OT: Teacher Unions
 

All right, boyz… here are my thoughts on teacher unions. I’ve stated elsewhere that I think teachers unions are out for themselves, not for the kids. I’ll use this post to back up my assertion that 1)teachers unions aren’t looking out for the best interest of education, 2)the social agenda of the NEA provides more “meddling” than any parent ever could, and 3)the system as it stands right now is broken.

It’s actually easier if I deal with number #3 first. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re no better off educationally than we were 50 years ago. In fact, that’s exactly what the National Association of Scholars says. But how can that be? After all, our class sizes are smaller. Isn’t that supposed to be the way to improve our educational system? It’s one of the key tenets of faith for the NEA. But in 1950, the student/teacher ratio was 22.6:1. In 2000-2001 it was 16:1. You’d think for the additional money we’d see some additional knowledge. In fact, in 2002, the Class Size Reduction Research Consortium found that a billion dollar a year California program to reduce class size in K-3rd grade from 30 students to 20 students or less per class “found no relationship between statewide student achievement and statewide participation in class size reduction.” It did provide 60,000 jobs for members of the California Teachers Association… not to mention $25,000,000 per year in annual dues for the union.

Well, then… we simply need to spend more per pupil. That’s what the NEA also believes. But in 1982, the per pupil spending was $4,903 (that’s an inflation adjusted amount in FY2000 dollars). In 1999-2000 it was $7,086. Again, you’d think that an additional $2,000 a year would show some increase in student productivity. Instead, the crisis in education is so bad that we’re now spending a billion dollars a year in this country on remedial programs for college students, because they’re graduating without the basic knowledge necessary to succeed in college.

All these “reforms” that have taken place in the past 30 years have done nothing to better the education that our children receive. What it’s done is get more dues paying members for the NEA.

The NEA also supports things like abortion rights, homosexual/bisexual/transgendered rights, gun control, socialized medicine, and reparations to Native Americans. Now I don’t care if you’re for or against these things. The question I have is why do teachers unions need to take a public stand on things like this? Do my kids get an education or an indoctrination at school?

Think about it. The opposition of school vouchers by the NEA is well known. They say the NEA “have been leaders in the fight to improve public schools — and oppose alternatives that divert attention, energy, and resources from efforts to reduce class size, enhance teacher quality, and provide every student with books, computers, and safe and orderly schools.”

Well, I’ve already demonstrated that class size doesn’t make a difference. You can’t enhance teacher quality when your goal is to enhance teacher quantity, and all the books and computers in the world can’t take the place of a good teacher. Besides, the last time I checked private schools didn’t seem to have near the problems finding books and computers for students that public schools have.

Here are some of the other reasons for the NEA’s opposition to vouchers:

-About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction.

Wrong. The Constitution prohibits a “state” religion. Vouchers could be used to send your child to a Jewish school, Methodist school, Muslim school, etc.

-A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.

Wrong. A pure voucher system would allow more minorities and lower income children to be a part of the ivory tower of private education. What we have now is racial and socio-economic stratificiation between urban and suburban schools.

-Each year, about $65 million dollars is spent by foundations and individuals to promote vouchers. In election years, voucher advocates spend even more on ballot measures and in support of pro-voucher candidates.

So what? I would say that shows a lot of Americans (both liberals and conservatives) feel vouchers are a good thing.

One more quick aside… someone mentioned teacher salaries. The average teacher salary in 1999 was “a mere $40,574”, according to the American Federation of Teachers. In Broolyn, for example.. the average annual income (1999-00) was $29,642. Teachers in the Brooklyn school system started at $30,000 and could make $67,000. While I think good teachers need to be paid more, I think we do that by getting rid of the bad teachers (and I’ll save that rant for later).

Once agian, like I said in the other thread, a lot of your data seems to be based on test scores, which are mostly a result of a students upbringing and their SES than they are of teaching performance. We have a nationally recognized teacher of the year teaching 7th grade science at my school. His test scores were at the 73rd percentile. We also have a guy who is regarded as possibly the worst teacher in the district. (I do agree the NEA should not defend this guy. So you get points there.) His test scores last year were at the 72nd percentile. Are the kids learning more from the quality teacher? Absolutely! Are these tests, which often times don't even test our curriculum's material or grade level, something that should be used as arguments against smaller class sizes? Are you kidding?

On your Brooklyn arguement. Is the $29,000 the avergae salary for college-educated professionals (most with master's degrees or higher) or was it the general population? Teachers are some of the most educated professionals out there. So you would expect us to be near the top in terms of saleries. I actually don't care much about salaries. I knew what I was getting into before I became a teacher and didn't expect to be busting the bank. But anytime anyone starts making implications that we are overpaid (or even paid well) I just have to laugh.

A voucher system masks the real problems in education. Basically, you end up shuffling kids around, not fixing the problem. Get a voucher to leave school A because school A isn't cutting it academically. More than likely it's because the school is poor, has little resources, and while it might have solid teachers, it'll also have to bottom of the barrell because good teachers are probably moving to better districts. Move the kids and you'll see a reduction in the test scores at those new schools. Attack the problem where it lies, fund the schools, get rid of the dead weight teachers, and help educate uninformed parents.

Re: OT: Teacher Unions
 

So, I see your real beef with the NEA. They're liberal! Down with liberals! I can honestly speak from having gone through the public school system, that there are just as many conservative teachers as liberal ones, I had steady arguments with 3 of them my senior year, all in back to back periods. Those were good times. Teachers who feel the need to get into political issues encourage debate, and don't teach their ideology, and most teachers don't even go into "politics" as much as you'd think. My wife is a flaming liberal, but she never argued politics with her kids (and the only arguably PC thing I can think of that she's done is discourage the use of "bitches" and "gay" as derogatory terms).

And, I don't think public schools have any problems FINDING books or computers. They know where they're located.

You thoughts intrigue me, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter... All kidding aside, I think that merely spending money, and shrinking class sizes will not fix the problem.

Here are my personal thoughts about education.

Do away with summer break. Sure its nice for the kids, but it hurts them in the long run. If you don't continue to apply what you have learned, you will soon forget it. Disperse the 12 weeks throughout the rest of the year.

Stop teaching kids the same crap every single year. I believe that between 6-12 grade, I had american history like 3 years. Even worse is the fact that every time I took it, we started at the beginning of history. I had maybe one class that made it past the revolutionary war. I had 1 semester of world history.

I dont think that longer hours, less days, actually works. Increasing the time spent in the class room should not mean that you can cut the year in half. If you take a college class that is a 4 credit class, you can expect to spend 4 hours in the class room a week. Just because you go twice a week instead of four times a week doesnt give the school a reason to cut the semester in half.

Increase the number of credits a high school student needs to pass.

And the best thing you could do for the education system, is remove those students who do not wish to learn. Why should my learning be hampered because some student would rather be somewhere else smoking pot or drinking 40's? That is one reason why I enjoyed college so much more than HS, 99% of the people in the classes were there to learn, and those that werent didnt last more than a few weeks.


Now these are just my personal thoughts, and not all schools may have these policies.

I agree that year around school would help student retention.

once again, CamEdwards is my hero.

Great post Cam.

A question: why should anyone think ANY union has a purpose other than to act in the interests of its members?

Housekeepers' unions in hospitals are most concerned with their members, not health care.
Factory workers' unions are most concerned with their members, not the product they make.
All unions are (in theory) primarily concerned with providing various forms of security for their members. The business they work for is primarily concerned with whatever their product is, not their employees. Between the two it balances. I don't see how unions are the villains...they do what they are supposed to do.

I don't see a ballance

That doesn't surprise me.

suck

In the case of the teacher's union, what is the ballance?

The problem that I have seen with year round schooling is that it eliminates the time that teachers have to take continuing education (which is required to keep their certification current).

Re: Re: OT: Teacher Unions
 

First off - Go Cam, Go!!! :)



Liberal or not, why does the NEA need to state an agenda on som of these issues? What do abortion, socialized medicine and Native American reparations directly have to do with the quality of education? (I suppose you could argue that with less abortions there would be a greater load on the educational system...of course, cracking down on illegal immigration would cut that load as well).

The political inclination of *good* teachers won't really matter by and large, at least not for most subject matters (unless you have questions like - "if a group of x white supremecists has 36 guns, and there are 4 guns per supremecist, what is the value of x?). My favorite teacher in HS - who taught American History - to me seemed like an ex-hippie who still had a liberal bent. But it had little or no bearing on his presentation of historical facts. I agree though, political discussion in the schools is a good thing - which is why subjects need to be presented unbiased and unsanitized. Better to present a topic and a teacher discuss various views than to gloss over it completely.

It's a problem however (IMO) when the union itself throws its considerable weight, and money, around on these issues. Spend more time on finding real solutions to the education problem, and less time lobbying for social reform.

Re: Re: OT: Teacher Unions
 

Your arguements make it even worse for the teacher's unions to be involved in liberal (or conservative politics) Teachers are required to be part of a union, but thier money goes to support many causes that the teachers do not support. Why should a conservative teacher have his money go to support liberal causes?

Well my dad was a member of a Union his whole career as a telephone repairman. I saw alot of good things that they did, but I also saw alot of bad things that they did.

There was a special on hbo a few years back about the Teamsters, it was really a good special, and portrayed what can go on without a union, or without the resources to fight back.

I love it.

Panerd: where do you get that my stats are based on test scores? I never MENTIONED test scores! As far as teacher pay goes, the national average pay for a teacher is $40,000. By any standard that's pretty good pay. Are you going to get rich? Nope. But I know a lot of teachers who own their own home, drive better cars than I do, and get three months off every summer.

