontario. Oh, the horror! Teacher-candidates have to pay to join a stupid little club! If that's your reasoning, I hope you'll be vetoing Senator Showstalker's recent bill too.

And for doctors. And for lawyers. And for architects. And for stock brokers. And for plumbers. And for electricians. I suppose the president and Mr. X would like to eliminate examinations and professional organizations for those professions as well. It would only be consistent.

[Napoleon]

What is done here is essentially what's done in real life in Ontario. Oh, the horror! Teacher-candidates have to pay to join a stupid little club! If that's your reasoning, I hope you'll be vetoing Senator Showstalker's recent bill too.

And for doctors. And for lawyers. And for architects. And for stock brokers. And for plumbers. And for electricians. I suppose the president and Mr. X would like to eliminate examinations and professional organizations for those professions as well. It would only be consistent.

I know you're pretty young so I'll consider giving you a pass for not knowing how the world works, but how are you not aware that not everyone who works in a law office has passed the bar, and that most plumbers or electricians work for a licensed plumber or electrician but do not have a license in their name.

If all of those people had to go through all these stupid bureaucratic hoops then we would be a severely underemployed nation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

After some consideration... Aye.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What is done here is essentially what's done in real life in Ontario. Oh, the horror! Teacher-candidates have to pay to join a stupid little club! If that's your reasoning, I hope you'll be vetoing Senator Showstalker's recent bill too.

And for doctors. And for lawyers. And for architects. And for stock brokers. And for plumbers. And for electricians. I suppose the president and Mr. X would like to eliminate examinations and professional organizations for those professions as well. It would only be consistent.

Actually, my objection was unrelated to the "special club" aspect.  I never saw any reason to oppose it on those grounds.  Tbh, I think I misunderstood a certain section of the bill and would support this bill due to the absence of the issue created by the aforementioned misunderstanding.

[Simfan34]

What is done here is essentially what's done in real life in Ontario. Oh, the horror! Teacher-candidates have to pay to join a stupid little club! If that's your reasoning, I hope you'll be vetoing Senator Showstalker's recent bill too.

And for doctors. And for lawyers. And for architects. And for stock brokers. And for plumbers. And for electricians. I suppose the president and Mr. X would like to eliminate examinations and professional organizations for those professions as well. It would only be consistent.

Actually, my objection was unrelated to the "special club" aspect.  I never saw any reason to oppose it on those grounds.  Tbh, I think I misunderstood a certain section of the bill and would support this bill due to the absence of the issue created by the aforementioned misunderstanding.

May the honorable gentleman please be less cryptic?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amazing, how all the serious complaints don't arise until after the vote is started.

We have a serious problem regarding the quality of our teachers. I don't expect this to change that situation overnight, but I think having a set of standards is not out of line. And if you are worried about "teaching to a test" then you should have recommended other specific testing options be applied. That general argument applies to many of the standardized tests in schools, that is true. However, most of those are mutliple choice dominant, memorization oriented designs, hence the problem. If you change the method then you can test things like critical thinking and so forth. Of course that also costs more, but that is a seperate issue.

I would also state that while a nice argument, the President's comparison to lawyers and so forth misses the point. The center of the educational profession is undoubtedly the teacher, just like the lawyer is such in the legal profession. He states that the not everyone working in a law office is required to take the bar, and that is certainly true. However, wouldn't the equivalent in the teaching profession of a paralegal or a secretary be a teacher's aid or a secretary in the front office rather than one of the teachers? I might be mistaken, but I don't see where this bill emplaces such a requirement on supporting staff. Everyone who practices law must, however have taken the bar though. Wouldn't the equivalent in the educational profession of a lawyer practicing law, be a teacher instructing students in a class room?

If a non-licensed plumber or electrician messes up, 1) His problem can be fixed and 2) If it isn't its only one house burnt down or a basement/bathroom flooded. If a teacher messes up though, it is difficult to get rid of them and thus they remain in the class room depriving of the students of an education system they derserve. I think the service provided by teachers is essential and the quality thereof should take priority over someones "entitlement to a job", which the President's previous comment about "underemployement caused by bureaucratic hoops" seem to priortize. I think more jobs will be lost long term if those kids are deprived of the best education possible.

[Napoleon]

I would also state that while a nice argument, the President's comparison to lawyers and so forth misses the point. Wouldn't the equivalent in the educational profession of a lawyer practicing law, be a teacher instructing students in a class room?

That is false. In the jobs we are discussing, the license is held by the capitalist, while those working for them are of the labor class. Our teachers don't develop curriculum, they simply execute what is asked of them.

Our problems with quality teachers won't be picked up by some examination. Teaching is about hands-on and personal skill sets which are only measurable by observation. A test that automatically excludes 25% of attempts even if they are wholly qualified otherwise will not sort out good and bad teachers in any tangible sense.

[Simfan34]

Your classist arguments aside (being totally invalid, plumbers, electricians, or doctors not being capitalists), why, again did you not bring this up earlier?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

A test that automatically excludes 25% of attempts even if they are wholly qualified otherwise will not sort out good and bad teachers in any tangible sense.

I see two criticisms in here, one with which I agree (in fact, I brought it up earlier in the thread), and one with which I don't.

First, I agree that automatically failing 25% of candidates is problematic in many ways, because yes—those potential teachers could still be acceptible and qualified. I wish you'd said something earlier. I don't believe it's a deal-breaker, but if you eliminate that clause in a redraft, I'll likely support your effort.

