Post #62,836
11/14/02 11:20:38 AM
|
Hmmmm.
As Ashton points out below, we are really all to fscked up for any real solutions. However, the one proposed by the late Stephen Gould would be a good start. I'll quote him as best I can, "You want excellence in education? Triple the salaries across the board. Excellence will follow."
|
Post #62,842
11/14/02 11:31:26 AM
|
Allow me to disagree.
I don't believe that the core problem is that our educators are woefully underpaid (they are, but that not the core problem).
The core problem is that schools are not used to teach anymore but rather to warehouse students.
Adding more money to educator's salaries will not fix this problem.
|
Post #62,850
11/14/02 11:57:13 AM
|
True, the real culprit is US.
Too many Muricans are ig-nert, hence place no value on academics.
Gould's point was well made, however. Imo, embarrassingly low teacher pay says a lot about what most Muricans think of education. If we were serious about academics in the country, tripling the salaries would be necessary. With a BS fetching you 15-20K/year in education you get the following breakdown of teachers:
1) 2-3% knowledgeable in their fields and absolutely committed to education.
2) 97-98% who can't do anything else.
Changing that would require salaries to come into line with what non-educational slots pay. And that would be approximately triple.
|
Post #62,851
11/14/02 12:11:21 PM
|
Figures. Throw money at it.
Since all the people in the inner city are too stupid to understand the importance of school (triple f***ingbog...how absulutely >democratic< of you to notice this with such an air of superiority)...we'll just give the teachers more money.
Don't reform their compensation. Don't worry about their qualifications. Just give them more money and they'll teach better.
And NEVER give any of those ignorant parents a choice.
Yep. That'll work.
wow.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,865
11/14/02 1:44:20 PM
|
You think the current salary is just right?
You saying that teachers aren't woefully underpaid? Of course, raising the pay won't magically solve all the problems with education. But it is a good first step.
|
Post #62,873
11/14/02 2:02:45 PM
|
Don't even try that.
Its not even remotely what I said.
And I disagree with blind increases in pay being a good first step unless its tied to performance. In order for me to agree to it being a good first step...you must tell me that I will be giving >good< teachers a raise and at the same time I will be replacing bad teachers.
How can you do this until the teachers (or at least their leadership) agrees to have their performance measured or at a minimum...their qualifications verified?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,882
11/14/02 2:41:36 PM
|
Nothing "blind" about it
The current pay of teachers is an atrocity.
BTW {this is me "telling" you} We will be giving good teachers a raise and getting rid of bad teachers (eventually, everybody retires sometime). Do you agree now?
As I thought I made clear before, I agree that there are plenty of problems with the education establisment. Accountability and performance measurement are a couple. Let's get them to a more equitable salary first and then worry about merit increases and cleaning out the dead wood. If we have to wait until you are satisfied that all bad teachers are now unemployed, I doubt we will ever see teacher's pay rising to a level matching the importance of the job.
|
Post #62,890
11/14/02 3:06:45 PM
|
See under boxley.
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=62883|Post #62883]
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,858
11/14/02 1:05:33 PM
|
May I add one...
in my best Alvin Toffler penmanship...
The core problem, IMNHO, with the American school system is the curriculum. It is still geared to churning out good second wave factory workers. Increasing school hours or teacher's pay only equates to more hours or more quality hours of bad curriculum. The second wave economy died just before I graduated from highschool ('80). The problem with the educational institutions (elementary to higher) is that curricula and pedogogy have not evolved either through stubborness or tradition.
It's hard enough to keep a post puberty teenager's attention span for more than 10 second bursts even through the medium that they understand, video (read - reading and writing are no longer the most efficient ways to convey information - a picture paints a thousand words, a motion picture ???) If teachers continue to stand in front of a classroom and "profess" to them (another practice that was necessitated by technology - pre printing press - where the monk stood in front of the class with the only existing book and read aloud so students could make their own copies) - their odds are almost nil of making any meaningful connection.
Tradition is not necessarily a good thing :-)
The reason I'm against vouchers and the NEA is that quality public education is the cornerstone of a democracy (an enlightened electorate...) It's self explanatory why I would be against vouchers. But the NEA has rarely done anything to address the core problem (the curricula and teaching methodologies) even after all the money that was thrown at them in the '70's, '80's and '90's in the form of property tax increases and state and federal funding increases. Is it a surprise that even liberals think the NEA is nothing more than a typical union that sucks it's funding from the idealistic teachers and turns around and builds up the big self serving bureacracy (with all the Animal Farm trappings - some animals are created more equal than others) that needs to be slapped back down to earth and maybe once and a while listen to the poor bastards that they "represent"?