Butters: Out of three points, you can only pick on the most subjective one? Yes, I have a problem with the social agenda of the NEA. So do many NEA members. The problem is, when you're required to pay dues regardless of whether or not you're a member (agency fees), you might as well join the union and get the ancillary benefits. I still see no need for an organization that was established as a professional association to devote time and energy to political causes like reparations of Native Americans, abortion rights, etc. It has NOTHING to do with my personal beliefs. If the NEA was supporting a repeal of gun laws, or backing the death penalty I'd still be wondering why.

Both of you chose to attack me instead of my arguments. Can you refute any of my statistics? Can you tell me, honestly, that we're doing a measurably better job of educating kids than we were 30 years ago? I've already shown you we're spending more money and we have fewer students per teacher. You'd think there'd be some concrete benefits you can point to.

As to vouchers only masking the problem... bad students can already attend private school. It's just that right now, it's bad students that can afford it. If you don't want the lower socio-economic class to have the same sort of financial clout that middle and upper class sections of society have, then oppose vouchers. And even IF vouchers mask the problem, would it hurt the educational system in this country? At worst it would stay the same. And really, when you factor in how much more efficient private schools are, you'd be saving money... which could be spent to improve the public schools.

once again, NoMyths is my hero.

Great post NM.

A question: why is Fritz' beard so scraggly?

stop breathing. you are wasting valuable air.

Good job Cam, too bad that there aren't more people who've managed to identify the situation as clearly as you.

And that's coming from about as pro-union a guy as you're likely to find.

I'll stop breathing if you get back to work. You are wasting valuable tax dollars...

Cam,

In general I agree with you...however as someone who works in education, I have seen the difference that having smaller class sizes makes. The #1 difference is that teachers maintain their sanity. Yes kids can be taught, and taught well with large classes, but smaller classes prevent burnout, ulcers, and make the work load much easir to cope with.

As for 3 months of vaction...I don't think so. Teachers need to be going to school themselves, summers are when most of them do so. Also there is curiculum development. Sure they arn't working full days every day during the summer, but most of the teachers I know spend 10-12 hours working (frequently at home doing grades or lesson plans) every day.

That's the funny thing. My mom worked for a union the entire time I was growing up. I think the radio and television industry should be more unionized. I don't have a problem with unions. I have a problem with the NEA and the AFT.

ah yes, they could be spent as part of the 15 billion dollar AIDS package.

wait, that is a bigger waste.

The problem with vouchers as most conservatives put them forth is that they aren't enough to help the truly poor family. I've seen voucher programs that'd give one or two thousand dollars a year per child. That ain't gonna cut it. If the voucher program was going to provide the seven or so tousand dollars per student that said student'd be entitled to from the gov't, then I'd be down.

Honestly, I've had enough of giving public schools a chance to work. The public schools in wealthy areas work. The ones in poor areas don't. If I had a ten year-old, I wouldn't want to wait four or five years to see the failure of the next five year plan. I 'd want to make sure that my kid could read when he got out of college.

What are you babbling about?

I want to hold you till I die
Till we both break down and cry
I want to hold you till the fear in me subsides

Exactally! I am all for vouchers. But most plans are not really vouchers. They are an opportunity for rich and middle class people to get a tuition break on private schools.

Vouchers should cover the full cost of private education (including uniforms, books, etc.) and transportation to the school. Then they would inspire real choice and change. Any other plan will not help the people who need the most help. I am pretty sure, however, that this voucher plan would be too expensive to implement.

I attend a private high school, and the tuition is $500 a month. This is considered to be an amazing deal, and thinking of the education i've recieved it is. I've heard of private schools that cost as much as some colleges to go to. So if we are going to create a voucher program for lower income kids to attend private schools, it's going to have to be a good chunk of change. This $1000-$2000 stuff won't cut it

To me, what you're asking for goes beyond what we're entitled to. For instance, my school district has already told my child they're not required to transport them to so-called "choice schools". That's up to the parent. If the public school system isn't transporting my child to school... why should a private school have to?

Both my kids wear uniforms. Both attend public schools. The schools certainly don't pick up the tab, and I don't think vouchers should either.

There will be work/study programs at private schools. There will be private scholarship funds. The $65,000,000 spent annually that the NEA says is goint to promote vouchers could instead be used to set up additional scholarships for low-income students.

But even if you can't fully fund vouchers, does that mean we should stick with a broken system?

This may come down to a disagreement on what is a better allocation of resources for society.

First, I think that your district should pay for your kids' transportation and uniforms. Second, many low SES parents do not have a realistic choice to transport their kids to certain schools. Public transit in many places is not comprehensive and these parents either do not own a car or have to work several jobs and do not have the time to drive across town to get to the good schools. This problem is made worse by the fact that the best schools tend to be far away from the worst neighborhoods.

I think that we will all be better off in the long run if we spend the money now to allow these kids to get to good schools so that they are educated citizens later (and not on public assistance of one form or another). I cannot prove this point, and others believe that our money could be better spent elsewhere (both inside and outside of the system).

In my world, there would be parents who take advantage of the system. Parents who can afford to transport their kids but who abuse the taxpayers generosity and make us pick up the tab. To the extent we can stop that behavior, we should, but I am not naive enough to believe that it won't happen.

I simply believe that it is a worthwhile investment of money now in order to educate the next generation. We could start by using the money that we would save by implementing your suggestions about class size.

dola--

I didn't answer your last question. I think that 1/2way voucher programs are not a good use of money. I would rather the money be spent in a way that gets more to the students who need it. I think that they will help, but not enough to justify their expense.

I have an idea.

Why don't we get the fed out of the education business and let the states deal with this. It a state wants a voucher program then they can have it.

Ever heard of principles? If I had to pay dues to a union that headed right-to-life rallies, there's no way in hell I would join their union. They can have my money (so I could have my job), but they could also not have any participation from me. Also, most unions elect their leadership. If most members of the NEA were not for the political agenda that is supported, then they should vote out the leadership, and vote in someone who reflects their beliefs.


I SERIOUSLY doubt it. Saying that it has nothing to do with your personal beliefs is suspect.


I fail to see where I attacked you. I noted that your main beef was with their liberal agenda, which it is. I can point to just as many studies as you can that lower class size = improved achievement (like this one from the DOE). You have a point with per pupil spending, but for example, here in Ohio, there is a serious question as to HOW school districts spend money. Waste is prevalent, and many school districts have to spend a LOT of money to upgrade their crumbling infrastructure, which doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on the quality of education.

I don't think anyone could tell you we're doing a measurably better job of educating kids than we were 30 years ago. Level of education is pretty hard to measure, but I agree that the educational system is malfunctioning.




As for vouchers, I think this ties in with the question asked in the other thread: parents who tend to care about their children will jump all over vouchers and send them to so-called "better" schools. These same parents will tend to have a more active role in their child's education, and the students tend to be more motivated and perform better because of their parents interest and involvement. Private schools are efficient at points. But the idea at the heart of this argument is how do we bring the sort of motivation and drive that helps good students perform well to the poor students who don't perform as well?

I don't know. But I don't think vouchers are the answer.

Edit: Took out a sentence that was a straggler from a previously deleted and not posted paragraph.

A few quick things during lunch, from one of the resident teachers.

In terms of class size, it is much easier to get the 1 on 1 contact with students in a smaller class. Cam cited a study that showed that it had minimal to no impact. From my experience, I am able to be a more effective grader and instructor with 90 essays a week rather than 150. Can I quantify it? Probably not. But my wife says I'm happier :) Sure, I could "manage" a class of 50. Remember your college lecture hall classes? That would be the environment. They'd be able to regurgitate the information, but I could'nt tell if they "got it."

For politics, the candidates who are more likely to promote education funding also promote some of the causes that Cam states. NEA scratches their back, the candidate will scratch NEA's. In Arizona, there is no mandate to pay dues, so we don't worry about people funding causes they can't support.

In terms of vouchers, we already have a bright-flight in my district. Or is it rich-flight? Many times, they are the one in the same. The students who are still here are the ones who would be rejected from a private school anyway. Even if they had the voucher $, they would wind up back on our doorstep. Actually, our speech team is the only draw for the gifted and talented students that our school has. Personally, I disagree with the concept of tax dollars subsidizing a private, exclusionary, enterprise. I also don't like the Cardinals stadium project, but at least I'll get to go there. I don't get to go to Brophy College Prep next door . :)

BTW Cam, what do you think about the proposed AFTRA/SAG merger? As a member of SAG, I think that the combined union would provide strong leverage for entertainers.

Power in numbers my friends.

Kevin

Butters,


Out of my entire first post, this is all I said about the agenda of the NEA. You still want to say it was my main point? It's simply the easiest to attack because it's the only part of my argument that's subjective.

To be honest, there's nothing I can do to stop you from believing that's the most important thing to me. I can simply tell you it's not. I'm married to a woman who doesn't share my political or religious beliefs... I'm pretty open minded. My point was that the NEA shouldn't be taking a stand on issues like that. That's not the point of the NEA. Keep harping on it all you want, it makes no difference to me.

Now, as to the political beliefs of NEA members. I'm sure I don't have to educate you on how the union is run... but since you don't belong, maybe I do.

Members of the NEA elect site representatives in the school where they work, representatives to the state organization, and delegates to the annual Representative Assembly. You know as well as I do how busy teachers are. After you work a 50 hour week (which is what most teachers are working these days), how much time do you have to devote to union activities? You'd probably know more about the candidates for site rep than you would state candidates, and you'd probably know more about the state candidates than you would delagates to the Representative Assembly.

Also, keep in mind that the Representative Assembly is made up of 10,000 people out of 2.7 million members. You have to figure that the vast majority of those delegates are the ones active in the union, as opposed to the vast majority who pay their dues and go on with life.

