Thinking over the education issue.

[SackAttack]

Inspired partially by miami_fan's thread about vouchers getting struck down in Florida.

What's the biggest issue facing education? Self-evident answer: resources.

Or, perhaps a more targeted answer might be "use of resources."

Schools in more affluent communities tend to be better funded. Because they have better funding, they can offer more attractive compensation packages.

As a result, the states with fewer resources wind up with poorer education systems because a disporportionate amount of those resources must go towards teacher pay, with less being spent on items such as up-to-date textbooks, computers, and whatever else might be considered an essential or desirable supply.

The way I see it, there are three answers to the question of resource allocation:

1) Spend more money - either in terms of a net increase in budgeted spending, or in terms of a shell game, moving dollars from one part of the budget to another - particularly in areas that traditionally lack such resources. That, almost certainly, would require either substantial cutbacks in other areas of the budget, or a tax increase. The former is sort of in a weird position right now, because the Republicans are already angling for some unpopular cutbacks to help finance the Iraq war and other deficit spending from recent years. In other words, how much farther can they really go without reducing the military budget?

The idea of a tax increase, probably with some buzzwords such as "for the wealthiest 1% of Americans," would likely find traction among the Democrats, but is highly unlikely to happen unless the DNP recaptures the Senate in the near future.

2) Drastic overhaul of educational bureaucracy. Nice idea, but I have to think the education lobbies are too strong to really effectively permit this. Not to mention, doing such would free up some resources, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental problem: discrepancies in potential compensation for prospective instructors. Which leads me to:

3) Uniform, federally legislated pay scales for instructors. You teach primary education, you get X. You teach secondary education, you get Y. You teach at the collegiate level, you get Z. The amount would be the same for every teacher at a given level, with territorial COLA adjustments. A teacher in New York would certainly make more than a teacher in Mississippi, but that reflects that the teacher would also be paying out more for living expenses.

But here's the kicker. Make income for teachers a tax-free proposition. Put some limits on a minimum workload, both in terms of quantity and quality, necessary to qualify for tax-exempt status (otherwise, I could already see issues with athletic coaches, particularly at the college level, but even in competitive high school arenas).

No state income tax. No federal income tax. Secondary taxes such as capital gains might still apply, but just as certain states have exemptions on sales tax for military personnel, why not do so for teachers?

By making the income tax-free, and by providing a uniform pay structure, you remove the disincentive for teachers to avoid schools that traditionally lag in performance, or otherwise reside in low-income territories.

You provide an incentive for students to pursue education degrees, and in so doing, hopefully increase the quality level of the instructor pool across the board. There will still be people who can teach, but don't, because they can make more money doing something else, but at least it stops being a matter of "If I teach in Kentucky, can I afford to support my family?"

Maybe most importantly, you free up the lower-income school districts to reallocate the funding they get to pursuits that will benefit the student, rather than quarrelling with the teacher's unions every three years over pay raises, since COLA would already be factored in.

It would (one hopes) be less of a budget issue, since the tax-free income status should allow the states to pay a lower overall salary per instructor than they have in the past, and would allow the states to better account for the money they're spending on education.

I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea whether my proposal would pass legal and Constitutional muster, but it's an idea, and on the face of it, it looks like a pretty good one to me.

Am I pie in the sky here? On target? Headed in the right direction, but with some adjustments needed?

Input would be appreciated.

[Marc Vaughan]

I was personally surprised when I lived in America that for a country which prides itself on people being free to choose for schools it was very 'fixed' where you could go and when ...

England differs hugely, you can send your kids to any school you like pretty much if they're public (ie. non fee paying), if they're private and you can afford it and your child meets the entry criteria (private schools can require certain performance to enter) then ditto.

My kids even go to a school in a different county (roughly equivalent to 'state' for you lot) because my wife and I prefer them to the schools in our local town (its only 15 minutes down the road because we're on the cusp between counties).

Advantages of this setup is that parents can in the main ensure that their kids go to a fairly decent school, schools in turn have pressure to perform or they lose pupils and thus funding.