This issue falls into the "complex" category and definately not a binary repo/demo good/bad candidate... Maybe that's the reason for such a long thread?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #62,869
11/14/02 1:56:24 PM
|
Ever the optimist still...eh DR?
Maybe that's the reason for such a long thread? still chuckling I have to agree that in an ideal environment, vouchers aren't a great idea and shouldn't be necessary at all. However, as you pointed out, the problem is >not< simple and this is NOT an ideal environment. So what are the parents in downtown (name city here) supposed to do in the interim? Long term solutions don't help...and many times (Philly is like this)...the kids walk by a parochial school to get to their public school. So they walk by a school that offers better quality (in many cases) to get to the substandard (the majority) school >their< tax dollars are providing. Why should that per student expense >not< be spent >wherever< that child can get a better education? Can anyone answer this? ***note 1*** How can anyone justify penalizing the child because the government has failed in one of its primary missions? How can anyone justify telling the parent that their child will suffer because a bunch of beaurocrats have been consistently failing to do their job for the past 30 years? The waiting list for charters in this area is immense. The inner city communities (the D constituents) WANT choice. Their party is denying them that choice. Some..apparently...think they are too stupid to exersize that choice wisely. In many cases, the teachers in the parochial schools are making >less< than their PS equivalents...yet they consistently provide higher quality education (as measured as best we can objectively)..so how can one justify just giving blind raises to teachers...when at least some evidence points out that it doesn't necessarily work? ***note 1*** the blind answer is "Separation of Church and State"...that government money cannot go to religious institutions. Keep in mind...however...that a voucher is being offered as a >refund< because the government failed to deliver on its charter of providing a suitable education. If the government did its job...there would be no need to vouchers. So..in essence...this is not government money...it is the parents money to do with as they see fit. So please do steer clear of this idiocy as a reason to oppose vouchers. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,893
11/14/02 3:14:51 PM
|
I basically agree, but would make one distinction...
That distinction being that the voucher program, unlike a parochial school under the current system, takes funds away (re-allocates) from the public general fund and could harm general public education if we resort to some hybrid system. Parents that can most afford to "pay a premium" for their child's education enroll them in parochial schools, much the same way that Ivy Leagues operate. There are a certain number of scholarships, etc... but by and large, it is a "separate but equal" solution. But I really don't wish to go there...
Where I want to go is... My fear is... Let's suppose that we moved to a true voucher system. I can't see how this will be any better than what currently exists. There will only be so many openings in the "good" schools (roughly the equivalent to the charter schools in large public systems) and there will be limited openings in the "new private/parochial" schools which will most probably take the voucher equivalent as a base tuition and then add a "premium" to that to keep out the riffraff (the poor inner city kids) and all of a sudden we have the parents of those kids sending their kids to voucher subsidized crappy inner city schools... I know I am assuming a lot of negative events which may or may not come to pass, but the previous scenerio is possible (and in my opinion, probable).
Two things stand out in my fear, one is that the only people that will benefit from the afformentioned probable scenario are the parents who currently are sending their kids to private schools (wealthy and or middle class) and the people least likely to benefit are the poor.
Two other things to keep in mind, first, that I didn't vote - but I agree with Bush's educational plan as a bandaid (not that I trust that he personally cares, per se, but I trust his wife does) for at least some accountability in the current system. Second, what I was stating above all else in my last response (probably poorly - I'm a public school grad :-0 ) is that I believe that no matter what structural form the schools take, we need to take a much harder look at the curricula. Throughout the history of American education there has been a vocational vrs liberal arts pendulum that takes about 20 years to swing each way... The end of the industrial age and now, in this transitional period, requires us, as a society, to re-evaluate what is a minimun "requirement" for a productive citizen in a democratic society...
In other words, I'm affraid that no matter which system - modified current or voucher - unless we address the curriculum problem, we may still not get the results we want.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #62,901
11/14/02 3:39:35 PM
|
Damned earthquakes...
...they always happen when you agree with me ;-)
Full agreement re: curriculum. It needs to be changed. There are also several well funded groups researching the application of technology to the teaching process...in order to bring the methods current for our Nintendo-ized children.