To say that every NEA member supports the agenda of the NEA leadership is just ridiculous. Does every Catholic believe that if you get a divorce and remarry you're going to hell? Does every Catholic believe priests shouldn't marry? Nope... but don't tell the pope.

On class sizes: I'm not going to argue that at some point a smaller class becomes easier to deal with, and therefore becomes easier to teach. Look at homeschooling (oh wait, the NEA is against that...). But come on, we're already at a ratio of 16:1 nationally. How much smaller do we need to get, and at what cost? Nationally, the education of our kids hasn't gotten any better since 1970, while the student/teacher ratio has declined considerably.

This is what it boils down to with me: The NEA says class sizes and per pupil expenditures are the two things schools can do to improve education. We've seen falling class sizes and increased per pupil expenditures for three decades. Have the schools improved? No. Then it's time to do something different, and it's time to take away the power of the teachers unions to influence how our schools are run. They've already shown they're out to benefit their members first, kids second (as any good union should).

BTW, you wanna talk about salaries out of whack... try and find out what some of the staff at the Ohio Education Association are making.

I'll throw my hat into the ring. The average student costs a private school $4000 to educate. Compare that with the public school cost of $7000 per student. So, the immediate question is why?

The answer is fairly simple. Public schools have enormous amounts of red tape. Just look at the number of districts in your state. Out here in Arizona, we have over 80 school districts. Each one has their own staff, leadership and priorities. Each district receives the money and spends it as they see fit, with little consequences. There was a story out here about the Scottsdale school district where one of the female district supervisors decided to hire on her best friend as a secretary at a salary of $90,000. You would think the school board wouldn't allow it right? Well, most of the district board's members had no idea she had been hired and the ones that did know didn't care as they were just as politically based and she was.

If someone wants to champion real Public school reform, I'm all for it. But I haven't seen it yet and doubt it will occur in my lifetime. There are too many strong interests with their hands in the cookie jar to allow someone to come in and change the public school system. That's where vouchers come in. Between Catholic, Private and Charter Schools, there would be enough competition to cause the public school system to seriously rethink its rediculous spending habits. Another point here is that there are a lot of very good Public schools. Where I lived (the Kyrene distict) is one of the top in the state and has outstanding leadership.

So, the only way I see this education system working is if you go with some sort of voucher system. Now, those of you saying this system doesn't allow poor kids to go to Xavier prep or other top private schools are correct. But, it would allow them to go from a woeful public district like South Phoenix to a much better public district like Kyrene or even Tempe. It would also allow them to send their kids to Catholic school or a Charter school if they so chose. All of these options are very inexpensive and can be paid by vouchers. If you atleast give kids the option of choosing the best public, charter and catholic schools (forget the private), you can start fixing the district problems. If everyone is flocking to the Kyrene district and the bad South Phoenix district is losing students, chances are they will make changes in their leadership/policies so that they can compete. But, if they don't, there is a penalty as they will go out of business. Their schools will most likely be taken over by Charter organizations and reopened for the better (as it already has in areas with vouchers).

The only provision I would add would be a "bonus" for taking kids from families below a certain economic level. Notice how I said economic level, not color. There's no reason the son of a black millionaire should get a higher voucher than an asian or white kid from a family making 30K.

I think a system like this would work and, more importantly, allow kids in failing school districts a chance that they do not have right now.

Arlie

And why exactly should a techer UNION be looking out for education? What union out there looks after anything except its members? None. So why is it different for a teacher union?

Unions exist (theoretically) so that people will have good job security and not get screwed on benefits.

Many of you know I'm about as anti-union as they come, but to have a different criteria for evaluation a teacher's union and other unions is total BS.

There's no reason why the teacher's union should be looking out for the education of the kids. Their function is to make sure teachers keep their jobs and not get screwed over. Looking out for the education of the kids is the responsibility of teachers and parents themselves.

1. OK. How do you think your studies are measuring student achievment? (which is the basis of half of your critique) My guess, until proven otherwise is test scores.


2. Why do businessmen get 7 weeks off every year? (Becuase they don't, they only get 2.) Well I only get 7 weeks off, not 12.

I have to agree with Sabotai here. As much as I think the teacher's union is detrimental to the cause of educating our children. That's simply not their job. Their job is to protect the teachers, their benefits and their pay. And, much like the player's union in MLB, their actions often come at the expense of the overall system.

Arlie

Holy crap, Arlies agreed with me on something! Pigs are flying and it's raining frogs!

Here was what I wrote last year about this issue (from the old forum) about the local Charter School that I wanted my son to attend:

Here is what they will expect of each student before they move on to 1st grade:

„X be able to read at a typical level expected of 2nd graders, through phonemic awareness
„X be able to write letters and words in cursive
„X be able to understand the rudiments of mathematics (adding, subtracting, etc.)
„X be able to know fundamentals of American history (presidents and stuff like that)

They will accomplish this through explicit and focused instruction on decoding (phonics), breaking skills down into learnable chunks, teacher-directed learning, learning more in less time, high interaction and clear expectations. In other words, they believe that high success=high mastery=high motivation=high selfesteem. There is much more I have in front of me that talks about the technique and reasons, esp. for phonics and the approaches to reading, but I won¡¦t bore you with them (plus, I don¡¦t understand all of it myself).

This is not a private school, it is not a school for academically gifted, it¡¦s just a publically-funded charter school stuck in an old post office building. And speaking of teachers, each of the teachers here are paid less than their colleagues in the regular school district. They difference here is that with such a highly motivated and aggressive approach to teaching, they know they will see high standard results ¡V that is their reward.

The question for the group is: why do not ALL schools have high expectations for their students? If you start any child in kindergarden rigorously learning the basics of reading, writing, math and others, wouldn¡¦t they be able to learn it (as proven by nearly all of the classes this and other schools have had over the past 10 years)? Why do teachers and administrators in a typical(?) public school think children are ¡¥not ready¡¦ to learn these things at this stage? Isn¡¦t the fundamental problem of education in this country is not the lack of funding or teacher salaries or school choice but the expectation level of the teacher and the students? In other words, if you don¡¦t expect the students to learn at a high level nor does a teacher expect to teach in a rigorous manner, is it any wonder of the poor results of education in this country?

Italics are mine to show emphasis.

Here is the key point I would use to refute Cam's statistics. The main point of the first part of his post seems to be that reduced class size hasn't returned any noticable improvement in student achievement, and implies that the union's drive was to add more teachers (and thus generate more dues revenue).

His second part seems to show that increasing the cost of educational spending per pupil hasn't improved student achievement either.

To both of these points I ask: Are these comparisons between now and 20-30 years ago fair comparisons? I don't believe they are.

Look around you and ask yourself: Has there not been an increase in the number of households with both parents working increased in the last 20-30 years? Has there not been an increase in the number of single-parent households?

For education to work there needs to be a partnership between the teachers and the students. If the student is not receiving much in the way of help or encouragement at home, or if he or she is forced to spend more free time working to help put food on the table, then the level of engagement by those students in class and on homework is bound to suffer.

I think Cam's stats are incomplete - let's see some more statistics that describe the other half of the equation here. It's my suspiscion that if these statistics showing no discernable positive impact from reducing class size and increasing per pupil spending are true, it's because the benefit of such actions is being masked by decreases in the level of engagement by the students and support from parents.

I agree sabotai

My only question is how you go about figuring what the typical school is? According to you, most schools don't have expectations. I strongly disagree with you. Throw me some facts.

panerd,

The National Association of Scholars used a survey to show that overall, kids are just as smart today as they were 50 years ago... they're just not any smarter.

The same point that NAS makes has been made by those who study SAT and ACT rates. We were doing pretty well until the late 1960's/early 70's, then the test scores started slipping. Lately we've seen some improvement in the math portion of test scores, but at the expense of english and writing skills. Overall, we're a little below where we were when the nation had it's "Great Decline' that led to the report "A Nation At Risk".

Here are some other stats, however.

Graduation rates? In 1973 it was 84%. In 1998 it was 86%. To quote the U.S. Department of Education in 1998 "This net increase of about 2 percent is not very encouraging."

Cost of remedial education at the college level? 30 years ago, the only colleges offering remedial courses were community colleges. Now 80% of public 4 year colleges offer remedial classes, and 60% of the private four year colleges do the same, at a cost of more than a billion dollars a year.

Now, if you want to throw out test scores, keep one thing in mind. Test scores might be hard to interpret based on race, socio-economic status, and the like... but they can still be used as a pretty good snapshot when comparing one generation to the next.

The fact is, we're not improving. And as we pour more and more money into schools, we keep seeing them fall apart physically. We see them kept apart economically and racially. We see them break apart philosophically.

Is it coincidence that the downturn of our education system happened at the same time as the unionization of our schools? Maybe. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that the 30 year stagnation of our schools has nothing to do with the philosophies of education put forth by the NEA.

Dola: sorry you only get 7 weeks off every year. How unfair. :) That doesn't apply to everyone, however. There are plenty of teachers who are off most of the summer, two weeks at Christmas, and Spring Break.

How much does a year at a Catholic school cost? I know most of the "Christian" schools I have been associated with are not that expensive, generally work with parents on transportation and books, and give breaks to lower incomes.

It's no surprise that the divorce rate started climbing at the same time education started declining. It was the 1960's. In 1967, for example, the divorce rate was 2.6 per 1,000. In 1990 it was 4.7. But in 1981 the divorce rate was 5.3... and in 1998 it was 4.0, a rate not seen since 1972. It's actually gone down over the past two decades. Should we not have seen a correlating rise in education?

Besides, if you're trying to say that single parent households are more likely to produce poor students, then that only backs up my assertion that vouchers for private schools (including religious schools) are the way to go. Private schools with religious affiliations are much more likely to have access to aid for single mothers who are part of their community, and the additional support network that comes with a smaller school and church affiliation could go a long way towards dealing without that absent parent.

