Education Reform........

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

I don't care where/how they get there. I care if they are any good/care about what they are doing.




Umm, I am a teacher. I think I know how much I am getting paid/salary schedule, for my area at least. The "bonus" for having a masters degree is so pitiful it isn't even any incentive to get one if you don't already. I believe a starting teacher gets $1000 more for a masters.

It's the same here give or take for the masters.

It's clear to me that 14ers really doesn't know what he's talking about. Go to any county and pull up their salary schedule. Try not picking a district in California that has probably some of the highest paid teachers in the country.

My fiancee has several co-workers who are single that have to keep 2nd jobs just to get by - and this is a relatively low cost of living area with competive wages for teachers compared to the surrounding counties.

Anyone that argues that teachers are OVERPAID really needs to get their facts straight.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This is what I'm talking about when schools raise kids instead of parents.

You are right, but the reality is, in this day, what it is. We deal with the reality of the student and their lives, not what it should be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Anyone that argues that teachers are OVERPAID really needs to get their facts straight.

Based on the productivity of teachers in Georgia, many of them are overpaid.

Having weight & taking up space <> being worth their salary.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Based on the productivity of teachers in Georgia, many of them are overpaid.

Having weight & taking up space <> being worth their salary.

Ok, fair point there.

Anyone that argues that good teachers are OVERPAID really needs to get their facts straight.



I don't think the fact that there are wastes of space as teachers means we need to decrease pay though, it means there needs to be some mechanism to bring in better teachers (higher pay?) and to get rid of crap teachers.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

You are right, but the reality is, in this day, what it is. We deal with the reality of the student and their lives, not what it should be.

Totally agreed. My fiancee and I were discussing this the other day. I am pretty anti-government spending on "entitlements" or whatever you want to call it. But when it comes to kids in school... The kids should not suffer because the parents suck. We should be doing everything we can to get them where they need to be. In an ideal world much of that happens at home, but we're not in an ideal world - so we need to do what we can for the kids.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

We should be doing everything we can to get them where they need to be.

Problem is you're talking about doing it out of MY wallet, at gunpoint no less.

Put measures in place to prevent reckless breeding & then I'll consider it. But damned if I'm going to willingly sink further into the failed business of financing other people's kids.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by duckman

For the dick who thinks that teachers get paid too much:

That is good.

Let's see... I actually have over 160 kids each day but we'll say 160 for so those in bad schools can follow the math better.

160*5= 800
800*180=144000

Add in a bit, also for the training days during the school year plus the time I have to go to training in the summer... I'll take it. That's not too far from 3x what I actually make...after 20 years.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But damned if I'm going to willingly sink further into the failed business of financing other people's kids.

What? You don't agree with the conventional wisdom that it is a good idea for us to pay more taxes/fees to cover for those who won't take proper responsibility for themselves and their children? I do enjoy the few times when we might agree on these matters.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Problem is you're talking about doing it out of MY wallet, at gunpoint no less.

Put measures in place to prevent reckless breeding & then I'll consider it. But damned if I'm going to willingly sink further into the failed business of financing other people's kids.

Your wallet? Taxes isn't your money, it is OUR money. As in We The People's from our, ummm, constitution that provides for the investment in/and protection of our Commons. You can be a conservative asshole that doesn't believe in the social contract that two hundred years of American's have been a part of, but screw you when you call it "MY wallet." As long as you chose to stay here and reap the many benefits of being an American, your taxes isn't your money, any more than the money I owe the cable company for their services is MY money.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it has been proven over and over again that one of the most fiscally responsible ways to spend our money is by investing it in our children. Parents need to take responsibility, sure, but you can either "sink furhter into the failed business of financing other people's kids" or sink further into the failed business of housing those kids in prisons when they become adults. $500 a year now saves $27,000 per year later.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=mgadfly;1294705]

$500 a year now saves $27,000 per year later.

And vasectomies, tubal ligation, et al ends the expense of either, capping it at a one-time fee.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by clintl

The main predictors of student success are the socioeconomic status of the student's family, the education level of the parents, and parental involvement.

Agree with this completely.

Originally Posted by thealmighty

You are right, but the reality is, in this day, what it is. We deal with the reality of the student and their lives, not what it should be.

The problem with dealing with the reality and in this case specifically of providing breakfast as the first period to all kids is that you are solving only one issue: socioeconomic status of the student's family. There's nothing you can do about the education level of the parents nor the parental involvement so why waste time/money on a sinking ship?

