OT: Teacher Unions

[CamEdwards]

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

[panerd]

Originally posted by CamEdwards

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 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 ) But you have got to be kidding me! 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. Take a minute to realize what makes the private schools go round. (Hint: $$$)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Take a minute to realize what makes the private schools go round.

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

[CamEdwards]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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.

[sabotai]

"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....

[JPhillips]

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?

[CamEdwards]

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).

[sabotai]

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).

[JW]

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.

[Flame Eater]

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?

[Arles]

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

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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.

My point was that the NEA shouldn't be taking a stand on issues like that. That's not the point of the NEA.

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.

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. Then we go on for several paragraphs about how unions work, perhaps in an attempt to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about, but who knows what it was really for.

Then we say this:
To say that every NEA member supports the agenda of the NEA leadership is just ridiculous.

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.

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...).

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?)

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Arles
discipline

What a sweet word Arles

[CamEdwards]

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.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Butter,
Wouldn't the exodus of students compel the public school to perform better?

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.

[Arles]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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

[CamEdwards]

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.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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).

[Butter]

Originally posted by Arles
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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 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.

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.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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.

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.

[Butter]

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

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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.

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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.

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.

[Butter]

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.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Cuervo, it also depends on the field. Special Ed teachers are in great need, but English teachers are not.

Point well taken Butter.

[CamEdwards]

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??

[Barkeep49]

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.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You're killing me. I have news for you. There ARE enough good teachers to go around. Don't believe me? Read these reports.

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....

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??

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

The system as it stands right now sucks. That's the bottom line.

OK, listening... listening....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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??

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?

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
The system as it stands right now sucks.

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.

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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 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.

[Fritz]

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?

[CamEdwards]

Butter,

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

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....

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:

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.

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:

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?

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:

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

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:

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.

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.

[Arles]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[JPhillips]

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.

[Barkeep49]

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.

Originally posted by CamEdwards

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Butter,
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[sabotai]

"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.

[Barkeep49]

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.

[CamEdwards]

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

Okay... from JPhillips:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

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:

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.

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.

[CamEdwards]

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?

[sabotai]

"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.

[Butter]

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.

[CamEdwards]

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.

[sabotai]

"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.

[sabotai]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
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.

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...