I'm off for the day. Kudos to all for one of the more enjoyable online discusssions that I have had in a while.

thanks albion, you've definitely challenged my thinking today (and I mean that in a good way).

I try not to disagree with you or get upset with you because I really enjoy most of what you post. (Outside of the education threads, oh and the video vigilante :D ) But you have got to be kidding me! :eek: :confused: :eek: You really think private religious schools are going to increase achievement among children from low incomes and single parent homes . The sole reason private schools are so successful is they don't have an inkling of the percentage of both of these groups as public schools. You could put my 7th hour challenge pre-algebra class up against the best in the world, but then figure in my 6th hour class (of which 80% recieve free and reduced lunch) and all of a sudden I am the worst teacher in the history of the world.:confused: Take a minute to realize what makes the private schools go round. (Hint: $$$)

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because those of us spending those $$$ refuse to accept the f'n mediocrity that the public schools (around me, your mileage may vary) provide while climbing all over themselves to blame on anyone, everyone, and anything but any of their own mistakes. And God help anyone who dares to suggest that anyone drawing their paycheck from the taxpayers might ever make a mistake, oh no, that's just not possible, it just has to be someone else's fault.

It's bad enough watching my tax money poured down the seemingly endless sinkhole of public (mis)education but when you're writing a second check on top of that, you tend to make damned sure that those people and/or things which do not work are replaced.

Maybe, just maybe, if we didn't have so many schools where more parents don't write a tax check than do then we'd see that same sense of ownership and concern for the results that money produces.

Maybe

take a look at parochial schools, panerd. They do very well with a lower income base.

I won't repeat my arguments about why private religious schools can do what public schools can't. If you can tell me that your public school can provide the community support and assistance to single parents that a church-sponsored school can.. and give me a couple of examples of that, I'll reconsider my argument.

Again, panerd, this has nothing to with the teaching abilities of most teachers. It has everything to do with how you have to teach.

By the way, have you taken a look at what support staff in your state's teachers union make? Here in Oklahoma the average for the 17 support staff (secretaries, receptionists, etc.) for the OEA make $38,771, with 33 paid days off. Teachers in Oklahoma average $34,499. If you want to complain about teacher salaries... you might want to take a look at the union offices.

First off, I haven't yet formed a strong opinion on school vouchers. I need to do more research on the subject.

My main contention is that your initial post seemed to suggest that two main pillars of Teacher's Union (and many other education reformers) in recent years - the push for better student:teacher ratios and higher per-pupil education spending - has not produced improvements in student acheivement.

My reply to that is that I don't think the studies cited supporting that belief are fair comparisons and don't take into account changes in the social landscape that may have made education a more difficult proposition.

From a common-sense standpoint, the concept of fewer students per teacher in a classroom makes sense - more face time with the teacher for the students, less chance for chaos in the classroom with fewer kids, more ability to address each student's needs.

If it's true that reduced class-size hasn't resulted in improvements in student performance, then we seem to have a range of possible explanations. On one extreme, the reason is that teachers have become lazier as class sizes have decreased, resulting in no increase in the level of per-student attention, and thus no gains in student performance. At the other extreme is the possibility that the improved ratios have done a great deal of good, but those gains have been offset by a less engaged student population, with causes including increased student apathy influenced in part by popular culture, declining parental support and help in the education process, a decrease in available study time as more students enter the workforce, etc. My perception is that the explanation falls far closer to the latter than the former in this case.

Similarly, it would seem from common-sense that an increase in per-pupil spending in public education should result in an improvement in the quality of education received. If the results aren't confirming this, then the explanations would seem to range from one extreme of all the money is just going in the pockets of teachers, administrators and fancy gadgets that aren't actually improving the quality of the student's education, to the other extreme of the money is helping, but gains are offset by social reasons listed earlier. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle on this one, leaning closer to the latter.

One thing I think we all agree on is that education is extremely important, and I think this kind of debate is good in that we are all coming from a common goal. How we get there is obviously a subject of great contention.

"Now, if you want to throw out test scores, keep one thing in mind. Test scores might be hard to interpret based on race, socio-economic status, and the like... but they can still be used as a pretty good snapshot when comparing one generation to the next. "

No they can't. Tests change all the time, and with high schools teaching more and more advanced topics, the tests get harder with them. So of course tests scores from the previous generation would still be similar to those given in the next, because tests have to keep pace with the courses being taught.

And this is of course ignoring the inherent problems that go along with standardized testing....

Cam- A few points. One, no union exists except to rotect its workers. That is the whole point of a union. Now I think you can make some points about whether the teacher's union should be as involved in the educational process as they are, but blaming them for putting their members first is silly.

Second, there is no evidence that school voucher programs work. The only solid report has been shown to have serious flaws in its methodology. This isn't to say that vouchers can't work, but a change that will funnel billions of dollars to for profit schools and religous istitutions should have some evidence showing that it will work at a large scale. Remember private schools generally don't take the trouble students and the mentally handicapped.

Third, I'm afraid there is no workable setup for vouchers. If we have a nationwide voucher program I guarantee that the government will be funding madrassahs and Christian Identity and all sorts of other extremist group schools. While I don't have a problem with Catholic schools or a host of others, I don't want to funnel government money to extremist organizations. The last thing I want is to have a Taliban style education funded by my tax dollars. Now maybe there is a way around this, but nobody even seems to mention it.

Fourth, while there are plenty of problems with our schools, I don't think the evidence is there that says we should scrap the whole system. Did you see the link I posted a few days ago on the world educational survey? It showed that schools that have little poverty in the district score well ahead of the rest of the world. That's right, wealthier school districts rule the world! This seems to suggest that public schools can work.

Finally, I think you are right about class size. While it seems to make sense, the evidence seems to point to it making little difference. One example I have heard is would you rather your child be taught in a small class by a crappy teacher or a large class with a great teacher. Its a matter of teachers primarily, and unfortunately there is no evidence that private schools have overall better teachers. I have read that smaller schools have shown to provide a better education than larger schools, but that chage would cast a ridiculous amount of money. And, who's to say that when private schools get bigger they won't become what the public schools are?

dawgfan,

It then becomes a chicken and egg scenario. By now the poor students of today are the children of the the poor students of the 70's and 80's. If that's the case, then maybe what's needed is to break the cycle.

I've already said that parents are the most important factor in how successful a child will be. But if we now have a majority of parents who failed to get a good education when they were in school, it's going to be harder for them to recognize what their child is missing out on. That means even more important for teachers to be given the tools to produce quality students.

Now, if smaller class sizes really benefit students, a ratio of 1:1 would be ideal. There's a pretty strong case for homeschooling. Obviously though, not everyone can afford to do that, even with tax breaks. You then have to decide... does the educational benefit of a 16:1 ratio justify the added expense as compared to a 22.6:1 ratio.

You also have to factor in the increase in per pupil expenditures. I think those two factors almost go hand in hand.

Now we get back to your core debate: is society making students perform poorly, or are poorly performing students contributing to the downfall of society?

If society is causing students to perform poorly, then allowing parents increased opportunity to place students in a private, religious school could help counter the negative effects of today's society.

If, on the other hand, poorly performing students are contributing to the downfall of society, I'd argue it's even more important to break the cycle by allowing more opportunity for these kids to learn some character and moral standards... qualities lacking in a lot of public schools.

In either case, I fail to see how enacting a real voucher system would cause further damage to the educational system in this country. In fact, here in Oklahoma City we have what is the equivalent of public school vouchers. There are five high schools that are considered "choice schools". You have to apply to get in to the school. There are many more middle and elementary schools with the same application process. We also have charter schools and "enterprise" schools. These were both enacted with a minimal amount of bitching from the OEA (local NEA). If school choice hurts children, why is that? Because this is a good compromise as far as the unions are concerned. Parents have some semblance of choice, and the teachers unions don't lose members to the increased number of private schools that would appear with school vouchers.

I also think this kind of debate is good. It's nice to see a difference of opinions without name calling (so far).

Just a note on the whole class size thing...it appears to me, at least from the teachers who have posted, that there are high benefits to class size reduction. The main one would seem to be teacher morale. A happy teacher is a good teacher...? And what about student morale?

My point is just that the success or nonsuccess of somethign simply can not be judged soley on test scores. If reducing class size makes teachers and students happier, then that's a benefit that needs to stay. If not for the simple fact that a happy student who gets attention from the teacher won't go shooting up the place (even a disgruntled student that gets time with the teacher won't).

In the debate in Louisiana about vouchers, the Catholic Archdioces of New Orleans (Catholic schools are really big in south Louisiana and New Orleans) refused to go along with a voucher plan by the governor. The points of contention had to do with accountability. The Catholic schools refused to give the state high stakes tests and publish the results. They refused to be bound by state curriculum requirements. They wanted the voucher money but they didn't want people to be able to make an objective comparison using test scores.

I think vouchers have a place in education. But I also think any voucher plan should include state oversight including transparency. Private/parochial schools taking voucher money should be required to administer state standardized tests and publish the scores. They should also be required to take all applicants, including special ed kids and kids with other problems. Private/parochial school supporters talk about competition. A fair competition would entail at least the above.

BTW, the Catholic schools in New Orleans are far superior to the public schools. New Orleans has an absolutely terrible public school system. It is a disaster for kids sentenced to time in those schools. Nothing but gangs, violence, incompetence, and an overloaded union bureaucracy. But the Catholic schools didn't want to accept any state strings to take state money.

I think the difference in education over the last few decades is parental envolvement. Whether it is through broken homes, both parents working, etc., etc. the level of parental envolvment is lower today than it was.