On the other hand, it seems like you're also making the argument that teaching brings together many elements that are inherently "un-testable." And you're right. But if a teacher can't even grasp the material that he or she is supposed to be teaching, that's a problem. If the teacher's knowledge comes from a series of stockpiled handouts provided by a predecessor fifteen years ago, that's a problem. Atlasian history teachers should know the basic tenets of Atlasian history—if they don't, how can we expect their students to learn? If the AITs end up encouraging teachers to teach off the test, so be it—these are concepts that the kids and the teachers should know!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would also state that while a nice argument, the President's comparison to lawyers and so forth misses the point. Wouldn't the equivalent in the educational profession of a lawyer practicing law, be a teacher instructing students in a class room?

That is false. In the jobs we are discussing, the license is held by the capitalist, while those working for them are of the labor class. Our teachers don't develop curriculum, they simply execute what is asked of them.

So, a criminal defense attorney doesn't write the criminal code either (unless he runs for office, just like a teacher can run for school board). What is your point exactly here? It seems like a weird argument to make and adding class doesn't seem to serve a purpose here either.
 

Our problems with quality teachers won't be picked up by some examination. Teaching is about hands-on and personal skill sets which are only measurable by observation. A test that automatically excludes 25% of attempts even if they are wholly qualified otherwise will not sort out good and bad teachers in any tangible sense.

Some of the problem will of course. And you also seem to have a limited view of testing. You could have "observed instruction" serve as part of multi-faceted examination. You could test their ability to craft a curriculum into an successfull educational experience. Teaching is far more then just spitting out what is handed to them. Anyone can do that. Teaching is a far more complex process that provides people with growth and knowledge. And yes there are a number of ways you can test a teacher's abilities, creativity and thus encourage teachers to hone those skills, which will lead to students experiencing an improved education.

The main problem (as I have already stated at the beginning of this debate) regarding teacher quality is that the pay just hasn't kept up and thus the teaching profession is becoming more and more dominated by the bottom 25% of graduates because those at the top go for the big bucks. I am not saying they are thus all bad teachers, there are certainly some great ones who come from a rather unsavory college experience (I know from experience). The thing about averages is that they give you the bigger picture, not so you can ignore the exceptions, but so that you can understand the overall impact of a trend and this one isn't looking too good overall. I don't expect a miracle cural out of this, but I do expect that it is a small step in the right direction.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A test that automatically excludes 25% of attempts even if they are wholly qualified otherwise will not sort out good and bad teachers in any tangible sense.

I see two criticisms in here, one with which I agree (in fact, I brought it up earlier in the thread), and one with which I don't.

First, I agree that automatically failing 25% of candidates is problematic in many ways, because yes—those potential teachers could still be acceptible and qualified. I wish you'd said something earlier. I don't believe it's a deal-breaker, but if you eliminate that clause in a redraft, I'll likely support your effort.

On the other hand, it seems like you're also making the argument that teaching brings together many elements that are inherently "un-testable." And you're right. But if a teacher can't even grasp the material that he or she is supposed to be teaching, that's a problem. If the teacher's knowledge comes from a series of stockpiled handouts provided by a predecessor fifteen years ago, that's a problem. Atlasian history teachers should know the basic tenets of Atlasian history—if they don't, how can we expect their students to learn? If the AITs end up encouraging teachers to teach off the test, so be it—these are concepts that the kids and the teachers should know!

Think bigger Hagrid. With a process like this you can move teachers away from teaching to a test. The whole concern about that is we are just filling the kiddies full of stuff they forget, and then fail to teach them how to learn long term, how to think critically and work together and all the other skills that can't be taught on a fill in the blank test. That is why I have been saying for years that yes you do need far higher standards and accountability, but with a different frame of mind regarding testing, better designed (and more aggressive curriculum) and of course innovations and applications of new technologies and teaching methods.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You're right of course. But even if the AITs fall short of that goal, at worst, we've got a test that ensures teachers know the very basics of course content. And if a math teacher doesn't know math, it's not worth anyone's time or money that that teacher continues teaching. So even if all else fails, the AITs will still accomplish something that's of use—and that's important. That's all I'm really getting at.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're right of course. But even if the AITs fall short of that goal, at worst, we've got a test that ensures teachers know the very basics of course content. And if a math teacher doesn't know math, it's not worth anyone's time or money that that teacher continues teaching. So even if all else fails, the AITs will still accomplish something that's of use—and that's important. That's all I'm really getting at.

One of the most detrimental problems is that teachers are often only a few days or maybe a week or so ahead of their classes in the material (at a level satisfactory to instruct it with even minimal success), which reduces the teacher's ability to focus on improving the delivery and making sure that the most kids possible benefit from the teaching experience. This means that many kids, the ones who would benefit most from a better and more effective learning process, suffer the most. Many of them are from poor or minority backgrounds and lack access to the resources that can help assist in the learning process and thus most certainly aren't in a good position to deal with a poor teacher.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE, BECAUSE DOING NOTHING IS JUST TOO EASY ON EDUCATION!!!


This bill has far more than enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Napoleon]

You're right of course. But even if the AITs fall short of that goal, at worst, we've got a test that ensures teachers know the very basics of course content. And if a math teacher doesn't know math, it's not worth anyone's time or money that that teacher continues teaching. So even if all else fails, the AITs will still accomplish something that's of use—and that's important. That's all I'm really getting at.

That's not how this bill works and it's not how teaching works.

This bill seems to indicate a general examination, not course specific, and teachers typically have to teach multiple subjects, not just at the primary level but secondary and tertiary as well, the exception being foreign languages.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Atlasian Institute of Teachers Act:

Aye (9): Averroës Nix, Ben, Franzl, Hagrid, JulioMadrid, Marokai Blue, NC Yankee, Oakvale, and Simfan34
Nay (0):
Abstain (1): Snowstalker

Didn't Vote (0):

With nine votes in the affirmative, the bill has passed the Senate and is presented to the President for executive action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.