The only counter to this argument (that I see) would be the old "if it saves even one student, then isn't it worth it." Rationally I would disagree, but emotionally I would say that if it helps one student get ahead and provide a means that they can go on to a higher education then it's worth it...no matter the cost.

Then the rational side of me slaps the emotional side upside the head.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And vasectomies, tubal ligation, et al ends the expense of either, capping it at a one-time fee.

Can we start using federal tax money to fund abortions too?

[thealmighty]

I'd rather slap the wastoid parent upside the head, but my union lawyer wouldn't represent me in that case.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

That is good.

Let's see... I actually have over 160 kids each day but we'll say 160 for so those in bad schools can follow the math better.

160*5= 800
800*180=144000

Add in a bit, also for the training days during the school year plus the time I have to go to training in the summer... I'll take it. That's not too far from 3x what I actually make...after 20 years.

Hate to point this out but you have made the faulty assumption that you have these kids all at the same time for five hours a day. You would probably have them all for one hour a day giving you $480/day. Comes out to be $86,400.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by rowech

Hate to point this out but you have made the faulty assumption that you have these kids all at the same time for five hours a day. You would probably have them all for one hour a day giving you $480/day. Comes out to be $86,400.

Hate to point this out, but no.

If you read the post, you see I was using the $5 per and not the $3 per, so refigure.

I don't make mistakes.

I am a teacher.

I am perfection personified.

(the last part is for haters.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Can we start using federal tax money to fund abortions too?

Works for me ... but only one per customer.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Put the kind of money spent on the military to schools. Eliminate a bunch of ridiculous programs the government funds (like the NEA).

Eliminate teaching in languages other than English. The language barrier causes segregation in schools. Force all student to learn English and teach all classes in English.

I've never understood the hatred for the NEA. Its budget of around $125 million is an insignificant drop in the bucket when the overall federal budget is inching closer to $3 trillion.

And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all schools require you to take English? When I was in high school English was the only class we were required to take all four years. Has something changed in the last twelve years?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it has been proven over and over again that one of the most fiscally responsible ways to spend our money is by investing it in our children.

It has been proven? Beyond any reasonable doubt? Please point me to that irrefutable proof.

By the way, there may not be a lot of people who like to pay taxes, but there are certainly a lot of people who like to talk about how to spend tax money. There also seem to be more people talking about how to spend tax money than talking about letting people keep their own money. Of course, it may because almost half of the people in the nation probably don't pay any measurable amount of taxes when compared to the other half.

[Barkeep49]

I understand best how elementary and middle schools work so let me say that I am going to focus on those schools.

Ok I think teachers are not the first problem we need to fix. I agree teachers need fixing, but let's not start there. A bigger problem? The management structure of schools. High Schools have it close to the corporate world, but most people in the corporate world don't have a dozen, or more, direct reports, as even department chairs would have. Most elementary schools, even small ones, can have principals that have 30 direct reports. Sure there are plenty of crappy managers in the corporate world, but how do we expect new teachers to grow when mechanisms for getting help is so difficult? So first we need to completely rethink how structure schools.

Then we need to think about who we are putting in positions of responsibility. In many cases administrators were not the best teachers. They were so-so teachers. The best teachers don't want to leave the classroom for all the headaches of administration. The skills a typical administrator are called on to have include finance, human resources, operations (building issues), and on TOP of that they need to be experts in educational theory and practices. Oh and let's not forget the "joy" of having to deal with upset parents. It's no wonder that many of the brightest people in education stay in the classroom while those who are more mediocre move up, lured by the better pay. Authority, quite simply, needs to be far more diffused than it is now. One practical suggestion would be that master teachers, our best teachers, be regularly put in the classroom of other teachers. That through example these teachers would continue to teach and at the same time be modeling not only for students but also for other teachers. These teachers could also have a sense of the "feel" of the classroom and the problems that the teachers under them would be facing.

We also need to recognize that education really has no private sector parallel. The fact that students are the "customers" does not take into account the fact that people who are really being catered to are the parents. My education reform would start there and then move into areas like getting rid of salary based on experience, and even unions. But really the whole structure of a school is messed up and this is beyond the fact that good parenting could do far more to fix schools than anything else, as others have already mentioned.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Problem is you're talking about doing it out of MY wallet, at gunpoint no less.

Put measures in place to prevent reckless breeding & then I'll consider it. But damned if I'm going to willingly sink further into the failed business of financing other people's kids.