Talking with my kids' teachers, it is very aparent to the teachers which parents participate in their kids' educations and supplement the school work at home. Some kids go home to intellectual blackholes; my kids come home to me. We discuss the homework, we read books, we talk about math and science.

Before you click to the next thread let me say: we do not use flash cards with our kids, I did not try to teach them to read at age 2, I do not push my kids until they cry. My wife and I are both college graduates. We own and operate our own business. We both work 60-70 hours per week. Wow...How do we do it all? Where do we find the time? WE JUST DO! When we're dead-assed tired we still have time for homework and reading a story.

Raising your kids is the most important thing you will ever do! Don't fuck it up. Take the time to make your kids into good little people! If YOU do it right, you won't have to worry about the schools fucking it up.

What good is a voucher going to do a kid who has to go home to the intellectual blackhole? If my kids come home to an educational and loving environment why do they need vouchers?

I think the problem with this teacher-student ratio is that, once it reaches a certain point, you don't gain much. I mean, does anyone think that a school with 15 kids per class is going to do much better than one with 18 kids per class? So, I think this class size argument is a bit of a red herring unless you are going to get it down to a 4:1 level.

The problem is that in many of the tougher schools, you have one or two "misfits" in the 16 that ruin it for everyone else. And, since public school teachers can't discipline kids without getting slapped with a lawsuit, they are often allowed to run rampant without penalty. The ability to discipline kids, plus the increased parental guidance (for reason's Jon stated), is a major reason why Private and Catholic schools do so much better on average, IMO.

There's nothing worse than being a smart, gifted young innercity kid in a class with three or four loud and boisterous gang-bangers calling you an uncle Tom and consistently disrupting class. But, because it's a public school, those kids can't get expelled and end up not only screwing their education, but also the educations of the rest of their class. Until that stuff changes, the public school system is never going to work in poorer areas.

Arlie

You're fooling yourself if you think THAT'S the only part of your argument that is subjective. Saying class size is irrelevant is not fact. You can say it is, but it is not.


Your original point actually said that the social agenda is more "meddling" than parents and insinuated that children in public school are being indoctrinated (your word, not mine) into the liberal agenda. I take umbrage at that statement, and most other teachers would as well. You sort of slid that "innocent" comment in there, but it was noticed, and not appreciated.


I don't recall saying that. I did say that if I was forced to join a union who had core beliefs that I did not agree with, then I would not participate in any union functions or activities or anything. Some states force you to pay union dues, some don't. If I were in a "don't" state, I sure wouldn't. I'm really not that stupid, Cam, to believe that every NEA member supports their national agenda. But I can bet you that if enough state chapters of the NEA adopted a conservative agenda, then the national agenda would change pretty quickly and definitively.


I'm not against homeschooling. The NEA is because it takes away teacher's jobs, period. But you know this. (see how easy it is to occasionally give credit to someone across the fence for having intelligence?)


Don't know what school you went to, but when I was in high school in the early-mid 90's, my classes were generally 25-30 people, even the honors classes. That's not 16:1, and I would argue that most of the inner city schools that need help the most also have the most class-size issues.


The teachers themselves try hard to benefit the kids as much as possible. Not all teachers, but all the good ones. And as you have stated, the union is out to benefit its members first. Privatizing schools is not the answer. You're still gonna have the same bad kids and the same bad teachers, only now they'll be in private schools. I guess I don't understand how vouchers improve education. They make it easier for some children to go to "better" schools. But shouldn't our goal be for all schools to be better, so that the disadvantaged kid left behind in the public school isn't left to a subpar education that leaves him/her ill prepared for college and life? What about those kids?



Don't know what that has to do with anything, but I agree that upper administrators salaries tend to be quite high.

Sorry to reply so late, but I'm only here during the workday.

What a sweet word Arles

Butter,

If we have school vouchers, I guarantee you that bad teachers won't be as prevalent. Why? Look at the principles of a market economy. Schools with good teachers will thrive, and schools with bad teachers will go out of business. Private schools typically don't have teachers unions, which make it easier for them to get rid of bad teachers.

As to the NEA adopting a conservative agenda... they're a labor union based on socialist ideals. That tends to drive off conservatives who would work to change the system from within. They've already left to join organizations like the Association of Professional Educators.

I also agree about good teachers trying to benefit kids. Trust me when I say there's nothing better than a good teacher. I LOVE good teachers. I love working with them. I love raising money for them. They deserve to be paid more. It's just that it's unfair to reward the bad teachers right along with them.

As to making all schools better.. of course we should. But we've tried this model for 30 years, and it's gotten us nowhere. Why not try something new? Why not enable parents to send their children to a better school? Wouldn't the exodus of students compel the public school to perform better?

Of course, when the bad teachers get paid just as well as the good teachers, then it's difficult to raise performance. That's why we need merit based pay raises for teachers, in addition to school vouchers.

Thank you for not calling me "Butters" this time. That's the kid from South Park. I'm not quite as jittery as he is, but close.

We don't agree, but I appreciate the discussion. The only thing I can respond to in your above post is the question I quoted.

The answer is: No. It would compel them to lose funding due to having fewer students. Which would certainly not help the problem.

OK, lets go with this example. Imagine a poor performing school that has 18 kids in each class. Right now, all 18 kids are doomed to having a poor education because of the school and education standards where they are at. If their parents cannot afford to send their kids to private school, they are simply "stuck" there.

Now, lets say a voucher system gets implemented that allows 10 of those 18 kids to use vouchers to go to a better public, private, catholic or charter school. What you seem to be saying is that we shouldn't allow those 10 kids to get a better education because there are 8 kids left that won't get that opportunity for whatever reason.

The problem that I have with the opponents of vouchers is that they seem to want every kid in a bad situation to get a better education right off the bat. And, if that can't be guaranteed, then they attack the idea. I think this is rediculous. The school system has been slowly degradating over the past 30 years, and to think that one plan is going to come in and save each of the millions of kids getting a bad education in year one is simply not realistic.

But, if there was a plan that could improve the education for 50-60% of the kids currently in failing school systems with the potential for even more once it is phased in, isn't that worth trying? In spite of the fact that all kids may not benefit from it initially.

The only alternative I see is to keep the current system as it is and therefore deprive all of these kids from getting a good education, or coming up with a completely new idea that will do an even better job than vouchers.

And, given the opponents of vouchers I have talked to, every one sits in the first camp and I have yet to hear one good idea of fixing the public system from this crowd.

Arlie

If you lose funding at the same level you lose students, you wouldn't be hurt at all. By that I mean, if you lose 20 students and the money that is spent on them, your per pupil spending remains the same.

Yes, you'd have to reduce staff, probably by one teacher. With a market based education system, who will go? The teacher with the least amount of seniority? Nope. The worst teacher in the school. You now have a smaller faculty, but the remaining students will be taught by a better faculty.

You're operating under the assumption that more money equals better schools. Take a look at Washington, D.C. Better yet, take a look at West Virginia. They spend $9,758 per student. Oklahoma students tied or scored better in 6 out 7 NAEP tests. Oh, I know, you can't use standardized tests to prove anything. Except that when you compare two groups of students who take the same tests, the state that spends less money does better. Even when you factor in class size, Oklahoma (with an average of 15.5 students per teacher) does better than West Virginia (with an average of 14.4 students per teacher).

You say less money for these schools would be disastrous. I say it's pretty clear that you can pour all the money in the world into a bad school and not make it better.

Cam - I'm with you on your argument, but as to this point I think there has to be minimum number of students per school where this stops being true - consider the extreme case of a school with one student - you would still need to pay nearly the same in administrative costs and overhead for things like building maintenance etc. Of course when you reach that point is when you begin closing schools and moving students to other ones (which happens in areas with decreases in school age populations anyhow).

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. What makes those 10 kids better? The 8 kids get nothing while the other 10 get to move "up". If you're wealthy enough to support a private or charter school, by all means go ahead and send your kids there. But I don't believe that tax money should be spread even more thinly by sending it to private schools. Voucher systems cannot exist without the money coming from somewhere. Let alone the problem I have with religious schools getting the tax money.



Um, I don't think this. But thanks for generalizing!


Sure it's worth trying. As long as it's not vouchers. Imagining that 50-60% of current school children could go to private schools on vouchers is pretty wishful thinking though. That would overcrowd private schools, then we'd all be arguing about the private school overcrowding crisis. Another problem I have (which has been mentioned before) is that private schools need to be accountable to the state for it's teaching methods. If they're getting public money, they need to be publicly accountable. And many private schools are reluctant to relinquish that control.



How many have you talked to? 2?

One good idea is to try different methods of teaching. Some school districts are attempting just that. The methods that succeed should be more widely studied and implemented where possible. Another idea is to split kids up into different types of teaching. It was mentioned in the other education thread that some kids learn better by doing, or reading, or whatever. Test the kids (see, this would require smaller class sizes and more individual attention.... but more money won't help, right?) and see where they fit in as far as their learning pattern goes, then group them together and have different methods of teaching. I have not heard of this being attempted, but then, I don't get the latest copies of "Teacher Times" or whatever.

Good luck getting that one implemented. I agree that poor teachers need to go. But it's not like there's millions of people clamoring to take their place. I think the fallacy here is that there is an unlimited teacher supply to take the bad ones' place. There is not.



You can pour all the money in the world to a bad school and not make it better. But if you spend the money on the right things (improved teacher training, smaller, more forward thinking classrooms with different teaching methods, different learning tools), I think it would help make a bad school better. In your scenario, you can forget about having that extra money to try new things. We'll just ship all that money off to the private sector, and hope the kids in the bad school don't accidentally set the building on fire.