Disadvantages is that the league tables of pupil results get over-emphasised at schools (because of the 'advantages' above) and this can at some schools place too much pressure on students imho (for instance my daughter originally went to a school which pulled its kids in for early morning study for their SATS when they're 8 - SATS which imho mean didly squat to the kids long term - but a lot for the schools funding).

PS> I always wanted to be a teacher growing up and imho the pay teachers get in the UK is bloody awful, considering what they contribute to society their renumeration is dreadful ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Am I pie in the sky here? On target? Headed in the right direction, but with some adjustments needed? Input would be appreciated.

Probably more pie in the sky than anything else, for the various & very reasons you pointed out yourself along the way.

One thing I would suggest is that you revisit a primary part of your premise though -- namely, that funding is the key to the puzzle. There's a number of studies that show that this simply isn't so, and the reading I've done suggests that the "money, money, money" chorus is the social equivalent of junk science of the highest order.

There's a good bit of information out there, although it does take some sorting to find it & can be very tedious to sort out but here's a decent enough short starter article to get you headed in the right direction -- I'm working from the belief that you haven't seen all of this & haven't already dismissed it for whatever reason. (In other words, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I'm just trying to provide some things that don't get a lot of media play & therefore aren't as commonly known/seen/read. If you've already looked, then just disregard this & consider it only as material for those who haven't).

Here's the commentary plus key link
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005418

For those in a hurry, here's just the key chart
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/073004rando.gif

Bottom line, there's "virtually no link between spending and performance."

edit to add: Just out of curiosity, I looked up something else too ... Kentucky is actually 34th among states in average teacher salaries ;)
http://www.aft.org/salary/2004/download/2004AFTSalarySurvey.pdf

[GrantDawg]

I was personally surprised when I lived in America that for a country which prides itself on people being free to choose for schools it was very 'fixed' where you could go and when ...

England differs hugely, you can send your kids to any school you like pretty much if they're public (ie. non fee paying), if they're private and you can afford it and your child meets the entry criteria (private schools can require certain performance to enter) then ditto.

My kids even go to a school in a different county (roughly equivalent to 'state' for you lot) because my wife and I prefer them to the schools in our local town (its only 15 minutes down the road because we're on the cusp between counties).

Advantages of this setup is that parents can in the main ensure that their kids go to a fairly decent school, schools in turn have pressure to perform or they lose pupils and thus funding.

Disadvantages is that the league tables of pupil results get over-emphasised at schools (because of the 'advantages' above) and this can at some schools place too much pressure on students imho (for instance my daughter originally went to a school which pulled its kids in for early morning study for their SATS when they're 8 - SATS which imho mean didly squat to the kids long term - but a lot for the schools funding).

PS> I always wanted to be a teacher growing up and imho the pay teachers get in the UK is bloody awful, considering what they contribute to society their renumeration is dreadful ...


That is very interesting. Isn't the schools broken up different in the secondary level also?

[Cringer]

Texas schools are horrible. It is all about teaching the kids what is on the state tests, so the schools can get as much money as possible. This system has to be changed because it limits what kids are being taught. Of course, my daughter is home schooled. :D

[wade moore]

Probably more pie in the sky than anything else, for the various & very reasons you pointed out yourself along the way.

One thing I would suggest is that you revisit a primary part of your premise though -- namely, that funding is the key to the puzzle. There's a number of studies that show that this simply isn't so, and the reading I've done suggests that the "money, money, money" chorus is the social equivalent of junk science of the highest order.

There's a good bit of information out there, although it does take some sorting to find it & can be very tedious to sort out but here's a decent enough short starter article to get you headed in the right direction -- I'm working from the belief that you haven't seen all of this & haven't already dismissed it for whatever reason. (In other words, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I'm just trying to provide some things that don't get a lot of media play & therefore aren't as commonly known/seen/read. If you've already looked, then just disregard this & consider it only as material for those who haven't).

Here's the commentary plus key link
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005418

For those in a hurry, here's just the key chart
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/073004rando.gif

Bottom line, there's "virtually no link between spending and performance."

edit to add: Just out of curiosity, I looked up something else too ... Kentucky is actually 34th among states in average teacher salaries ;)
http://www.aft.org/salary/2004/download/2004AFTSalarySurvey.pdf
I've stayed on the sidelines for much of this school discussion in various threads, mostly because I tend to get emotional and angry when the debates go on this subject... and I like to avoid that here...

anyway... I've wanted to say what Jon said for quite some time... this is not a "money fixes everything" as many have suggested in the other threads, etc...