Re: vouchers. I honestly wish they weren't necessary. There needs to be some type of qualification system in order to keep the effect of vouchers "progressive" re: income levels. After all...the point is to improve the low end...and the suburbs around here arent't the problem (in general)
In Philly, though, there are alot of available slots in parochials...many are struggling to stay open...so vouchers here (strongly opposed) would assist in keeping class sizes down in publics while keeping parochials open...yes funding would transfer over...to which >other fixes< would need to be applied...one is the sheer amount of waste involved in the administration process.
The current "privitization" happening in Philly at the behest of the state is not the answer (surprise Ashton...I >don't< like it nor do I support it).
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,894
11/14/02 3:15:17 PM
|
Another reason - slippery slope.
BP writes: Long term solutions don't help...and many times (Philly is like this)...the kids walk by a parochial school to get to their public school. So they walk by a school that offers better quality (in many cases) to get to the substandard (the majority) school >their< tax dollars are providing. Why should that per student expense >not< be spent >wherever< that child can get a better education? Can anyone answer this? ***note 1*** How can anyone justify penalizing the child because the government has failed in one of its primary missions? How can anyone justify telling the parent that their child will suffer because a bunch of beaurocrats have been consistently failing to do their job for the past 30 years?
...
***note 1*** the blind answer is "Separation of Church and State"...that government money cannot go to religious institutions. Keep in mind...however...that a voucher is being offered as a >refund< because the government failed to deliver on its charter of providing a suitable education. If the government did its job...there would be no need to vouchers. So..in essence...this is not government money...it is the parents money to do with as they see fit. (Emphasis added.) Separation is a good argument. But a better argument is - if people can get tax money back to send their kids to a different school to get them out of failing schools, why can't people get tax money sent to the Pentagon back if they're pacificists? What about areas where property taxes support the schools and vouchers are given to people who don't pay property taxes (e.g. a woman who has small children but they live with other family members)? It wouldn't be 'their money' to get back in that case. Should they still get a voucher? I'd say yes, but based on the argument put forward, she shouldn't since she's not paying taxes to the public schools. It's a slippery slope, IMO. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that people can't get out of paying taxes because they disagree with some government policy. I think a similar argument can be made that the court shouldn't accept the argument that people should get 'their share' of tax money back to enable them to attend other schools. The argument doesn't make sense to me. If voucher supporters want to make a better case (and I do see merit in some aspects of it, but the devil's in the details), it seems to me that they should argue that it's a public good to enable students to get a decent education. If there's something about the school system that's broken, then the school board, city council, etc., should work on fixing it by fixing the system. If they've tried and failed, then maybe credits of some sort should be tried to increase competition. But the credits shouldn't be sold as a tax fairness issue, but rather as an educational policy issue. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #62,903
11/14/02 3:46:43 PM
|
However you categorize it....
...the money is paid by people to provide a "public good" as you term it. If government (we the people) can't provide...then the best application of our money would be to remove it from the inneficient and move it to the efficient. (I know...how very "econ" of me to say it this way).
The separation argument is bogus. Recognize it as such. It is not a state sponsorship of religion to provide an education to a child...especially after the state has proven itself incapable.
On the slippery...if your a >dead< pacifist at the hands of a state enemy...yep...sure...get your money back.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #62,898
11/14/02 3:31:45 PM
|
Hardly the only reason against vouchers.
Mind you, I disagreed with raising education salaries.
So they walk by a school that offers better quality (in many cases) to get to the substandard (the majority) school >their< tax dollars are providing. Why should that per student expense >not< be spent >wherever< that child can get a better education? Can anyone answer this?
***note 1*** How can anyone justify penalizing the child because the government has failed in one of its primary missions? How can anyone justify telling the parent that their child will suffer because a bunch of beaurocrats have been consistently failing to do their job for the past 30 years?
Religious funding is, imo, one of the least likely reasons to fight vouchers. Frankly I have no problems with allowing children and tax-dollars to go to a different school provided that said school abides by the same rules and regulations at the public school. Namely:
- Do they have to accept any and all children that come to them?
- Do they have the ability to expel students?
- Are them limited by the same regulations as public schools in regard to disciplinary actions?
