Education

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yes, it's simple, I think. People who home school their kids are making a tremendous investment of time and dedication to make sure their children are well educated. I can't prove it, but I bet parents who are similarly engaged in their child's education at a decent public school have similar results. Well, anecdotally I can tell you that my wife and I sure spend a lot of our energy working with our kids and they're both doing very, very well.

There is our common ground. Give the folks that care the tools to improve their kid's education and they will.

wcelliot wrote: If you approach the same issue from a capitalist philosophical perspective, your solution will invariably be capitalist/market oriented in nature.

I'm honestly interested in hearing the capitalist solution to improving education. No, I'm not kidding. I'd really like to take a look at that position.

wcelliot wrote: Until you are openly willing to completely break the system (raher than spending even more money on it), you remain part of the problem vice part of the solution, no matter how noble your intentions may be.

Well, again, I posted a really long dissertation on my idea for improving our education system. If it wasn't breaking the current system, I don't know what is. I'm going to say this again just 'cause I think it kind of ticks you off...

I agree with you.

wcelliot wrote: There is our common ground. Give the folks that care the tools to improve their kid's education and they will.

'Bout God Damn time.

Night all.

In reply to wcelliot:

And now I am going to flounder pointlessly. Half of that post sounded completely...umm... how can I put this... crazy. Anyway having just come out a public school only a few years ago. Here is my observations. One money often does go to the wrong things. Making the outside of the school look good, sports, etc. Two 90% of new teachers suck ass. I have come to the conclusion that teachers consist of two kinds of people. One people who think it will be an easy major and want to party through college and two the people who really really really want to do it. You can say it pays well over whatever but compared to jobs which take the same level of schooling it really doesn't. $34k for 4 years of college versus $55k for the same time in engineering. I know which one I would choose. Three I noticed the biggest indicator of how well a kid did in school was how much their parents gave a crap. All my friends had very involved parents and we all scored very well on the ACTs (most above 30) and we all went to college many on scholarship whereas most of my school is just popping out babies. I would love to the opinion and experience of some of the younger people on this forum who have been in the school system more recently.

For my post being "crazy" we seem to have a lot of the same opinions.

You can say it pays well over whatever but compared to jobs which take the same level of schooling it really doesn't. $34k for 4 years of college versus $55k for the same time in engineering

Actually, no. It may be the same length of time, but I would not consider the amount of "schooling" necessary to be a teacher anywhere near that to be an engineer. The starting salaries indeed at least partially reflect the level of schooling necessary.

Teaching pays extremely well (especially when you consider benefits) for the level of effort needed to become one. (Interestingly, private school teachers tend to make a lot less than public school teachers... and yet there is no shortage of teachers applying for those jobs... and have far, far, less administration/bureacractic overhead. That's one reason the commercial market is able to provide the same or better education at a much lower cost.)

93EXCivic wrote: You can say it pays well over whatever but compared to jobs which take the same level of schooling it really doesn't. $34k for 4 years of college versus $55k for the same time in engineering. I know which one I would choose.

I mistakingly believed that too, when I was younger. Over the life of a career, it's unlikely that it is true.

I pursued that thinking. Work hard. Earn the most I can when I can. I am a construction professional, probably in the top tier of what can be accomplished in my field after 35 years of experience.

My father is a retired teacher. He is 84, retired for 22 years. He is reasonably well cared for through his ongoing benefits from being a teacher. Additionally, his quality of life has always been quite good. He parlayed a nice life off his school networking, and the people and opportunities he met along the way.

Although I make more than he ever did, I fight to break even, and my nut is shrinking.

The fact is that if I had pursued my original career choice (Industrial Arts teacher) I'd be better off now (at the age of 49).

I'm not complaining. My life is good. But I was mistaken when I measured the benefits of a career based solely on the short term annual income.

wcelliot wrote: For my post being "crazy" we seem to have a lot of the same opinions. You can say it pays well over whatever but compared to jobs which take the same level of schooling it really doesn't. $34k for 4 years of college versus $55k for the same time in engineering Actually, no. It may be the same length of time, but I would not consider the amount of "schooling" necessary to be a teacher anywhere near that to be an engineer. The starting salaries indeed at least partially reflect the level of schooling necessary. Teaching pays extremely well (especially when you consider benefits) for the level of effort needed to become one. (Interestingly, private school teachers tend to make a lot less than public school teachers... and yet there is no shortage of teachers applying for those jobs... and have far, far, less administration/bureacractic overhead. That's one reason the commercial market is able to provide the same or better education at a much lower cost.)

I agree with you.

It's insane how easy it is to get through an "education" curriculum. I know a lot of people go into teaching because they can't get through a more rigorous program. That's part of the problem.