In fact, from everything i've read (no link handy and can't search right now) Washington, DC schools spend the most money per student, and are very commonly considered to have the worst schools in the nation.

i'm not saying some schools don't need more funding, but there is often MUCH more to it than that.... But, I'll stay out of that argument.. ;)...

[Desnudo]

I think you're missing a key thing: 4) provide incentive for teachers to actually perform their job well. A mediocre teacher should not be compensated at the same level as a superb one. And if you are truly bad, then there should be a process for removal.

[GrantDawg]

I've stayed on the sidelines for much of this school discussion in various threads, mostly because I tend to get emotional and angry when the debates go on this subject... and I like to avoid that here...

anyway... I've wanted to say what Jon said for quite some time... this is not a "money fixes everything" as many have suggested in the other threads, etc...

In fact, from everything i've read (no link handy and can't search right now) Washington, DC schools spend the most money per student, and are very commonly considered to have the worst schools in the nation.

i'm not saying some schools don't need more funding, but there is often MUCH more to it than that.... But, I'll stay out of that argument.. ;)...

Money can help, and there are definitely some schools that are under-funded. The number one indicator of student success that I've seen over and over again is parent involvment. I think increasing parential involvment along with giving the schools the ability to enforce stronger discipline would make a huge difference. The "how" on both of those is the problem.

[Crapshoot]

I'm in favor of vouchers and a general reform of the education system, but there's one point a teacher friend of mine raised with regards to evaluation of teachers - how do you do it exactly ? Test Scores - its a perverse incentive such that the teacher will spend her time concentrating on the middling performers who could have the greatest magnitude of performance increase. Student Questions ? Many of us can honestly our best teachers, in retrospect, pushed us harder than we wanted to be pushed, and we may not have liked them at the time. Its a perfectly valid idea - to link teachers to merit and reward them for it, but I'm unsure about how to measure this skill, so to speak.

[wade moore]

I'm in favor of vouchers and a general reform of the education system, but there's one point a teacher friend of mine raised with regards to evaluation of teachers - how do you do it exactly ? Test Scores - its a perverse incentive such that the teacher will spend her time concentrating on the middling performers who could have the greatest magnitude of performance increase. Student Questions ? Many of us can honestly our best teachers, in retrospect, pushed us harder than we wanted to be pushed, and we may not have liked them at the time. Its a perfectly valid idea - to link teachers to merit and reward them for it, but I'm unsure about how to measure this skill, so to speak.
another point i'm trying to stay away from, but you've echoed at least some of my thoughts...

[st.cronin]

I'm in favor of vouchers and a general reform of the education system, but there's one point a teacher friend of mine raised with regards to evaluation of teachers - how do you do it exactly ? Test Scores - its a perverse incentive such that the teacher will spend her time concentrating on the middling performers who could have the greatest magnitude of performance increase. Student Questions ? Many of us can honestly our best teachers, in retrospect, pushed us harder than we wanted to be pushed, and we may not have liked them at the time. Its a perfectly valid idea - to link teachers to merit and reward them for it, but I'm unsure about how to measure this skill, so to speak.

Hogwash. Teachers just don't want to be evaluated, and this is one argument they make. The same argument can be made of any other profession - how do you evaluate a police officer? # of arrests? Whether the citizenry like him/her?

It's not easy to come up with a uniform evaluation process for any profession - but it doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means you have to be careful in crafting such an evaluation process. It is, in my opinion, absolutely essential to evaluate teachers.

[wade moore]

Hogwash. Teachers just don't want to be evaluated, and this is one argument they make. The same argument can be made of any other profession - how do you evaluate a police officer? # of arrests? Whether the citizenry like him/her?

It's not easy to come up with a uniform evaluation process for any profession - but it doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means you have to be careful in crafting such an evaluation process. It is, in my opinion, absolutely essential to evaluate teachers.
wow.

I've read what crapshoot wrote 5 times to find where he or his teacher friend said that teachers should not be evaluated.

For some strange reason, I can't find it.