Hmm....my aunt wanted to become a teacher, and that's what she went to school for (ok, it was in the physical education/health area...but still). She spent a good amount of time as a substitute teacher waiting for an opening, but tired of this and went back to work as a pharmaceutical rep (trains them now, actually). I can recall a number of young substitutes while in school, some of whom went on to become "regular" teachers.

So while in some cases there are shortages, I would think that there are other instances where teachers hop around as subs waiting for another position to become available. I suppose it depends on the district.

Cuervo, it also depends on the field. Special Ed teachers are in great need, but English teachers are not.

Well, there could be a lot of reasons for this.

I think we ask too much to become a teacher. In Virginia a person needs to get a 4 year degree in something (history, english, etc) and then take an additional 1 year+ certificate program.

So they require a 5 year program to teach. Part of that time you need to be a student teacher, which kind of keeps you from earning an income.

In addition to this, the education at the school I went to is fairly selective in terms of GPA requirment to get into the certificate program.

That all seems like overkill for someone who is going into elementary education.

You're killing me. I have news for you. There ARE enough good teachers to go around. Don't believe me? Read these reports.
You talk about the need to try new things... improved teacher training, smaller, more forward thinking classrooms with different teaching methods, different learning tools. Why are you so willing to try these things without trying vouchers? Why are you so willing do damn our children to an education that is mediocre at best in order to keep the current system alive??

The system as it stands right now sucks. That's the bottom line. You talk about the inequality that would exist if vouchers were a reality. We already have inequality in public education. It's called urban schools vs. suburban schools. You talk about not wanting your tax dollars to go to religious schools. Well, I don't want my tax dollars going to schools that are failures. I'm tired of propping up a system that's broken.

You admitted to Arles that you'd rather see 18 students in a failing school than have ten of them get a chance to succeed. I just don't understand that mindset. And it's not like vouchers would guarantee 8 kids were left behind. You talk about how private schools couldn't handle the growth.

If we were to institute vouchers, it wouldn't be an overnight thing. There would be some time to plan, and I have no doubt that many schools would open up specifically in response to vouchers.

Don't believe it? What happened when the United States gave vouchers to hundreds of thousands of people back in the 1940's? The number of schools blossomed in this country. More people took advantage of the opportunity to get a good education. And yes, the vouchers were used to educate people in schools with religious affiliations.

Are you gonna trash the G.I. Bill now? From 1940 to 1960, institutions of higher learning grew from 1,708 to 1,959. It takes a heck of a lot more money to start a college or university than it does to start a private elementary or secondary school.

Vouchers can work. They HAVE worked on the college level. There's absolutely no reason to think they couldn't work in primary and secondary education as well.

I agree, Fritz. There are lots of folks who would be willing to be great teachers, but the requirements are too great. That would be another step public schools could take, to hire candidates with 4 year degrees without certification on a probationary basis, say, for 1 year, and then judge them after the year is up one way or the other.

Point well taken Butter.

Butter, you just said you were for improved teacher training. When should they get it... AFTER they've already had that all important first year of teaching??

A few points:

If the idea of giving every student a good education is the goal, as I think it should be, the costs to administer that are not equal for all students. My biggest problem for vouchers, unlike Butter, are not that some children will be left behind but WHICH kind of children will be left behind. Private schools do not, on the whole, cater to the "difficult" students. By dificult students I mean those with severe learning, emotional, or behavior disorders. I'm not talking about the kids who are mariginally ADD, I'm talking about children who are profoundly dyslexic or who are certifiably bipolar or even a child who is autistic. These kids are still entitled to an education, I think, but it costs more to educate these sort of kids than it did to educate me. If, however, all the "regular" kids are pulled out of the system, with their corresponding dollars, then society is failing to provide for those who I think it has a large obligation to help.

Second point is that teachers are underpaid for their relative education and further there is no real profit incentive out there for teachers. I am biased, of course, by the fact that I am about to be a teacher. However, unlike in say the business world or even other aspects of government service, by becoming a teacher there is no oppertunity for a large pay day at the end if you are a good teacher. If I were to go work for the state department and be very good at what I do in 20 years I could say cash out and go to work in the private sector for a lot of money if I wanted, or I could continue to work for the government. But the oppertunity to earn fabulous amounts of money if I were good at my job is there. No such corally exists for teachers. Even if you were to get rid of standardized pay scales, there would still likely not be a chance to earn TONS of money by being excellent and I personally think the oppertunity of a large payday is more important as a motivator than having lots of people earn a good amount of money.

There is a teacher shortage, notably in the subjects of science and esl and in rural and inner city schools, which in a market society suggests something is wrong. I suggest that for what is expected of teachers they are underpaid.

The final point I have to make is on teacher quality. Frankly I think a disproponate amount of people who are talented, people who could make a large difference in the schools, choose not to become teachers. Instead these people choose to be doctors or lawyers or MBAs or what not. So not only are there not enough teachers, for the most part I think the people who are teachers are not the best society has to offer. I can't tell you how many times people have been unsupportive when I tell them I am becoming a teacher. They think poorly of teahcers, and frankly, I don't really blame them. This is where I think teacher unions do not do nearly enough. I think like the guilds of ole teacher unions should be organizations that help to ensure high quality teachers. While some chapters do this, for instance sponsoring mentoring programs, I don't think it is nearly enough of a focus of the overall union.

We can keep talking about this forever, if you'd like. The article actually says that:

"Our inability to support high-quality teaching in our schools is driven instead by a staggering teacher attrition rate. Good teachers, who enter teaching full of idealism and dreams that they can make a difference in children's lives, are ground down by bad policies and poor teaching conditions in too many of our schools."

Poor teaching conditions caused by what? Hmmm, let's think about this one....


Because I believe in public education available to ALL. Vouchers would not make private education available to all.


OK, listening... listening....


Oooh, you lost me. Then we'd have 3 levels of inequality instead of 2. Urban v. suburban v. private/charter/parochial/whatever. That would be better? If you're tired of propping up a broken system, vote for candidates who support vouchers. I'm sure you already do, so you're well on your way.


Sure it would. You think private schools are going to take the worst students? I don't think so. It's called equality of opportunity. I don't see it here.


Some of them no doubt would be bad. That would surely help.


Great. I went to a Catholic university myself, and happen to be an athiest. A main problem I have with religious grade schools is you have to take a course (usually more than one) in religion. Depending on what school you go to. Going to UD, I took a general religion course that taught about religions around the world. How many Christian schools are going to have a class where you read a passage out of the Koran?



There's plenty of reason to think they couldn't work in primary and secondary education. See: this thread.

EDIT: I said Catholic "school" and not "university" at first.... I went to public grade school and got a scholarship to a local university, which is Catholic.

Personally, I would support a system that would give the best education students a longer period of time in training in exchange for a salary, and a contract that states they will teach in "X" school district for "Y" number of years. But that probably won't ever happen. Takes too much money. But more money won't help, right?

I disagree. I think what our schools do well overall, and what is truly most important in the real world, is teach skills. While the average High School graduate might not be able to tell you three wars which ended with a treaty called The Treaty of Paris, I'd be willing to bet pennies to the dollar that they would have the skills needed to find this piece of information out. If we are training future thinkers, rather than factory drones (please note that I am not saying that factory workers are not thinkers) then the knowing how to acquire and process knowledge is far more important than multi-variable caculus. Looking at your own job Cam, I am betting that the things that are tested through standarized tests, which as have been stated several times in this thread have huge pitfalls as reliable instruments of assessment, are not things tested on the standardized test. For instance I am guessing the ability to orally present thoughts cogentently is required for your job while knowing all the answers to x squared plus 2 equals 6 is not. So if you are stating based on standardized tests that schools suck then it is like me going into a five star resteraunt and saying the food sucks simply because I don't like the taste of wine.

I agree with this thought. Teacher training right now stinks. There is all this theory thrown at a person but a lot of it is meaningless once they get out into a classroom. There are an awful lot of hoops to jump through to get into the classroom, that are no indicator of how good of a teacher a person will be. For instance none of these hoops involve assessing a person's ability to set limits something essential for a teacher to have a classroom that isn't out of control.

Teaching is the only profession I know of where a person is essentially at the top of their careers from the minute they enter it. It is also the only profession that demands a person immeaditly have 25-200 subordinates. Something different is needed and this is where entrenched interests, both those on the right and on the left, make meaningful change impossible.

In Virginia the schools teach to something called the Standards of Learning. These metric based indicators are all the system really cares about.

So, thinking and learning are secondary to scoring on the measurables.

I think vouchers are a way of allowing folks to say "the SOLs are not enough for my child. I want them to be TAUGHT. I want them to learn to learn."

also, have I mentioned I would like to see the Fed out of education?

Butter,

You're right about being able to argue this all day. You say:


Your original comment is that there's a teaching shortage. There's not. There's a shortage of good teachers. Why? Because of poor teaching conditions.
I HAVE thought about the poor teaching conditions. That's why I'm in favor of vouchers. :)

You say:

What's your point here? Again, your original take was that right now we have equality in public education. We don't. Even using your worst case scenario, the pool of students subjected to a poor education would be far less than what it is now.

Would bad private schools pop up? I have no doubt. Parents would also have many more options available to them. What happens if a poor parent sends their child to a bad public school now?

You say:

Again, what's your point with you going to a Catholic University and being an atheist? Obviously attending a christian college didn't turn you into a Christian. Are you worried about religious indoctrination? Remember now, parents will be choosing where their child goes. If they don't want to send them to a religious school, they don't have to. I doubt you'd get many atheists sending their child to a school where they would be worried about what they'd be taught.

You say:

I've yet to see the argument that stands up to reason. For thirty years we've lowered class sizes, raised per pupil expenditures, focused on more teacher training, better preparation, more technology in the classroom, etc. and it's done NOTHING to improve the quality of education.

