CoachAlan

It very well may be that every single person who runs for high office runs with education as a major part of their platform. They all say that they want better schools and smarter kids and so on.

If that's the case, if they ALL agree that kids and schools are a priority, why do teacher salaries still start at under $30,000 in most states? Why do so many schools still have no computers? Why do some schools have 30+ kids in a classroom?

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

seretogis

And why do parents still have no choice what school they can send their children to unless they want to pay for public AND private school tuition, thus alienating the lower-middle class? Why aren't schools competing for students? Why do private schools consistently score better than public schools even with smaller budgets?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

CoachAlan

I'd love to explain why I think school vouchers are a very bad idea, but that's not the idea of this thread. Maybe I'll start another thread for that one.

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

j8ear

Start at 30k and retire 20 years later at 60k...with world class benefits?

Having only worked nine months a year.

It's really not that bad of a gig at all.

Is that your biggest concern with education...how much the teachers get paid?

Teachers at private schools, who produce much better educated children with much less money, also generally get paid less.

I don't see the correlation what so ever.

Public education is a joke. Two administrators for every teacher, huge gaggles of beaurocratic bumbling idiots running the assylum, politcally corrected, untested or proven ineffective curriculumns STILL being taught. Crooked and unaccountable governements, budgeting and paying for things. Social experimentation.

All things considered it really isn't that bad.

Thank God for the harsh realities of life after school. Where loosers loose, broke dead beats who don't pay rent get kicked onto the streets, and lazy worthless punks get fired from their job. This is where the real education starts.

The only answer for quality education is to make parents responsible. Vouchers. Choice. Competition.

Vouchers and or school choice are only a problem for those whose very existence rely's on the no competition, unaccountable status quo which currently exists. That being public school educators and beaurocrats. Kids will benefit, ALL KIDS, minority, under-privledged, poor, rich, privelidged, or white, from school choice and being able to decide how to spend their own money. Not your money, not the communities money....THEIR MONEY.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

smooth

First of all, teachers don't work only "nine months a year."

Secondly, even if they did, $30K spread over 9 months is only $3.3K before taxes.

I don't where some of you live, but that's a paltry wage to be living on.

BTW, even though teachers work more than 9 months of the year, they only get paid for 9.

Spread over 12 months, the 30K per year would only give a teacher $2500 per month before taxes.

It's certainly a paltry wage to be paying people we consider to be responsible for educating the next generation of US citizens.

Now I don't have the buget numbers in front of me regarding public vs. private budgets. Until someone comes up with some hard numbers for their assertions, I'm calling bullshit on the notion that they do more and produce consistently better results, all on lower per capita budgets than public schools.

That said, I think that most test discrepancies can be directly linked to teacher per student ratios, lack of current texts and/or computers, and malnutrition.

These things can be fixed with more money. It's just ridiculous to think/state that more money won't fix the growing problems plagueing our public schools. We might need to be more selective in how schools can use new money, but scrapping the system that has done a damn fine job of educating our citizenry for over 200 years doesn't make much sense.

Education is a loss-leader. It always has been and no amount of scrimping or splurging will change the fact that results will not be gained 20 years after the initial investment.

Oh, and what is are "world class benefits?"

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Journeyman

I'm of the understanding that education levels and keeping kids in school during school hours lowers crime (especially during those school hours...). With that in mind, paying for public school even if I have NO kids is a benefit in the sense that I also have less kids looking to rob my house between 8:30AM and 3PM, as well as having less uneducated adults who's options are limited to minimum wage and crime. As much as you can soften up my argument, the benefit is still there, and I don't mind paying for it.

KMA-628

The President’s budget not only spends more for education, but also spends it more wisely.

Lots of information at the above website regarding the significant INCREASES in education spending made by Bush

**Side Note: Colorado is about to lose millions in free education money. The gov't gave it to them two years ago and they haven't spent it. If its not spent or budgeted to be spent by the end of the year, the gov't will take the money back. How can anyone complain about the Bush admin. when the local gov'ts are spending the money their are given. Do they not need it?


Now the problem:

With all of these spending increases spread over a 40+ year period, student performance has steadily declined.

Here is a simple question:

Imagine a graph that compares student performance vs. gov't spending on education. The line representing education spending starts at the bottom left and increases toward the upper right - representing the increase in funding.

Now the student performance line starts at the upper left and steadily decreases to the lower right - representing the decline in student performance.

Understand that this graph covers a factual average that takes place over 40+ years.

Using past performance of the indicators we have used for this analysis: What is the most logical conclusion one can come to if more increases in education funding are made?

In the past 40+ years has the increase in spending ever caused an increase in student performance?

What makes you think that one more increase will change this trend?