I'm just going to skip past the measures in place to prevent reckless breeding, because, if nothing else, much of what we're talking about is relatively "stable" homes with a single child. You're going to paint the picture that it's borken homes with 400 children for welfare. There are plenty of bad parents that have stable jobs and one child.

So. That being said. In general, I agree with you that we should not have to pay because other people are screwups. I'm very much against welfare and many of the things you are against.

However, when it comes to school and children - I do not think that we should make the children suffer because they have bad parents. If we take the "screw 'em, let society deal with 'em" aspect. Well, guess what? We're society. I'd rather put money in early.

How far does that go? I don't know, but I definately think there are things we can/are doing that go above and beyond just teaching academics that are good things.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by wade moore

...

Everyone gets Benefits in their full time job. Do you count that towards your salary?
...

Yes. Well, if you want to compare jobs apples to apples.

When my company's benefits lacked a little, I had guys turn down 12k to 15k raises because I couldn't compete with benefits.

Currently I'm being courted by a company whose base salary is quite a bit less than my own, but their benefits, bonus structure, and a crap load of perqs make it almost appealing.

[famatu]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I have been an educator of high school students for 11 years, and have coached varsity level in two different sports since 1991 (not both at the same time, only crossed over for 2 years). My question to you is, what would you do to improve the American Public Education system.

Abolish the DOE

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I've never understood the hatred for the NEA. Its budget of around $125 million is an insignificant drop in the bucket when the overall federal budget is inching closer to $3 trillion.

Very true, but it's 125 million that can be used elsewhere.

And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all schools require you to take English? When I was in high school English was the only class we were required to take all four years. Has something changed in the last twelve years?

But the rest of the primary courses in many places have separate classes with separate teachers, one in English, one in Spanish. That is what needs to stop.

[famatu]

Example of what is wrong with government schools and why they should all be abolished....

The Seattle school district, the largest school system in Washington State, has a nasty, insane message for budding entrepreneurs, civil libertarians, and free market conservatives: your belief in individual rights or individual initiative brands you as a racist.

The Seattle Public Schools formally define individualism as a form of “cultural racism,” declaring that “cultural racism” includes “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology.”

On their web site, they also define racism to include stereotypically white traits such as “future time orientation,” which is a pejorative word used among African-American studies professors for studying and “acting white” to reap future advancement, rather than devoting one’s energy to being hip or cool and enjoying the moment.

It is racist for the Seattle schools to stereotype achievement as a “white” characteristic. Plenty of non-whites study and exercise self-discipline. No school system should disparage student studying and achievement. That is at odds with a school system’s basic educational mission.

The Seattle schools also declare “equality” of treatment to be a form of racially-biased assimilation, favoring instead affirmative action in the form of “unequal treatment for those who have been disadvantaged over time,” to give historically oppressed groups “special programs and benefits.”

The “equality” they deride – the notion that “people who are the same in those respects relevant to how they are treated in those circumstances should receive the same treatment” – is the same notion of equal treatment whose infringement is the basis for a disparate-treatment discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In an apparent conflict with federal law, the Seattle schools deny that whites can be the victims of racism. They define racism as limited to acts against groups that have “little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).”

By contrast, federal appeals courts routinely rule against institutions that fire or harass white employees, recognizing that whites can indeed be victims of racism. See, e.g., Bowen v. Missouri Department of Social Services (2002) (racial harassment of white employee by black co-worker); Taxman v. Board of Education (1996) (termination of white teacher instead of black teacher). And the Supreme Court held that racial discrimination against whites by local governments is generally illegal in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). Affirmative action can’t be used to justify terminating or harassing an employee.

The Seattle schools’ policy, which appears to condone unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation against whites, is the product of its Equity and Race Relations department, whose director, Caprice Hollins, a multicultural “educator,” was selected with the approval of representatives of the Seattle Education Association (the local teacher’s union), the NAACP, and the Urban League.

Thanks to people like Hollins, the Seattle schools will be able to spend their time teaching (and practicing) racism, rather than reading, writing, and arithmetic.

The Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the Seattle schools’ policy of assigning pupils to schools based on their race, in the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. The Seattle schools’ racist web site should be brought to the Supreme Court’s attention, since it speaks volumes about the school system’s discriminatory purpose, and a discriminatory purpose invalidates even an otherwise permissible affirmative action policy under the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Shaw v. Hunt.

[JPhillips]

Famatu: Can you post a link?

[famatu]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Famatu: Can you post a link?