Now, on to Barkeep. You say:

So the goal of educators is now not to teach kids history, but to teach them how to look up the answers? Yet we need more training? Homeschooling is bad because parents aren't qualified to be teachers, yet you're saying that it's more important to teach a kid how to use an encyclopedia than it is to tell him what's inside.
If it takes public education thirteen years to teach kids how to find out information on their own then we're even more screwed than I thought.

If you really think we're doing a great job of producing "thinkers", I suggest you take a look around your college campus. How many dollars does YOUR school spend on remedial programs? Nationwide, public institutions are spending over a billion dollars a year on remediation for college students. Something tells me if we were doing a great job of turning out students that number would be quite a bit lower... and that has NOTHING to do with standardized tests.

And this whole school of thought on teaching kids to be "thinkers" is a little suspect in my mind. It seems to be to be more of the bullshit spewed by the NCTE and NCTM. "You don't need to know what 10x15 is. Just estimate." "You don't need to know Properly Written English. Ebonics is fine, and if people won't accept you then they're just racist, classist, and naive."

Sorry. That's not education. Do I expect my kids to be thinkers when they graduate high school? Yes. Do I also expect them to know how to do algebraic equations as well as tell me who the 16th president of the United States was and why he was important? Yes. It IS possible to do both.

Just look at the private schools.

First of all, the "wealthy kids" are already in private schools. My example involved current failing schools where the parents do not have the money to send their kids to private or catholic schools, and are not allowed to switch public schools without moving. Second, the goal of a public education is to get as many kids a quality education as possible. Vouchers will allow more kids (specifically poorer kids) to get a better education than the current system. So, I don't see how this can be a bad thing. The worst case is that a certain % of students stay at the current level of education they are at now.

You also seem to think that vouchers can only be used for Private or Religious schools. But vouchers can also be used for Charter and different Public schools as well. So, many of the lower income students do not have to use their voucher to go to a Private or Religious school. They can go to other types of schools if they so desire.

Well, for one, vouchers can also be used for non-private, public and Charter schools as well. Also, if there is a greater need for private schools, my guess is that they will build more. It happens all the time in growing areas out here in Phoenix as it is right now.

Quote:

One good idea is to try different methods of teaching. Some school districts are attempting just that. The methods that succeed should be more widely studied and implemented where possible. Another idea is to split kids up into different types of teaching. It was mentioned in the other education thread that some kids learn better by doing, or reading, or whatever. Test the kids (see, this would require smaller class sizes and more individual attention.... but more money won't help, right?) and see where they fit in as far as their learning pattern goes, then group them together and have different methods of teaching. I have not heard of this being attempted, but then, I don't get the latest copies of "Teacher Times" or whatever.

I agree with you 100% on this issue. But, the problems often lie in the red tape required to change a curriculum in the public schools. Even if you have some great ideas, it's often hard to realize them because of all the regulations and requirements on public schools. But an even bigger problem is the lack of teachers' ability to discipline their students in the public schools. Bad kids are allowed to run free in many cases and some districts actually forbid their public schools from expelling problem students. And, I don't know of any legal way to get discipline back into the public schools. If you are an innercity school and expel a black or latino kid that routinely disrupts class, you will have Jesse Jackson and every race-based interest group on your butt in ten minutes.

So, unless you find a way to allow teachers to change curriculums and teaching patterns easily, as well as apply discipline without fear of lawsuits, the same problems will remain.

Arlie

Cam: Where is the evidence that schools are in great decline? You have a lot of anecdotal evidence but no hard numbers. Based on recent studies, our public schools in districts with low poverty rates outscore the rest of the world. That doesn't scream crisis to me.

Now I agree that there are a number of thinkgs our public schools could do better, especiall after working in a rural school for the past six months. What I am suspect of is the general cry of the sky is falling when there is little hard evidence that this is the case.

As to remedial courses in college, this may or may not have anything to do with public scholl performance. Do you have numbers comparing the performance of public school students to private school students? Do you have numbers comparing percentage of students in remedial classes now to percentage thrity years ago? Could this have something to do with a larger percentage of the population enrolled in college now than at any other time in our history? Without some numbers, I am unwilling to say remedial eduction proves the public schools are failing.

Cam, first I want to point out that I have different ideas than Butter. As someone who reads the board daily and very very rarely posts on "substantial matters" (almost all my posts are from the Number game or posting in other people's dyansties), I only jumped in because I think I have some different ideas to contribute and am curious to hear not only your response but Arles and Butters.

That said let me respond to what you wrote.


Cam please peek a few posts down. I think more training is bunk. I think how we train teachers needs to be overhauled. No where do I state that I am opposed to home schooling. I think that as long as a parent pays attention to the social development of their child that home schooling can be an excellent educational choice.



If American schools are so bad how is it that with-in two years of College American students out perform others worldwide? They also, when all other factors are equal, international students at US schools. If the American school system is really failing these students for 13 years as you suggest how is it that the damage can be undone with-in 2 years? I mean that not as a rhetorical question, but a real one.

The other point to this is the trend in international education, particularly in Asia, to make schools more like American schools. As someone who believes that on the whole America does things as well or better than most other countries, this does not surprise me.


If you would like I can find articles from both those on the right and the left stating that the single biggest deteriment of a child's success in school is parent's income. I can also find numerous studies telling you that private school enrollment is overwhelmingly from those with high income. This is not to demean private education, as I think it does do somethings. For instance i just completed a survey of a Catholic school and one of the findings we did when looking at overall Catholic education was that Catholic school students, even when taking into account parent's income, do better at reading and history than do public school students. However, they perform equal to or worse or worse than(depending on the study) public school students at math and science.

Now I am a history major and think history is incredibly important to our national framework. But to say that there is value in students knowing 5 Civil War battles is bunk or even being able to name the 16th President. That sort of thing is trivia, whose very name derirves from the word trivial. Instead I would expect that students

I guess I'm disappointed that you didn't address my bigger point. No where do you talk about what YOU, Cam Edwards, needed out of an education and how what you are advocating would help all students achieve the level of scucess you have. Obviously not everyone can become a radio star, but the principle remains the same I think. I also am curious about your feelings about my other ideas regarding teacher quality.

Cam, you keep stating this opinion as though it were a fact. I've attempted multiple times to show you that the studies you cite do not prove this is true, for the simple fact that the other major factors that influence the ability of a student to acheive have not remained static over the years. You can't say A has led to B despite changes in A, when C is also part of the equation and C has changed as well.

Do you seriously think that, by itself, lowering the student:teacher ratio from 26:1 to 18:1 wouldn't have a positive effect? Do you really think teachers are lazy slobs who simply slack-off more if there's fewer students to teach? You claim lowering these ratios has done no good; I would argue that they've prevented things from getting a lot worse.

Same thing with improved per-pupil spending, more teacher training, more technology - these improvements have been needed to offset the worsening state of the student population.

I'm willing to believe that increases in per-student expenditures haven't been as efficient as they possibly could be, but I'd like to see actual breakdowns of how these spending increases have been distributed before I pass judgement.

OK, we disagree on how to improve teaching conditions. You favor a free market system that does away with teacher's unions, and I don't. No matter how liberal or conservative the union, I favor unionization of workers to protect them from getting screwed.


I don't recall saying that all public education is equal. To quote James Earl Jones from Field of Dreams, "I don't even recall thinking it." Using my worst case scenario, the gap between haves and have-nots widens, which is unacceptable.


I can't debate that parents would have more options. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that poor parents, even with vouchers, would not necessarily be able to send their kid to a private/charter school. There are transportation and extemporaneous cost issues at work, let alone the fact that a lot of parents could care less.


Well, you argued that the liberal NEA was indoctrinating our children into liberal ideology. If we're using that logic, then yes.


Well, of course no one that disagrees with you can be using reason, can they? I've agreed that you have some points, but you can't even see your way clear of acknowledging that I may have points as well. See dawgfan's post above about your mistaken assumption that all of these things are FACTS.

"Nationwide, public institutions are spending over a billion dollars a year on remediation for college students. Something tells me if we were doing a great job of turning out students that number would be quite a bit lower... and that has NOTHING to do with standardized tests."

It has everything to do with standarized tests. How do you think colleges decide if a student needs to take remedial courses? Grades? Recomendations from their high school? No. Standardized tests. They make you take a standardized test and if you fail a section, you take a remedial course. Regardless of what grades you got in high school.

We have students being placed in remedial courses who graduated high school with GPAs of 3.8 and 3.9. And it has NOTHING to do with their education. It has EVERYTHING to do with bs standardized tests.

Also this figure of a billion dollars is meaningless. Is this more or less than 50 years ago? Unknown. For all we know Colleges have always spent a lot of money on remedial work. My research at my own College suggests this is the case. This is not to say things aren't worse now, merely that the figure thrown out is meaningless without proper context, a point sabotai helped me realize.

Ack! I lie down for an hour and it's going to take me three hours to respond to everything.

Okay... from JPhillips:
Hey kettle, you're black. Can you point me to these studies? I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Our public schools in low poverty areas outscore the rest of the world? But giving parents in low income areas vouchers that would help pay transportation costs, etc. to put their children in these good schools is bad somehow?
The crisis is that all things considered, the education system hasn't grown. It's in a 30 year recession. SAT scores are a little lower, graduation rates are about same. While the number of college students is growing, the need for remediation is growing as well. Talk to a college professor. Talk to an admissions counselor. They'll tell you the overall quality of the applicants is down. But you have to feed the beast... so for many public 4 year institutions it's now "come on in!". In fact, there's really no way you can get a decent job without a college degree these days, so you have waiting lists and fairly high admission standards at places like the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas. The fact that more people are getting into college doesn't mean much. It's what they're having to do once they get there that matters.