What has changed in the past 40+ years that might explain this: 1) Education Unions and 2) Gigantic increase in school bureaucracies.

School administrators are making plenty of money while the teachers don't. Look at investigative articles uncovering lavish spending on useless things by school boards and administrators and you will find tremendous waste. The boards and adminstrators increase their spending activites while the kids lose out.

The facts speak otherwise....I don't feel ridiculous at all.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

smooth

You first attempted to turn my statements into anti-Bush comments. I didn't imply anything like that in my original post and won't go into it now, either.

Your last points serve to support what I was stating. Evidently, we agree that past spending increases have not been spent wisely or for the childrens' benefit, but you felt the need to disagree with me just for the sake of it.

The facts don't support the notion that increases in money will not work. They do seem to indicate that [i]past[i/] increases in spending have not garnered increases in student performance.

I specifically pointed out three things that would increase student performance. Unless you can show that increases in money created a lower teacher-student ratio, provided the students with current textbooks and computers, and ensured the students were adequately nourished, then you haven't even addressed my comment--much less my general statement that increases in funding to specific areas will address the problem.

Also, I made that point that salvaging a system that has worked very nicely for our country for over two centuries is something that I'm interested in doing.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

onetime2

Smooth, I guess I'm not clear on how they don't only work 9 months out of the year. That's the gig around here and NJ is among the highest paying states for teachers. I believe it's in the realm of $36 k to start with July, August, part of June and September off (as well as winter spring and sometimes fall "breaks").

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

yatzr

I agree. My gf's mom is a teacher and she definately hasn't been working this summer, or doing anything school related. A lot of the teachers around here do other stuff in the summer if that's what you mean, but they don't have to. They're working 3/4 of the year, they're getting paid 3/4 of 40k (i don't know if that's the standard salary anymore, but it's what i always used to hear is standard).

I still agree that they should get paid more, but the way I see, this weeds out anybody who's only in it for the money so you get teachers that want to teach.

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

ARTelevision

Between college-teaching jobs and before I changed careers, I spent several years teaching high school art full time. I'm giving you my impression from experience. If I give you statistics or reports and studies, you'll just give me stats and studies that seem to say something different - that's the nature of stats and studies.

I'm not interested in debating this. I'm just offering my opinion based on my experience. My father was a high school teacher, principal, and superintendent of schools - so I'll pass on his educated opinion as well, which happens to be the same as mine.

The problem with public education in the US is the teachers' unions. Period.

__________________
create evolution

smooth

There are a variety of reasons why educators would not be "off" for a summer session:

1) summer classes

2) year-round education

3) syllabus and course creation

4) preparation and training modules

5) grading

6) research and publications

Any or all of these factors would preclude an educator from having 3 months of "vacation" per year. Although I'm not exactly sure the relevance of the issue, other than to begrudge an instructor's spare time. Given what they need to do after hours and on weekends throughout the traditional school year, whatever time they do manage to capture is well deserved.

If you want to stick with the 9 month per year issue, I divided the figures by both 9 and 12 months--neither was particularly well paid by our modern wage standards.

One should also remember that a 9 month job precludes the person from working somewhere else. Even if some instructors only do things you consider to be work for 9 months out of the year, their commitment is for the entire year.

For those instructors who are off for three months, I have no idea what they do to pay bills during the "off" season.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

yatzr

I've heard this before, but nobody ever explained what was wrong with it. Could you please elaborate?

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

KMA-628

Actually, the current "system" (i.e. the one that is failing) was created by Jimmy Carter under pressure from the NEA. Education spent most of its time being funded by the state not federal level (the Dept. of Education is relatively new). It has always received some gov't money but the framers never meant it to have mandated federal funds.

So to go back to a system that used to work we would have to:

a) abolish the Department of Education (which I favor)

b) Let the states take back control over their schools.

You took my point wrong. Past spending increases haven't worked and another spending increase would fail as well.

and....

your post only recommended spending more money, saying it was "ridiculous" to think that spending more money won't work. You didn't mention the other problems until your last post.

Ridiculous is pouring more money into a system that doesn't work.


My Proposal:

1) Eliminate the waste caused by oversized and spendthrift administrators.

2) Reduce the administration size of the schools. Eliminate or severly reduce the scope of the Dept. of Education.

3) Return control over the schools back to the states.

4) Take control over the beast that is called the NEA

and you would probably find a better educational system that would thrive
without spending increases.

Finally, I never said you were anti-Bush (but I have read your other posts so I am aware of your stance) I was showing that there are spending increases in place, right now. Very large ones, in fact (contrary to what is reported).

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

smooth

Well shit, hopefully you read my past posts more carefully than you read the first one in this thread:

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

KMA-628

I read your post, several times in fact.