If not, comparisons to the quality of private schools and public school are comparisons of apples to oranges. Furthermore, the logical ramifications of vouchers over time reduces education to the elite (either in pay or intellect). Not to mention that while all kids have a right to an education, the cost to educate can vary considerably - particularly with handicapped kids. (Braille schoolbooks and all.) Mostly vouchers are a knee-jerk reaction to attempting to solve the division of warehousing students vs. educating students. Most schools are already divided into (at least) 2 sections, those who are looking for an education vs those being warehoused. The obvious solution would be to allow schools to expel and get rid of the warehoused students. (I don't expect to see it happen however.)
|
Post #62,906
11/14/02 4:25:18 PM
|
A minor nit...
Your post included the phrase: The obvious solution would be to allow schools to expel and get rid of the warehoused students. (I don't expect to see it happen however.) I don't want to see it happen either. These same "students" become citizens and neighbors at one time or another with rights, votes, automobiles, et al. I think that we (as a society) should expend as much effort as possible to attempt to educate them. If we don't, we end up paying for them in prison/jail, rehab, welfare, et al. I haven't seen a decent cost/benefit analysis, but I would intuitively believe that it is cheaper to try to keep them in the system than have to deal with them after they've been expelled. My $.02. Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #62,909
11/14/02 4:46:36 PM
|
No argument
in fact, in addition to the cost of having to deal with them after they haven't gotten an education, there's the upfront cost of having to deal with potentially thousands of students suddenly on the streets. (Street crime, and other problems will skyrocket.)
|
Post #62,908
11/14/02 4:41:39 PM
|
Re: same rules and regs
I would include title 9 in that list.
|
Post #62,979
11/14/02 11:29:15 PM
|
I stand corrected: we Can still create an informative thread
on a near-impossible topic.
And the teacher lecturing from file cards image.. returns to haunt. Though.. it's less easy to dis the blackboard; as in math - the participation of several students 'working out' a problem: ez to spot who doesn't yet quite get "cross multiplying" and such. That's not the same as pontificating - and every teacher ought to perceive the huge difference (?)
I couldn't possibly disagree re the need for a change in curriculum - yet that idea evokes the need for attitude change, that which demands as-much, an 'inner reeducation' of a huge proportion of all teachers extant [never mind the ext. means imagineered next, to facilitate this huge change].
I also don't quite see ... WHAT the New Curriculum shall be directing towards. That is, given capitalism as the religion and 'success' as the goal:
HOW is a teacher to inculcate ethical principles.. yet complete this task via examples of actual performance in those millions of offices? Is it OK (and should it remain OK?) to teach that ~ endless consumption of goods - is a worthy aim for a life?
How about then: endless growth (the aim of Every entrepreneur) as an equally desirable -and tenable- long-term aim?
And WHAT - amidst our existing mythos - is then.. the Good Life? (on several scales of meaning, of course). And yes.. every 'lesson' is always something.. about 'philosophy' too.
And whatever samples are provided from current life - should a teacher deal with the observed power relationship of Corporate agglomerations? Demonstrate how multiple votes by citizens may be / are perverted in their aim.. by the $-Power of these monopolies? (or wannabe-monopolies - surely most of the rest.. or is that debatable as an entrepreneur's innate goal?) Yes too, most every lesson is apt to have a civics content too.
Is truth-telling about the current daily problems - ever going to be allowed by the supporting populace (I mean really - not the usual sanctimonious lip-service: since no one would ever admit, "no.. keep lying to the little beggars".) Discuss the avarice involved in "Managed Care"? Dissect the cacophony of political blab-speak? ie
Could Stuart Chase's, "The Tyranny of Words" be taught in any public school today? (Or only in advanced er 'semantics' classes for the academic-tracked -- and much later)
{sigh} These are among the problems I see as roadblocks to any honest assessment of curricula: I'd assert that there are many forces quite solidly against speaking too truthfully about 'where we are' and 'where best we might want to go next'. In many cases IMhO - our National Habits are counterproductive to our society enduring: Who Can Say THAT.. in class? (of suitable age group & development to handle the topic, that is)
I believe it is this conundrum which has successfully thwarted the more obv effective parts of previous brillant plans for reform - I also haven't seen a better synopsis of where we 'are' and where we might (have gone - with Guts) than Ben T's find of [link|http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html| John Taylor Gatto.]
Ashton
Thanks again Ben!
That one was a precious Gem from the left-eye of some heathen idol
|