JPhillips said:
I think I might have covered this. No, I don't have any data, and quite frankly, I don't feel like spending half an hour looking it up to win an argument on a message board. If you need convincing, do the research yourself. After all, this country's supposed to be teaching us to do stuff like that. Besides, you might be able to prove me wrong.

Barkeep said:
Outperform in what way? People have been saying I'm presenting arguments without any data to back it up, but I have no idea where this comes from.

Again, without knowing just what you're talking about, I'd say the damage can't be undone in two years. In 1996 the National Association of Scholars published a 65 page report that talked about the dumbing down of our colleges. The number of mandatory courses has gone from 9.9 in 1914 to 2.5 in 1996. In 1914, universities offered an average of just 23 courses that didn't require prerequisites. In 1996 the average number had jumped to 582. That implies a wider, more shallow learning experience.

A critic of the report said at the time "the real agenda of higher education today is the concern with problem solving, critical thinking, communicating and learning how to value."

I think I've heard similar sentiments expressed in this thread. It's hard to think critically and communicate your results when only a little more than a third of all universities require English Comp.

Again, I don't know what study you're citing in regards to U.S. college students outperforming international students. I did a quick Google search but couldn't find anything.

Barkeep said:
Two things. First off, what's that line about those not knowing history being doomed to repeat it? Knowing Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president is not trivial. Knowing what happened in this country during the 1860's is not trivial. I'm astounded that you would take this view.

Secondly, the reason I didn't answer your question about what I needed to learn is because I honestly couldn't understand your question. This is what you originally wrote:

What the hell does that mean? You're not helping your case that we have good schools.

Since you were able to clarify in your second go-around... the answer is everything I learned helped me in my job, because I had no freaking idea what I wanted to do when I graduated. The average American will change jobs three times in their lifetime. They don't know what they'll use their knowledge for either. I knew I wasn't going to do anything with math because I hated math. I wasn't very good at it. But learning to work through math problems helped me become more methodical in my writing. It helped me to understand the importance of taking things one step at a time. And the thing that I loved about math was that there was always a right answer. The challenge was getting from Point A to Point B. It seems like it's not politically correct to have a right answer anymore, because that means teachers will have to tell someone they're wrong, which might hurt their self esteem.

If I didn't answer your question, I'm sorry. And please provide some more information about the study you cited and I'll tell you what I think.

Dawgfan wrote:
Actually, you didn't prove squat. You said the divorce rate and single parenting made things worse, and while I'll agree that bad parents do more damage than teacher unions, I pointed out that the divorce rate is now the lowest it's been since 1972. In fact, there's been a drop of 1.3 divorces per 1,000 since 1982, yet we've seen no corresponding rise in SAT scores or graduation rates. College dropout rates have increased slightly, and the percentage of students who complete a degree within 5 years has decreased.

Tell me what data you'd like me to use to support my position and I'll find it and share it with you. You haven't seemed satisfied with any of the numbers I've shared so far.

Butter wrote:
That was a misquote, and I'm sorry. You did say that's the ideal, though. Using your worst case scenario, the gap betweens the have's and have-nots widens in what way? You'd have even more haves and fewer have-nots. How's that a bad thing?

Butter wrote: Again, you're making the case that it's better to hold everyone back because some people couldn't take you up on the offer of help. The offer is there for everyone. If some people choose not to take it because of apathy, should we punish the parents who DO care? If this comes down to a philosophical difference again, so be it.

Butter wrote: Now you're misquoting me. I questioned whether or not the NEA's position statements were leading to indoctrination. Besides, no one would be forcing kids to go to religious schools. There's a huge difference there.

Butter wrote:
Actually, I've had some pretty good conversations with people that disagree with me. Your arguments really just don't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm just thinking that for a teacher arguing that the status quo is better than a market economy for the industry, you sure do spend a lot of the teaching day on an internet message board. :)

As to Dawgfan and his assertion that what I state aren't facts, I have yet to see any hard numbers from you or Dawgfan refuting what I say.

dola: of course! it must be the standardized tests! Otherwise, why would a 3.8 gpa student have to take remedial courses once he got to college?

Maybe because we're graduating kids who don't know their freakin' multiplication tables.

Maybe because we're graduating kids who use l33t speak in their high school essays (no kidding, got an email from a teacher today who told me they're seeing more and more of it at his high school).

No, it can't be that. It has to be the tests.

It's always easier to blame a piece of paper than a human being... but maybe it's both?

"dola: of course! it must be the standardized tests! Otherwise, why would a 3.8 gpa student have to take remedial courses once he got to college? "

You tell me, genius. If a kid can ace pretty much all the classes they take in high school, ace all of their (non-standardized, teacher created) tests, have no problems whatsoever with their homework, ace all the projects they are given, ace all presentations they are assigned....

Yet they take one standardized test and suddenly they are a remedial student, you tell me what the simplest answer would be. And I'm not just talking about kids from shitty schools located in high poverty areas. This goes for students from all schools, even your precious private religious schools.

"in a 30 year recession. SAT scores are a little lower"

SAT tests are MUCH harder than they were 30 years ago, so comparing scores 30 years ago to scores now is irrelevant.

"Talk to a college professor. Talk to an admissions counselor. They'll tell you the overall quality of the applicants is down"

That's funny, cause when I was in college, I talked to several professors who said that the quality of applicants had risen.

"I think I might have covered this. No, I don't have any data, and quite frankly, I don't feel like spending half an hour looking it up to win an argument on a message board. If you need convincing, do the research yourself. After all, this country's supposed to be teaching us to do stuff like that. Besides, you might be able to prove me wrong. "

LOL...make a positive assertion and ask someone to disprove you...that's classic. Expected, but still classic.

I'm not a teacher, Cam, my wife was.

I'm sorry my points don't make sense to you, but I'm not sure what I can do to make it clearer.

I appreciate having a discussion that doesn't end with "suck my dick, Blacky!" (That's Blackadar for those not familiar.... :) )

I'll just leave with this blanket statement: The free market economic theory does not work for everything. It won't work for schools. I think that salaries of teachers would drop, alienating those even currently thinking of becoming teachers. Private schools with good reputations would enhance them, by admitting only those they wish to admit, and leaving the rest behind. Giving more money to schools that perform well (as would happen with quality schools, since more kids would want to use their vouchers there) would only increase the disparity between the good schools and the bad ones.

Your idea is great in theory, Cam, just like Communism. But it is highly impractical.

So SAT tests are harder. I thought students were supposed to be smarter as well. And why not show me the data that more private school and parochial school students are taking remedial courses at the same level as public school graduates.

As for me not providing data... I've provided more numbers and figures on this subject than anybody else posting. Again, I don't feel like spending half an hour looking this stuff up to win an argument.

You know, I really don't like the tone that this debate has taken... and that includes what I myself have said. I think it's best that I pick up my toys and go home.

See y'all in the Christina Aguilera thread.

"So SAT tests are harder. I thought students were supposed to be smarter as well"

And if they weren't, the SAT scores would have dropped into the hundreds, and not just the slight decrease they have...

As for the tone, I responded in the tone I did not because I was mad or anything, it's just that is someone is going to talk down to me and mock me, I'll respond in kind.

See you in the Christina Aguilerroa....Christina Agulerrio....Christiania Agulalla....in the slut thread.

dola...

please...

"Your idea is great in theory, Cam, just like Communism. But it is highly impractical."

if there's one thing that is not good in theory, it's communism. :D

I didn't claim to prove anything other than that you have not proven your point. To reiterate: the studies or statistics you cite claim to show that despite improvements in student:teacher ratios and per-pupil education spending, student achievement scores have not improved. You use this as proof that these efforts supported by the NEA have not improved education.

The problem with this assumption is that it doesn't take into account the other major factor, which is the quality of the students themselves. To break it down, you have here an equation where factors A & B produce results C. Your argument is that despite changes in A, the results of C haven't changed, and thus the changes to A have been ineffectual. The problem is that we can't be sure that B hasn't also changed.

I cited a number of reasons why I think B has changed. Divorce rate is but one factor among many. We have a society where more and more households have both parents working, i.e. less time at home available to help their children with their studies. This doesn't mean I think all such situations result in reduced student effectiveness - I'm sure there are many parents in this situation that will sacrifice their own personal time to ensure their kids will have the needed attention and support to make the most of their education. But, this will not be the case for all such situations.

There also seems to be an increase in the negative attitude towards education in youth, an attitude that has been reflected in popular culture. I don't have any studies at hand to support this claim - this is a personal observation, but I believe it to be true. Feel free to prove me wrong if you have the data.

I also believe there has been an increase in single-parent households, as the cycle of single-moms has created a viscious circle. Again, I don't have the data on hand to support this, but my impression is that this is true.

As the rise in disparity between the poor and rich coupled with the decline of the middle class occurs, you have greater possibilities of seeing disadvantaged, disillusioned and poorly supported kids entering our public schools and having a negative impact on the learning environment. As a few have already pointed out, it takes only a small number of disruptive students to ruin a classroom environment.

So, the fact that the divorce rates have actually improved slightly over that last 20 years doesn't disprove my theory, which is that the social landscape has changed for the worse in terms of developing an engaged and supported student population.

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

You keep avoiding my points, so I'll ask you directly:

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, improving student:teacher ratios will not improve the quality of the education?

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, and assuming that most of that money is going towards student learning supplies, improvements in infrastructure, more school programs etc. and not into the pockets of administrators etc., increasing the amount of money spent on education will not improve the quality of that education?

I stand by my assertion that, if the student achievement numbers you cite are true, and that student performance has not improved despite improvements in student:teacher ratios and improvements in per-pupil spending, it is because the improvements they've generated have been offset by declines in the quality of the student population.

Of course, you claim to be finished with this thread, so I don't suppose you'll answer my questions. Too bad...