Education

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.

My girlfriend is in an education program and I am in an engineering program. Maybe it isn't as hard but it still takes a E36 M3 ton of work esp when you get to student teaching. My girlfriend does nothing but work.

And as far of the same opinions, maybe we do but the way you state them seem makes them seem very different.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

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.

Almost the same here, in small snowy Oswego County, NY. A kid, fresh out of college, starts around $38K(used to be $43K) base with all sorts extras. That's with zero experience. At the end of their third year, their base is $55K. They pay nothing towards health or pension, and health is for life. Not too bad for 180 days(+/-) of 5 periods of classwork. Just a few of the extras include $2000/yr to watch kids get on and off the buses, $5K/yr for having a masters (They have 3 years to get it and it's reimbursed) and $40/hr (or part of) for staying after school to help students. They also got a 4% raise each of the past five years. . I can't blame the teachers, who wouldn't like a gig like that. Our problem is our school board, not demanding accountability, and being fiscally irresponsible.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: 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.

I absolutely agree with that.

It sounds like your kids are in a great shool. There are lots of good ones out there. We should pay more attention to what the good ones are doing right and try to copy it everywhere.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

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

Good stuff.

FWIW, I support vouchers, but also think that a public school system should be part of the landscape. I don't see it as an effort to kill public schools at all.

You are right that it takes that money away from the school, but it also takes that student away from the school. If it takes $10k a year to educate the kid, and the kid is no longer there, then they should net out the same without the $10k. It should be zero-sum for the public school.

Additionally, it isn't the school's money or the government's money. It's my money. If they are taking that money for the stated purpose of providing an education, but are doing a poor job of providing the education, then it seems wrong to continue to allow them access to that money.

I admit, eliminating public education all together does appeal to my libertarian side, but I acknowledge that there are a fair number of numbnuts out there who sooner have their kids grow up to be morons than voluntarily pay for the education. For this reason, I see the collection of taxes for a broad education to be for the greater good. But once it is collected, I think that the distribution should be up to the parents. It basically says "You have to educate your kids, and we're going to guarantee that there is money set aside for that purpose, but the particulars are up to you." The easy button will remain letting them get on the bus and go to the local school. Since people are by and large lazy worthless berkeleys, for this reason I never see the viability of the public schools suffering too bad. If tomorrow we said "Vouchers for everyone!" I bet that a solid 80-90% of people wouldn't change a thing.

But for the ones who do care, or who recognize that their kids are not being well served by the one-size-fits-most model, it gives them a chance to spend the money that was collected for their child's education, on an effective education for that child. That may be a private school. It may be a home school. It may be a charter school. It may be a different public school.

The thing I like most about vouchers is that it gives poor / middle class families the same opportunity as the rich ones. Rich kids will ALWAYS go to the best school. But with vouchers, the ones who can't afford it otherwise also have the opportunity to go to the best school, not just the one that happens to be close to their house.

As an aside - you mentioned that you drive your kid to a good public school because the one close to you sucks. Props to you. Unfortunately, most parents don't have that choice. I know that in GA, you are stuck with the school you are assigned to. Your kid would be stuck in that E36 M3ty school that's 1/4 mile away. Vouchers allow others to have the freedom that you apparently already have.

Enjoying the discussion, as always.

I 100% support vouchers for schools. I'd love to have them available to me. Let me spend MY money (taxes are my money) on the education I want my kids to have not the one some committee thinks they should have.

So, I may of missed it, but how would everyone propose to motivate children to learn when their parents don't care? I have a lot of uneducated friends who were simply never taught the importance of education, and it shows as to where they currently are in life vs myself.

I feel that one thing that is being left out of consideration is that just like criminals, some will ALWAYS be bad apples. I think too much emphasis is being put on "if we change the school system this way, many more students will succeed". I disagree, and would say a FEW more students will succeed, but the cost/benefit ratio isn't really there.

Now, if the costs could be dropped a bit while raising the output of well educated kids, A+!

DILYSI Dave wrote: I admit, eliminating public education all together does appeal to my libertarian side, but I acknowledge that there are a fair number of numbnuts out there who sooner have their kids grow up to be morons than voluntarily pay for the education. For this reason, I see the collection of taxes for a broad education to be for the greater good. But once it is collected, I think that the distribution should be up to the parents. It basically says "You have to educate your kids, and we're going to guarantee that there is money set aside for that purpose, but the particulars are up to you." The easy button will remain letting them get on the bus and go to the local school. Since people are by and large lazy worthless berkeleys, for this reason I never see the viability of the public schools suffering too bad. If tomorrow we said "Vouchers for everyone!" I bet that a solid 80-90% of people wouldn't change a thing.