I'll correct you on one point. Teaching does not "pay" well. It pays pretty poorly, but the overall compensation package is pretty good, particularly retirement benefits. I wish I had some fraction of the retirement benefits waiting for me that Teachers have. However, they're not the only unionized group with absurd retirement benefits and the actual job is a lot more difficult that it once was thanks in large part to meddling at the federal level.

However, in many areas there are legitimate teacher shortages. We have to ask our selves why such a decent job that's relatively easy to get the credentials for would have difficulty attracting good candidates. Of course, the answer is easy. I wouldn't take those jobs if you offered me three times the starting salary. The working conditions in some of those schools is reprehensible. I'm pretty sure if we fix that we'd fix a lot of the problem.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yes, it's simple, I think. People who home school their kids are making a tremendous investment of time and dedication to make sure their children are well educated. I can't prove it, but I bet parents who are similarly engaged in their child's education at a decent public school have similar results. Well, anecdotally I can tell you that my wife and I sure spend a lot of our energy working with our kids and they're both doing very, very well.

I agree, but I also think there are other things worth considering.

• Age segregation- For some reason, we seem to think it is a good idea to divide groups of children into little batches of people-o-trons who happen to have the same date of manufacture. All groups will have leaders. If leaders can't be determined by age or experience, then they will be determined by other factors, like who is the strongest bully, or the class clown. Home schoolers are not segregated by age- they are mixed up like an old one-room schoolhouse.

• Classical education ideas- Sometimes new-fangled ideas don't work. Public schools seem to always be trying to re-invent the wheel, home schoolers generally stick with the tried-and-true. A passion for learning will carry someone a LOT farther than any amount of computer labs or athletic equipment.

• Socialization- The classic attack on home schooling is really one of the best defenses for it. Why do we think that grouping a bunch of similar people-o-trons is going to create well-rounded individuals? Public school is the only venue in life where this happens. Doesn't happen in college, work, politics, or communities. Home schoolers interact daily with people different than themselves (adults, older students, younger students, etc).

• World view- I'll toss this one in without much comment. I don't want to focus on this from an educational perspective, but there are differences in perspective from the average mainstream teaching establishment mentality and the average home schooling one.

• Bigger is NOT better- I know it's anti-American, but I no longer believe this.

I could go on for a long time, but those are a few.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Teaching does not "pay" well. It pays pretty poorly, but the overall compensation package is pretty good,

Teachers in the public schools in my area make between $55k and $90k. I'm not sure what your definition of good is but I know a couple of engineers that won't make 90k before they get a 20 year pin.

Read and decide for yourself. Who's interest is being served? http://educationnext.org/the-long-reach-of-teachers-unions/

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We gotta stop this. Not you and me - all of us. It's not "us" and "them". It's just us. We all believed that until the ass holes on cable TV told us otherwise. Anyone who makes their living driving Americans apart is the enemy. They've done more harm to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to do.

a-berkeleying-men

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: If you approach the same issue from a capitalist philosophical perspective, your solution will invariably be capitalist/market oriented in nature.

I'm honestly interested in hearing the capitalist solution to improving education. No, I'm not kidding. I'd really like to take a look at that position.

FWIW, I actually think that the vouchers are one of the better capitalist solutions. The consumer is allowed to spend their dollars on the education that is best for them. Public education is basically a monopoly, and with the introduction of vouchers, they have to compete. Competition breeds excellence.

I think that one of the things that lit up "us vs. them" was when you derided vouchers in one of your early posts. I'm curious in hearing why you think it's a bad thing.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Teaching does not "pay" well. It pays pretty poorly, but the overall compensation package is pretty good,

Teachers in the public schools in my area make between $55k and $90k. I'm not sure what your definition of good is but I know a couple of engineers that won't make 90k before they get a 20 year pin.

Mind if I ask where you are? I don't think they do that well here in Denver. In fact I think the average is somewhere around 50k.

Personally I think it's a very important job and we should pay whatever it takes to attract the best people available. For reasons I touched on above, we tend to get a lot on the other end of the spectrum right now, I think.

I feel the same way about police too. These jobs have some similarities. They both attract some percentage of people who do it for all the right reasons and are fantastic. But they both also attract some people for all the wrong reasons. We need very, very good people in these positions.

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, I actually think that the vouchers are one of the better capitalist solutions. The consumer is allowed to spend their dollars on the education that is best for them. Public education is basically a monopoly, and with the introduction of vouchers, they have to compete. Competition breeds excellence. I think that one of the things that lit up "us vs. them" was when you derided vouchers in one of your early posts. I'm curious in hearing why you think it's a bad thing.

Okay, fair question. This is all just my opinion and I’m happy to listen to other points of view. This is kind of off the top of my head, so I reserve the right to change my mind. I'm not locked into some opinion based on some left or right label.