All he was saying is that we have to be very careful in how we do it. Some states already measure teachers in large part by test scores, as it is "easy". If a merit based system comes into place, it needs to be one that actually works and isn't just "easy". That to me, is what crapshoot was saying.

[st.cronin]

wow.

I've read what crapshoot wrote 5 times to find where he or his teacher friend said that teachers should not be evaluated.

For some strange reason, I can't find it.

All he was saying is that we have to be very careful in how we do it. Some states already measure teachers in large part by test scores, as it is "easy". If a merit based system comes into place, it needs to be one that actually works and isn't just "easy". That to me, is what crapshoot was saying.

If that's what was meant, then we are in agreement. You certainly can't deny that teachers unions are against evaluation, though - and that's the justification that they use.

[wade moore]

If that's what was meant, then we are in agreement. You certainly can't deny that teachers unions are against evaluation, though - and that's the justification that they use.
Don't get me started on teachers' unions ;)...

[BuffaloHuskey]

Random thoughts on this.....

I would vote in favor of making teacher's salaries tax-free

In addition, I would be in favor of a program which pays back a teacher's student loan if they stay in the profession for a minimum of five years. I know they have some version of this program right now, but it should be expanded.

Barrier to entry in the public school system in New York State, for those who want to move into the education field from other careers is extremely high. Some reforms need to be made in this area for those who want to be educators who can not afford to quit their job to meet the approrpriate education requirements to get certified. Life experience should count for something.

I have always wondered why private schools get touted for providing such a better education when typically, they are not getting top-notch teachers due to the low pay of most private schools. I went to a college in which approximately 50% of the graduates have education degrees, and I do not know one of them that would take a private school gig over a public school job (due to the low pay and poor benefits of private schools).

[RendeR]

For those in a hurry, here's just the key chart
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/073004rando.gif

Bottom line, there's "virtually no link between spending and performance."

I have to disagree with this statement as it relates to the data in that chart.

For example, lets look at just the 4th grade results:

for the 28 states listed that increased their spending by approximately 16% or more:
12 Improved
7 didn't respond or couldn't give a response
8 remained static/Flat
1 Declined

Of those with results thats 12 out of 20 with BETTER results, a 60% improvement rating.

Compare this with the 23 states spending less than 15% more over the same period:
4 Improved
3 no reponses
0 declined
16 flatlined

Which gives a 20% imprivement rate, so perhaps its not dependant on just giving money to the programs, but giving enough to really make a difference. 60% improvement might disapoint some spenders, but if its an education issue even the 20% looks better than nothing.

Now the 8th graders in that chart show only about 20-25% improvement, and an equal decline rate, but I personally think that you have to look at the age of those kids and the effect their environment plays on them and factor all of that into things as well. Teenagers don't generally want to try, especially recent generations of them. Its easier to blow things off and go skating/play video games/sports.

The 4th graders IMO show a more accurate effect of money being put into their educations than teenagers do because the 4th graders are still developing and are generally easier to keep on track with what the classes are teaching. Teenagers may act attentive and still simply blow off whatever is trying to be taught to them(I'm a PRIME example of this, I never had to try in High School, I got A's and B's without doing a single page of homework or ever reading my texts. I was bored and had more important things to think about, sports and girls)

So i think that blanket statement that there is no evidence to support money making things better, in your own example, is actually false. Maybe someone with a better ability to analyse data can see something I'm missing for/against the whole thing, I dunno. Seems pretty ovbious money DOES in fact have a solid bearing on at least the grade school kids.

[SackAttack]

One thing I think folks are maybe getting mixed up with here, is I'm not saying that throwing more money at the problem is the solution. I said that's one approach, but not one I agree with.

What I believe my proposal would do is free up some of the resources already allocated so that what's being spent can be *better targeted," and remove the disincentive for teachers to ply their trade in traditionally run-down territories.

Just wanted to clarify that. Spending an extra $10 billion? Nice idea, but I think what's already being spent can be better managed (and I think this is one way to do that) before we look at spending more than we already are.