We're pretty close here. There's a bit of Libertarian in me too and as I've said, it sure looks to me like putting any kind of hurdle up for parents makes a HUGE difference in education.

I'll tell what I think would happen. If parents had to make a decision, I bet a fair number of them who don't give a crap would all of a sudden be saying "hey, I want my kid in the good school!" It would force them to get involved at least in some way. It would also eliminate the excuse that "my kid didn't have a chance because we live in a bad neighborhood". That's a pretty easy cop out for a lot of parents and any easy explanation for why they aren't doing what needs to be done.

I work 60 hours a week, easy. But I get up an hour early so I can drive my kid to a good school. I'll admit I'm pretty lucky in a lot of ways. I have a great wife (who drives even further to take our daughter to the good school waaay across town). But it's a fair bit of effort and it was a fair bit of effort to get him into the school in the first place. I live in a fantastic neighborhood, but the High School not a mile from my house is a "dropout factory". For whatever reason, it's the school they chose to bus all the bilingual kids to. As I said, I'm all for bilingual education, but not at the regular neighborhood school.

Another thing- there are kids there who are taking full advantage of the opportunity they’ve been given. I know a couple of them. Good kids who should be in a good school, not trying their best to get through that hell hole.

If things were set up right, our community would be involved in that school. But no one in the neighborhood sends their kids there. I take that back, ONE friend of my son's goes there. He said there were kids selling drugs during class. He's getting out next year. It’s a crappy school and would be a crappy place to work. I talked to the principal a couple of times and he looks like he graduated last year. No one would want to work there. I’m sure for him it was an opportunity to get a job as a principal and he’ll get out as soon as he can. The way it is now, our neighborhood looks at the school as a problem we have to suffer. It's right on the park too, making some otherwise amazing real estate less valuable because the kids are in the park smoking, doing drugs, getting into trouble all afternoon. That contributes to the resentment communities have for their schools. If it seems like a problem, it’s logical to ask “why am I paying for that to be there?”

I don't have the ultimate answer. I think bussing was an idea that needed to be done. But we need something else now. Maybe instead of trying to integrate our schools we should be trying to integrate our society. But make no mistake. I honestly believe that busing has caused as many problems as it solved. A real effort to fix the schools needs to take a real hard look at busing. It’s part of the problem.

HiTempguy wrote: So, I may of missed it, but how would everyone propose to motivate children to learn when their parents don't care? I have a lot of uneducated friends who were simply never taught the importance of education, and it shows as to where they currently are in life vs myself. I feel that one thing that is being left out of consideration is that just like criminals, some will ALWAYS be bad apples.

I can only speak for myself.

I think kids should be given a chance. But if they don't take advantage of it and are preventing the other students from getting their chance, they need to go.

Personally I think they need to go somewhere and still get a chance. I don't think we should give up on them. But if you don't want to be part of the neighborhood school, that's fine. We don't want you there. Kids are trying to learn. We got no room for you.

The way it works now, we force them to sit there and take up space and resources until they can drop out. That's a waste of time. If their mind is made up and they're not going to even try to take advantage of their free, taxpayer funded education opportunity, they need to get out of the way.

I'll tell what I think would happen. If parents had to make a decision, I bet a fair number of them who don't give a crap would all of a sudden be saying "hey, I want my kid in the good school!" It would force them to get involved at least in some way. It would also eliminate the excuse that "my kid didn't have a chance because we live in a bad neighborhood". That's a pretty easy cop out for a lot of parents and any easy explanation for why they aren't doing what needs to be done.

+1. That's exactly what most of the experiments found.

Those who are against vouchers because it takes money away from public schools are essentially taking the position that we'd rather have everyone equally miserable than be able to help a good percentage of the students.

Those who are against vouchers because they don't pay the full amount of a private education need to realize two things: 1) the current system lobbies very hard to keep the value of those vouchers down so this very criticism can be charged and 2) if the voucher even approached the price of what we're actually spending per student in public schools, the private market could readily provide those services at that price or below.

Do the math... in round numbers... $10,000 per student. 100 students. $1,000,000 annually. 4 accredited teachers with benefits (better ratio than most public schools) $250,000. That leaves $750,000 annually for a suitable facility and profit. Certainly sounds like a reasonable business venture to me... ... you were asking for the market solution here...

wcelliot wrote: +1. That's exactly what most of the experiments found.