I do think vouchers are terrible. It's one of those half way measures that makes nothing better. The public schools get less, but the vouchers aren’t enough to cover the cost of private school for the poorest people. If we don't want public schools, let's have the courage to say so in so many words. This death by a million cuts is not an effective way to take care of the situation.

We either make the public schools work, and work for everyone or we abandon the idea of free public education all together. There is no monopoly, far from it. There are many, many private schools. But they are just that, private. If you want to pay for them, do so with private funds, not public money. There's nothing Capitalistic, in my opinion, about diverting tax funds to private businesses. We're all forced to pay the taxes, but some of that money is then sent to private industry. That's very similar to the opposition to the health care plan, though it compels you to pay private industry directly. But it's very close, really. If they just raised taxes and the government paid the insurance companies directly it would be pretty much the same thing as school vouchers. Pay a little more and get private insurance. Can't afford or don't want that? Okay, you get the public option.

Think of it this way – I pay taxes for the police force here in Denver. Some folks, literally across the street from me, pay for private security. That’s fine. There are loads of private security companies available for hire. But those people still pay for the police force. The police force doesn’t work – our cities are riddled with crime. Call the police when your car is broken into in a major U.S. city and they won’t even pretend that they will make an effort to catch the people who did it. If you want that kind of protection, you pay a private industry with private funds. But no one says we should cut police funding, or asks why we’re paying for a service we’re not getting. No one claims there is a Socialist, or ‘leftist’ plot to indoctrinate our society into the pseudo-military structure of a public police force. No one says “they’re taking our freedom” when they directly have the authority to do exactly that.

I’m not suggesting we cut police funding or saying they’re taking my freedom, by the way. I think the police, despite the anecdotes you hear on local news, do a pretty amazing job given the resources they have. But like public education, I think it could be

Sorry, need to add another thought. Vouchers are a very flawed mechanism for introducing competition. Private schools paid for with public voucher funds only get students from parents willing to pay extra for their child’s education. Public schools don’t have that option. It’s not a level playing field. I guarantee that more involved parents breed better performing students. There are many of those in the public school too, but the public school has to take everyone. Kids on drugs, up all night doing God only knows what with parents who wish they had never been born are not going to be good students and are going to make it very difficult for other kids to learn. If the public schools had the option of identifying problem students and private schools had to take a percentage of them paid for with voucher funds I think things would look very different.

Force a "home school" to take a couple of those kids and I bet it would look different too. If they're all "schools" competing against each other, make the rules the same for all of them.

ONE MORE THOUGHT and then I should probably do some work.

There is a public school here in Denver called The Denver School of Science and Technology. Public school. Costs nothing to go. But, it’s a lottery to get in. If you want your kid to go there you have to take the pro-active step of filling out the forms, getting them to the meeting and enrolling them in the lottery. Even then, no guarantee- far from it. Only about a third who apply get in selected totally at random. We hoped our son would go there, but no such luck.

Here’s the thing. It’s not a lot of work, but it does require some parental involvement. As a “charter school” they also don’t have to conform to the absurd curriculum and testing regimen the government forces the “regular” schools to do. Since they opened their doors in 2001, 100% of their students have graduated and been accepted to college. That’s outstanding. Teachers here are climbing over each other to get jobs there because it’s an awesome place to work. So they have an outstanding staff.

Parents who give a crap, good teachers and government staying out of the way. Sure is a formula that works for them. We should give every neighborhood school those same rules and options. I’m pretty sure that would make things much better.

It appears you are starting with the assumption that public education is a right, and therefore should be shared by all. When you say "the public schools get less", you are assuming they had a right to what they got in the first place.

Keep in mind, they only get less when they suck. Most people would like to see the public schools succeed, but very few are willing to use their kids as guinea pigs in a twenty plus year long experiment.

Vouchers look to me like a method to encourage the public schools to do better, or suffer the consequences. That's what businesses do. Do you have a better Capitalist method to encourage the schools?

If schools are a function of government and compulsory (and free), it's pretty hard to define them as a Capitalist effort. They then align themselves more with Socialist approaches.

SVreX wrote: It appears you are starting with the assumption that public education is a right, and therefore should be shared by all. When you say "the public schools get less", you are assuming they had a right to what they got in the first place.

Read it again. I specifically say otherwise.

Historically, we have commited ourselves to providing free, public education to all children. If we no longer believe in that ideal, we should abandon it. Not destroy it for the benefit of a few who can afford better. But we can't pretend that we're serving all the students in the best way possible by offering an escape option for those who can afford to take advantage of it.

Make it work for eveyone, or admit that we have failed in that mission and abaodon it. We are pretending we can have it both ways. We can not.

SVreX wrote: Do you have a better Capitalist method to encourage the schools?