[MalcPow]

I honestly think that, at some point, the efficiencies gained in the business world by the rise of the pc, the internets ( :D ), etc, will finally trickle down into education. I think people are unaware of just how little these things have impacted the basic curriculum and teaching model of our public schools. We are talking about probably the greatest information tools of the last hundred years (if not more) and we haven't even begun to tap their potential to teach and engage young people in the classroom.

Money is not really the solution most of the time. It may be part of the problem in some places, but it's not the silver bullet. A first year DC public school teacher makes 40k for their 9 month job (a difficult nine months for sure, but nine months nonetheless), what I would call a pretty attractive starting salary for anyone with a liberal arts degree. But as mentioned above... DC Public Schools are a total shitshow, just a complete mess that should probably be thrown out of discussions like this because I think it would be difficult to replicate their ineptitude unless you really tried to do so. Not to mention there are a number of other factors working against the DC system (a large poor population lacking social pressure to succeed academically, even better paying school districts all around it in the suburbs, and a generally deserved reputation for being unsafe work environments at the secondary level), so in a certain sense throwing money at DC's problem certainly isn't the solution unless we start talking about serious pie in the sky numbers. But I'm sure there are places where money would go a longer way.

I also agree, as mentioned above, that there are some barriers to an education career that have oddly enough been created by No Child Left Behind, but ultimately I'm not sure that this is a net negative. When I was offered a DCPS teaching position coming out of Georgetown I was going to have to take two years of night school on top of teaching to become fully certified, and to meet NCLB's mandatory requirements. I basically wanted to continue working as a 6th grade teacher at an elementary school I had run a tutoring program with for two years, where the principal and both counselors were more than a little encouraging toward my accepting a position, but it just didn't make sense for me. I wanted to do something meaningful, but I wasn't looking for total martyrdom. I'm sure that NCLB has done some good by placing tougher restrictions on the less qualified end of the spectrum, but it has also put a burden on smart kids from good schools that want to give back for some amount of time before going on to other things. I think programs like Teach For America, where recent grads sign up for two-year stints as teachers without the onus of the requisite certifications but with little certainty where they will be placed, help to alleviate these barriers, but TFA was very competitive when I was doing some recruiting work for them a few years ago and from what I hear it has gotten even moreso as it has become a feel-good resume gold star for kids trying to go to Ivy law schools. I think broader programs like this would help a lot, even with their relatively short-term commitment (as a gradeschool kid, do you really think that much about where your 5th grade teacher is when you've moved on to 7th grade?) but I also think official government involvement would kill what TFA does well (find passionate smart kids that are signing on for a manageable commitment at a time where they can afford to eat a couple years).

Anyway, I look up and I've been rambling. I still think the big part of the answer is in redefining the ways in which we teach. Tapping into the vigor of new technologies has the potential to unlock so much more young brainpower than anything else imaginable. I think you can buy computers with money, but schools still don't know what to do with the damn things other than teach typing classes. If we get that figured out, maybe we're onto something. Heck I probably learned more world history reading Civilization documentation than in any class I ever took.

[wade moore]

Good post MP...

I think what many overlook (not pointing at you Sack) is there is no "quick fix"... there's not some huge lack of interest amongst teachers, i think a majority of teachers are well-qualified (some seem to have this sense that there is a ton of incompetency in teaching, i disagree), most schools are doing everything they can to encourage parent involvement (only so much you can do here), and it is hard to hold the school responsible for cultural values built-in to certain areas (like MP mentions with DC)... I think the bigger fix here is a a social/cultural one, not something inherent in the schools.

My $.02, the outside forces have declined a lot more in the last 50 years than the actual schools themselves.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is the problem with funding education: as countries get richer and richer, cost of labor goes up and up. Companies can deal with this one of two ways, either substituting capital for labor by increasing productivity (ie, buying machines to do the automated work) or outsourcing labor to a poorer country. For education, it is extremely hard to substitute capital for labor, because educating children is extremely labor intensive. It's possible to outsource it by say sending our kids off to India for their education, but there are obvious problems with that too. So what it means is that as countries get richer, the system as a whole gets more and more inefficient because it takes more and more money to produce meaningful positive changes. What it means is that when compared to other countries, the US will always lag behind in terms of efficiency for education. It's not necessarily a result of failing systems, but the result of basic economics. Better education policy can help, but it can't change the basic reality.