Wait. If I'm a "leftist", as you said, and you agree with me...

See, we're much closer on this than you thought.

Here's where we differ. I'm against vouchers on principal. The do not provide everyone with the opportunity. If we took all the money, deducted the administrative costs to running a school, then gave parents 100% choice in where their kids went to school it wouldn't be "vouchers" anymore. It would be an even playing field.

We talked yesterday about some of the absurd costs associated with education due to legal rulings. Right or wrong, those costs exist. Private schools don't have to bear any of that burden, but under a voucher system they still get public funds. They also don't have to conform to the government mandated curriculum or testing regime. If public schools are going to "compete" with private schools, remove the burden of unrelated expense and government curriculum.

But I think a better solution is for public schools to compete with other public schools. It's public money and should be spent on public systems. If parents get 100% say in where their kids go, successful schools will grow and poor schools will close. But all students will get the opportunity to go to a good school, not just the ones who can pay more.

But absolutely- force parents to take some action. Make them be invested in the process. Not many parents will knowingly say "I don't care". We're letting them say that passively. Much harder to do so actively.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: [Private schools] also don't have to conform to the government mandated curriculum or testing regime.

I have completely hijacked this thread. Sorry. Now I'm even responding to myself.

On this note, however...

If people are voting with their decisions, many are voting that the "holding schools accountable through testing" idea failed. They are taking their kids out of schools being "held accountable" and putting them in schools that aren't. And which ones are performing better?

The testing, teaching to the test, and penalizing schools who have classrooms full of kids who don't care is part of the problem.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But I think a better solution is for public schools to compete with other public schools. It's public money and should be spent on public systems. If parents get 100% say in where their kids go, successful schools will grow and poor schools will close. But all students will get the opportunity to go to a good school, not just the ones who can pay more.

So you agree on school choice, just not on allowing the choice to be private schools. An interesting middle ground, but still far better than the status quo.

See, we're much closer on this than you thought.

Actually, we seem to only agree on the problem... our economic views tend to color our solutions, just as I previously pointed out they would. Your solution sounds good in general priniciple, but would not likely work well in practice. (That's a common theme with collectivist ideas..) Not everyone could chose the best public schools there would be a quota system) and it's unlikely that bad schools would close because there would not be better ones to take their place. Already been tried numerous places with charter schools. (Admittedly an improvement over the status quo for those who make the quota...) And as long as you have the massive admin overhead (and still can't get rid of bad performing teachers, reward good performing teachers, etc), the schools will continue to cost far more than in the private market and still not perform as well.

wcelliot wrote: Do the math... in round numbers... $10,000 per student. 100 students. $1,000,000 annually. 4 accredited teachers with benefits (better ratio than most public schools) $250,000. That leaves $750,000 annually for a suitable facility and profit. Certainly sounds like a reasonable business venture to me... ... you were asking for the market solution here...

You're ignoring all the things we talked about yesterday. That isn't how the money is being spent. We like to talk about "per student" spending. But we need to be talking about classroom spending.

Again, if we can cut some of those costs, great. But we have to cut the costs before we cut the spending. We can't, as a society, demand programs, decisions and court rulings, then, as a society, demand that we not have to pay for them. We don't get to say "I'm not paying because I didn't agree with that ruling". I didn't agree with invading Iraq, but I still have to pay for the war and I’m not complaining about it. That's how it works. We're all in it together.

wcelliot wrote: And as long as you have the massive admin overhead (and still can't get rid of bad performing teachers, reward good performing teachers, etc), the schools will continue to cost far more than in the private market and still not perform as well.

I've already agreed with this, but I'll agree again. Teachers union is part of the problem.

Here's what I don't understand. You're quite good at suggesting reasons my ideas won't work. What is your idea that will? (That's typical of intellectual, elitist right wing ideologues. They are all theory and no practice. They speak at great length about why things can't work but offer no solutions.)

If it's vouchers, and let the chips fall where they may, well, then we're there. You should be happy. I don't think we're there. Things still look like they should improve.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: If it's vouchers, and let the chips fall where they may, well, then we're there. You should be happy. I don't think we're there. Things still look like they should improve.

But we're not there. People can't use vouchers.

DILYSI Dave wrote: But we're not there. People can't use vouchers.

That's typical of right-wing naysayers. Always "we can't", never "we can".

Sorry, couldn't resist.

You don't seem to understand that you can't separate classroom spending from overall spending... because the system dictates how money is divided. The system is the issue; the lack of classroom spending is the symptom, not the problem.