1) The previous increases have done nothing to help with this problem. I don't believe (and the trend supports me on this) that more money will solve it. If more money is the simple solution, then why hasn't it worked over the past dozen or so spending increases (that are well above the inflation rate)?

2) I still dispute your last statement. The system that is in place now is not the system that you are referring to.

You have to eliminate the problem(s) first. If this was done we could have a system that works beautifully without spending more money on it.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

smooth

I'm not going to beat this into the ground with you. I've said my opinion on the matter and I'll reiterate it for others that may have missed it:

The reason past spending hasn't worked might be due to where it has been spent. If we ensure that it is only spent in certain areas that research indicates leads to better education, further spending will not be in vain. If we just hand it out to people to spend as they wish, common sense will dictate that they are prone to give it to themselves.


More careful reading and less antagonism, please.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ARTelevision

There is significant research that is well-referenced in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...05425?v=glance

You will also find the relevant arguments listed in the information accompanying this title:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

My own experience which corroborated first hand the experience my father discussed with me many times, made it clear to me that the teachers' unions are protectionist of teachers' benefits and defensive to the extreme regarding any proposal that would require or enforce any degree of accountability of their performance in the classroom and the performance of their students. The various systems of tenure that exist for public school teachers have everything to do with locking up the keys to accountability behind an unassailable fortress of job security.

Because teachers know the task of public education is nearly impossible, given the nature of contemporary culture and society and the lack of personal and parental responsibility that evolved during the decades they were organizing, teachers have created a system which ensures their employment and not a system that addresses the need for an educated population.

__________________
create evolution

CoachAlan

Crazy, regarding your four-point plan to improve our schools, I agree with all of them except number three. With local control over schools, you wind up with the vast inequities that we currently have from school to school. For example, a school in Winnetka (a suburb of Chicago where the average home price was >$1M in 2003) has vastly superior schools than those on Chicago's South Side.

That's because schools are funded and controlled, generally, locally. Inner city schools simply do not have the resources to compete with those in wealthy areas. The kids who are at a disadvantage are put at an ever greater disadvantage the more we localize funding and control.

----------------------------------------

On a side note, I would contend that parenting has alot to do with the disparities in success from one student to another. But it's tough to hold a kid accountable for his/her parents' failings. That's one of the reasons that schools in poorer areas actually need MORE funding than their suburban counterparts. The kids need extra help to make up for what they're not getting at home.

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

MSD

I really couldn't have said it better than ART did.

What I really would like to see is the widespread creation and survival of private schools that are not affiliated with any religious institution. As far as I see, competition necessitates the creation of a superior product. If parents (and students who work) had to pay for education by writing a check instead of siphoning off their paychecks, there would be a lot more demand for high-quality education, and students would be more inclined to perform to the best of their abilities.

Zeld2.0

I find the issue of education to be far deeper than just private vs. public schools.

It's largely a matter of family and ideals.

I went to public schools and excelled largely in part to a family that demanded hhigh education. Of course, it helped to have parents who all earned masters here.

But at the same time, working as aides and what not in school, one also realizes that many kids and their families may not value such things as highly.

One could say more private schools and competition would help. But i have found many brilliant brilliant friends to come from both rich and poor, and of all sorts of backgrounds. It's not the money or institution that mattered. It was a part of natural ability and background reinforcement in education.

Because honestly, there are a ton of brilliant kids in public schools. Problem is, there's a ton of 'average' and 'below average' people which makes schools look down.

Anyways, before I go on rambling, I find it to be a deeper social issue than anything public or private (because otherwise, how can one say there aren't bright kids in public schools?). Part of the culture and ideas of society hurt as do other things.

BigGov

The problems are between both students and teachers. I had a graduating class of over 600. 100 I will honestly say were not deserving of degrees. 100 more probably have no idea about our political system, let alone the candidates. Between the other 400, there's about 200 really smart kids, and about 100 that could do better with better education.

The thing is, there is very little motivation to do well in school, I never studied because I didn't have to, some classes were hard (economics and calculus), and some were pathetic (marketing, where I got an A on every test, without ever reading a chapter).

For teachers, it was spread out across the board, my economics teacher spoke his mind and was a teacher because he wanted to be one. He was entertaining and I probably learned the most in his classes. Then there were those teachers who were fun, like my government teacher, where I learned a little bit about governments from around the world, but gained much more for the political discussions in class.

A good education requires many things, resources, good teachers, and willing students. My school was lacking in all three. The summer between my junior and senior years the entire school was renovated, the entire thing, lockers, floors, new walls made, the works. Meanwhile, my senior year the newest book I had was bought in 2001, besides that the newest book was purchased I think in 1992. Almost every book was falling apart (except for the econ book). Desks were breaking. I mean the chairs of desks would break, rendering the desk worthless. The desks were this horrible because a while back the school board didn't like the desks they had, they were made of metal and didn't look great. So they bought some nice looking particle-board desks. They were supposed to last about 10-15 years. That was over 20 years ago. Oh, and those metal desks are still in use in some of the junior highs, and I'd have trouble breaking one if I tried.