Actually, the Seattle Public School system has been FLOODED with inquiries about their "policy" so they decided to "revise" their site. You will notice at the bottom, there is a way to contact:

Caprice D. Hollins, Psy.D.
Director of Equity & Race Relations

Is there a need for a "director of equity and race relations"? WTF?

Seattle Public SchoolsYou can see their lame excuse at this link:

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/e...tionofrace.xml

These links are articles that talk about what the policy is/was:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._future01.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1147906777.shtml

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4677

[rowech]

Absolutely frightening. Where the hell does a school district get off with that?

[Barkeep49]

Here's what I don't get with the "abolish public schools" crowd. Either they are suggesting that universal education is bad OR they are suggesting that because publicly transparent systems are bad it is bad to give power to a system where we have LESS ovesight. If some smucks in Seattle mess up on commonsense there are people we can vote out of office. Ways to pressure change. They are forced to publicly acknowledge policies such as this. Outsourcing this guarentees none of these things.

[WVUFAN]

I actually disagree with the republican view of vouchers. I think the key is more fund to schools overall. I believe one of the reasons education is sliding is because teachers and schools do not have the money to get the things they need to properly educate.

[Barkeep49]

Here's the thing with vouchers: they work against the idea of universal education. A big drain, right now, on public education is special ed students. A system of vouchers does not work because the voucher for the student does not cover that student's actual costs. Schools, therefore, have an economic incentive to not take that student. As long as universal education remains a goal, I do not think vouchers are the right idea.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Here's the thing with vouchers: they work against the idea of universal education. A big drain, right now, on public education is special ed students. A system of vouchers does not work because the voucher for the student does not cover that student's actual costs. Schools, therefore, have an economic incentive to not take that student. As long as universal education remains a goal, I do not think vouchers are the right idea.

Good point.

[famatu]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Here's what I don't get with the "abolish public schools" crowd. Either they are suggesting that universal education is bad OR they are suggesting that because publicly transparent systems are bad it is bad to give power to a system where we have LESS ovesight. If some smucks in Seattle mess up on commonsense there are people we can vote out of office. Ways to pressure change. They are forced to publicly acknowledge policies such as this. Outsourcing this guarentees none of these things.

I home school my kids. That is my way to "practice what I preach." I mean no disrespect to those of you who send your kids to government schools but I think even letting your kids enter those places is borderline child abuse (by the government school, not the parent since they really don't know any better.)

I understand not everyone has the time or resources to home school and that is why I am for vouchers. Why not give that single mom who works 3 jobs with no chance in hell to give her kid an advantage a chance to send her kid to a good school? Why force her to keep sending her kid to the local failing government school? Vouchers are FOR THE POOR KIDS. The rich kids don't need them. Their parents have the money to send them to any school they wish or home school them.

I care very deeply about the children of this world and would like nothing more than to see them all get a chance at a quality education in a positive environment. I think giving them vouchers that allow them to attend good, private schools is the best way to do this.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by famatu

I home school my kids. That is my way to "practice what I preach." I mean no disrespect to those of you who send your kids to government schools but I think even letting your kids enter those places is borderline child abuse (by the government school, not the parent since they really don't know any better.)

I understand not everyone has the time or resources to home school and that is why I am for vouchers. Why not give that single mom who works 3 jobs with no chance in hell to give her kid an advantage a chance to send her kid to a good school? Why force her to keep sending her kid to the local failing government school? Vouchers are FOR THE POOR KIDS. The rich kids don't need them. Their parents have the money to send them to any school they wish or home school them.

I care very deeply about the children of this world and would like nothing more than to see them all get a chance at a quality education in a positive environment. I think giving them vouchers that allow them to attend good, private schools is the best way to do this.

Except, as has been noted earlier in the thread,
A. Private schools haven't been shown to have overall superiority to public schools
B. This does not address my contention that poor kids, rich kids, black kids, white kids, or any kids, who are expensive to educate would be rejected by private institutions due to the fact that the voucher would not cover the true cost of their education.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by famatu

I understand not everyone has the time or resources to home school and that is why I am for vouchers. Why not give that single mom who works 3 jobs with no chance in hell to give her kid an advantage a chance to send her kid to a good school? Why force her to keep sending her kid to the local failing government school? Vouchers are FOR THE POOR KIDS. The rich kids don't need them. Their parents have the money to send them to any school they wish or home school them.

this would turn out to be just another Food Stamp scam with people trying to figure out how much drugs, booze and tobacco they can buy with their vouchers.