I've laid out that vouchers and compeition from private schools would be my solution. It's already working for those than can pay for it... my solution would allow a lot more to pay for it. And being faced with extinction through compeition is the only thing that I see that could potentially alter the current public school bureauracy.

I admit it would likely not help the bottom 10-20%, but then I don't think your plan would either.

You value equality over a higher median level... that's the classic leftist versus capitalist argument. I'd rather see the median raised overall even at the expense of equality (same position I also take economically) while you take the opposite position. As long as you are honest about the position (and its costs), it's a reasonable one to take.

Frankly I don't see anything changing at all any time soon. The system is too embedded and is an issue that will be politically fought to the death... so we're at best bench racing here.

DILYSI Dave wrote: So you agree on school choice, just not on allowing the choice to be private schools. An interesting middle ground, but still far better than the status quo.

You already have and should keep the right to choose private schools. But it should be paid for with private funds, not tax dollars.

And, as I keep saying, I'm for something that will work. Is choice the best answer? I don't know. Seems less than ideal in some ways. In a perfect world I'd like to be able to send my kid the the school near my house and be confident he will get a good education. Choice doesn't get us there. But I'm not opposed to choice if it makes things better. I just want everyone to have the same choice if we're spending tax dollars on it. If you want to fund a private option yourself, I’m fine with that.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: So you agree on school choice, just not on allowing the choice to be private schools. An interesting middle ground, but still far better than the status quo.

You already have and should keep the right to choose private schools. But it should be paid for with private funds, not tax dollars. And, as I keep saying, I'm for something that will work. Is choice the best answer? I don't know. Seems less than ideal in some ways. In a perfect world I'd like to be able to send my kid the the school near my house and be confident he will get a good education. Choice doesn't get us there. But I'm not opposed to choice if it makes things better. I just want everyone to have the same choice if we're spending tax dollars on it. If you want to fund a private option yourself, I’m fine with that.

So how did your kid get to go to the good school that you drive to, instead of the E36 M3ty one up the street? Most people do not have that choice.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: But we're not there. People can't use vouchers.

That's typical of right-wing naysayers. Always "we can't", never "we can". Sorry, couldn't resist.

Huh?

wcelliot wrote: I admit it would likely not help the bottom 10-20%, but then I don't think your plan would either. You value equality over a higher median level... that's the classic leftist versus capitalist argument.

You said yourself that when forced to take an active role in their child's education parents will try to get their kids into a better school. Now you say they won't.

I do not value equality over a higer median level. You're putting words in my mouth. Classic right wing tactics. Tell me what I said and then tell me why it's wrong.

I have said, over and over and over and over and over, and will say again, that students who do not perform should be removed from the school. Students who do not take advantage of the opportunity have no place in the classroom. If a student, given an oppotrunity, choses not to take advantage of the opportunity, he should stop using resources and be removed from the school.

One other point. If you force all students, regardless of their choice to perform or not, to go to the school, and you force the school to take them, you are lowering the medial level for the sake of equality. I'm not in favor of doing that. In fact, I think students who are a problem should be removed from the class room so the medial level can rise, even if that comes at the sake of equality.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Huh?

Just emulating the "debate" style of some of our friends on the forum. Never a direct reply to what you actually said. Always a broad statement about some group they believe you belong to.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Huh?

Just emulating the "debate" style of some of our friends on the forum. Never a direct reply to what you actually said. Always a broad statement about some group they believe you belong to.

Ah. Yeah - that E36 M3 gets old. I'm trying not to do that. Smack me around a bit if I do.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: I admit it would likely not help the bottom 10-20%, but then I don't think your plan would either. You value equality over a higher median level... that's the classic leftist versus capitalist argument.

You said yourself that when forced to take an active role in their child's education parents will try to get their kids into a better school. Now you say they won't. I do not value equality over a higer median level. You're putting words in my mouth. Classic right wing tactics. Tell me what I said and then tell me why it's wrong. I have said, over and over and over and over and over, and will say again, that students who do not perform should be removed from the school. Students who do not take advantage of the opportunity have no place in the classroom. If a student, given an oppotrunity, choses not to take advantage of the opportunity, he should stop using resources and be removed from the school. One other point. If you force all students, regardless of their choice to perform or not, to go to the school, and you force the school to take them, you are lowering the medial level for the sake of equality. I'm not in favor of doing that. In fact, I think students who are a problem should be removed from the class room so the medial level can rise, even if that comes at the sake of equality.

I like this. I just think that it is less workable from a 14th ammendment perspective than vouchers.