There are many problems with schools, but my current belief from my experiences is the problem is in school boards who care more about the asthetics instead of the education going on inside.

My senior year, we got a new principal at my school. Did she worry about education? No, of course not, the worthless bitch just installed restrictive policies on the students which the school board wanted.

The schools in my town will never improve if the morons on the school board are in place. No matter how much money is sent their way, they will piss it away.

[/rant][sleep]

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

CoachAlan

As the thread starter, let me try to get this argument back on track...

I know there are some things we won't be able to agree on, just as Congress won't be able to agree on: school vouchers, no child left behind, etc. But there are some things that I'd like to think we DO all agree on: smaller class sizes, modern books and computers for students and teachers, structurally sound schoolhouses, etc.

Congress should be able to agree on those things, too. Yet we are left with 30+ kids in many classes, old crap for learning materials, and decrepit buildings. What gives?

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

ARTelevision

Well, the initial post and its title begs the question of candidates' positions. It's clear that one candidate has the teachers' unions in his pocket. My own responses addressed that angle. As for your statements and the implication that increased money and material factors are highly correlated to educational excellence, a simple review of the ever-increasing amounts of money and material "improvements" expended on the "educational system" has not resulted in an increase in academic excellence.

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

the general problem with public education is that funding levels are tied to local taxes--property taxes--and so are the exact mirror of the economic/class situation of the community in which they are located.

american is a brutally stratified class society---all the more so because so much of the political discourse is geared toward pretending it is not. among the victims of this stratification, and of the delusions that enable people to imagine it does not exist, are students in schools located in poorer communities.

the idea that there is a difference between the outcomes in public schools in wealthy communities and private schools is false:
i teach at a university--this is the third---and i have been doing it for 10 years: i have seen no appreciable difference between the students who come from the two.

then the problem cannot be the teachers union.
there might be other reasons to dislike the teachers union--but the claim that links it to lower quality educational outcomes seems to me false. i have looked at the "data" on this matter, and what seems to underpin it is an attempt to avoid the problems of economic class and find another way to not address the problems it creates.

personally, i think that the right hates the teachers union because it supports democrats. i dont think there is anything else to it.

if at any point there had been a serious effort to level funding to education across localities--by state or by federal mandate---that is to create the possibility of a "level playing field" for students, then maybe the arguments above about "throwing money" at education would be less laughable--but as such an effort had not been made, they mean and say nothing.

one more note:
bush's obsession with standardized testing is absurd--the claim that because there is more standarized testing that somehow education is being improved is also absurd. there are lots of problems. i will relate one example regarding the sats.

when i taught somewhere in california, not far from sf, a little south, i polled my classes one year to see how many of the students had taken a kaplan course or equivalent private test-prep thing. the sample was about 300 students. 95% had taken one. the average cost of these courses is easy enough to figure out.
the moral of the story: if your family has the cash, you can buy access to a better score.

in this context, standardized testing is little more than yet another mechanism that enables people to pretend that class does not matter. they feature pseudo-objective standards with a back-door pay-to-really-play system.

this combination of pseudo-objectivity with a back channel to promote the status of the economic elite seems the perfect symbol of the right's educational policies.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Zeld2.0

I personally find the standardized tests to be a bit off there IMO as well. Though they can often give a general gauge of a person's ability, they are also far from perfect.

This is coming from me who was once known as a person who excelled on those things - but I find many to be brilliant and certainly very very smart people who don't get as high of a score they probably could sometimes in part due to not having a tutor to prep for the test or other situations (they may simply not be good test takers.)

I find it too simplistic to grade people simply by a standardized test. There are too many other factors in education and indeed in a person themselves.

answerC

Any claim that private schools score better that public schools is a faulty statistic because private schools not only have the ability to remove poor scoring students from their enrollment, but have a more dictatorial method of creating a ciriculum. Public Schools and the Scholl Boards - or evil empire - spend more time listening to and caving into the requests of every special interest group on what to teach and less time actually listening to the teachers who have the expertise.

__________________
Stop Bush Now!

VTBrian

The problem is it doesn't weed them out. What you get is the good teachers going to private schools, where they are paid more. I don't know who said they got less. I would like to see the statistics on that, because my mom, who is a teacher, left her job to work for a private school because the sallery was alot higher. The good teachers that do stay are given AP and honors classes to teach while the teachers who don't care are the ones teaching the kids who are most in need of good instructers. Granted this may not be the case in every school system, but in mine it was most certainly the case.