And quickly, to answer this question, no I do not. Our public school system is inherently a social program, not capitalistic. For a very long time that has been a part of the fabric of our society and something we’ve taken great pride in. The American Dream. If you work hard and apply yourself you have the same chance as anyone else. It’s not like other countries that have a class system. England was always known for this kind of education rationing. I don’t know if they have reformed their system, but only the right kids got to go to the public schools. The others were out of luck.

I’m really sure that moving toward a system like that would make the schools better and kids who are born to parents who care would have a great shot at the American Dream. But we would be abandoning the kids born to the wrong parents. If that’s the best we can do I’m in favor of it. But I think we owe it to ourselves to say “we tried everything else” before we give up on the American Dream.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

It wasn't until 1918 that all states had laws requiring children to attend school (at least through elementary school). That means there were places in the country for over 142 years that did not have compulsory education.

So, historically we have had a longer period of time when compulsory education was NOT required then we have had when it was required.

Additionally, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that states could not compel children to attend public schools (Pierce vs Society of Sisters).

So, there is no mandate for public education, though there are compulsory laws for education, and there is great historical data supporting no compulsory education at all.

There never was a legal recognition that public education works for everyone, or is appropriate. Only laws which require students be educated.

So, while I have to agree that what you are saying also sounds appealing to me, it is simply not the historical or legal perspective.

You are OK with diverting funds for charter schools, but not for others?

Mind if I ask where you are? I don't think they do that well here in Denver. In fact I think the average is somewhere around 50k.

Bucks County, PA previously (which paid even higher) but now I am in a suburb of Scranton.

When we moved here we picked the final location based on the quality of the school system. As a pessimist with 2 boys in grade school I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised that it exceeded my expectations. The school is good - it has a lot of very cool programs that allow students who show aptitude to move forward and "tiers" for those who might need more help in an area to get it without subjecting them to the lowest common denominator across the board. There is plenty of non-sports type of stuff - languages, music, etc. The school does exceptionally well on the standardized testing and the college acceptance is something like 98% if you put stock in that sort of thing (I tend not to). While that is probably the advertising that made us move here - the best measure I have is that my kids like school and they have a genuine interest in learning. They ask to take extra-curricular things that like violin because they want to. That right there is 90% of the battle. A motivated student will make the best of whatever education is available to them even if they aren't fortunate enough to have a good one available. A kid for whom no one lit a spark could be at Harvard and get nothing from it.

SVreX wrote: Your assumptions are incorrect. It wasn't until 1918...

We can argue semantics if you like. I consider 1918 "historically". Change that to "for almost a century" if you like. Whatever. This is kind of tedious. What on earth does it have to do with making our schools better or how we should move forward? "It's not historical; it's only a hundred years!" Again, okay, you win. The schools fixed yet? Or are you only concerned with winning an argument on the internet?

I didn't say there was a mandate. In fact, I suggested that the system of educating everyone should be abandoned if we can't make it work.

We agree.

You're responding to "a liberal" and not what I'm saying. You're assuming beliefs I do not hold.

SVreX wrote: You are OK with diverting funds for charter schools, but not for others?

I am, at least for now. The charter system allows public schools to get around some of the absurd bureaucracy and get back to teaching as they see fit. The good ones do very well. Unfortunately, most charter schools are poor. But the ones that are great are showing a way forward that I hope we're smart enough to adopt for all students. But they are public schools, not available to all, but offered equally to all. You can't buy your way in. A poor kid gets a shot, and at a school like DSST, they are succeeding and living the American Dream as a result.

You sound a little overly sensitive. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a pound of liverwurst, and I've never called you any of them (speaking of assumptions).

SVreX wrote: or a pound of liverwurst

What does one liverwurst say to the other?

Holy crap! A talking liverwurst!

SVreX wrote: You sound a little sensitive. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a pound of liverwurst.

Sensitive? If you say so. But mostly I’m disappointed. No one, anywhere, seems willing or interested in having a discussion of how we might make anything better or moving anything forward. Only defending the talking points they heard on talk radio or cable TV. Your claim that you don’t care what I am is disingenuous. Every word you have said is combative and set on “proving me wrong” even if on some minor, peripheral point. You show no interest in talking about the merits of my ideas or offering alternate ideas. In all these pages, there is one well outlined course of action that might provide a better option than what we have now. That was posted by me. Almost every other point is either advocating spending more, spending less or trying to catch someone in some minor factual error. “Gotcha!” seems to be the primary goal. Being “right” is far more important than finding any answers. And we wonder why Congress is a mess. They’re doing exactly what we’re telling them to do.

I pray the people leading the nation will strive for more. If not, I'm afraid things will get much worse before they get better. United we stand, divided we fall. We're pretty divided and we seem intent on becoming more so.