Would your single Mom be a licensed qualified teacher?

At least the public education system right now gives some of these kids a fighting chance to get out of their situation. I would hate to see parents allowed the opportunity to cash in on their kids by keeping them at home.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Yes. Well, if you want to compare jobs apples to apples.

When my company's benefits lacked a little, I had guys turn down 12k to 15k raises because I couldn't compete with benefits.

Currently I'm being courted by a company whose base salary is quite a bit less than my own, but their benefits, bonus structure, and a crap load of perqs make it almost appealing.

I understand that when comparing jobs.

But when making some bold claim that teachers "Make 6 figures" it is misleading to include benefits, because when people talk about someone's salary they are not including benefits.

[thealmighty]

Maybe it's just where I am, but I don't know what all this benefit talk is about for teachers. I don't have any benefits. We pay out the ass monthly for health insurance, almost $600 a month.

Benefits? Right.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

Maybe it's just where I am, but I don't know what all this benefit talk is about for teachers. I don't have any benefits. We pay out the ass monthly for health insurance, almost $600 a month.

Benefits? Right.

Jesus. Sorry, man.

My mom retired 3 years ago as a teacher. Her health insurance has increased 30% since that date. The WV school system really screws with retirees (plus the insurance, PEIA, is really poor).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by 14ers

At least the public education system right now gives some of these kids a fighting chance to get out of their situation. I would hate to see parents allowed the opportunity to cash in on their kids by keeping them at home.

I do believe, in most areas, home schooled students are still required to take standardized tests at regular intervals, just like public school students. They wouldn't be able to milk the system of money forever while teaching them nothing, just like the public school can no longer get by the same way.

I find it to be a major contradiction how some people say a problem is the lack of parental involvement, yet parents who decide to have the ultimate amount of parental involvement (homeschooling) are criticized. Parents need to be involved...oh wait, not that involved...just involved up to the point that the public school advocates are happy with...?

[CraigSca]

I'm not really sure that education reform is actually do-able. There are so many opposing opinions and it's hard to get people to understand that additional monies taken from your wallet = hopefully better schools.

We're having a referendum in our area for additional schools. I think it'll cost ~$200 more a year. It makes sense to me as our school district is growing astronomically. That being said, we also see the school district not living up to their end of the bargain (particularly surrounding the unique circumstances of our son). I give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they're just doing the best they can.

And frankly, the area I used to live in, the teachers made an average salary of $87K (this was years ago as well - they are the highest paying school district in PA). No, that didn't include benefits, nor was it pro-rated to 12 months. To have tenure on top of that, it looked like a pretty sweet deal to me. However, I have also seen the opposite - my girlfriend in college became and elementary school teacher and the Catholic schools were offering about $20k. I'm not sure how you can even live on that.

[famatu]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I do believe, in most areas, home schooled students are still required to take standardized tests at regular intervals, just like public school students. They wouldn't be able to milk the system of money forever while teaching them nothing, just like the public school can no longer get by the same way.

I find it to be a major contradiction how some people say a problem is the lack of parental involvement, yet parents who decide to have the ultimate amount of parental involvement (homeschooling) are criticized. Parents need to be involved...oh wait, not that involved...just involved up to the point that the public school advocates are happy with...?

We give our son two different standardized tests every year. We give him days off when we take a family vacation and that's about it. Because of this, he is a full grade ahead of his government school peers and scores much higher than all of them in evey important category - reading, comprhension, writing, and math.

The local governent school tried to buy us off buy offering to pay for his yearly school supplies and calling us a "charter school" if we would allow his test scores to be lumped in with their. Our response was LOL - we took him out of your school because you do things like dumb down your school population! Now you want us to help you do it? Are you crazy?

[Edward64]

(This is a good discussion topic. I purposely withheld from reading/participating on this thread until I came up with my list of solutions).

I know there are exceptions and extremes and you can't have an answer to everything and make everyone happy but here are my thoughts. They apply to what I believe is the general, overall situation. My numbers, unless otherwise specified, are generalized based on the 80/20 rule.

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I have been an educator of high school students for 11 years, and have coached varsity level in two different sports since 1991 (not both at the same time, only crossed over for 2 years). My question to you is, what would you do to improve the American Public Education system.

I tend to believe the American Public Education system is fine. Of course there is room for improvement but overall its good. With that said, I would ...

1) Continue the certification of teachers and require continuing education of teachers.
2) Implement an incentive program for top performing teachers. Not just raw test scores but improvement delta of test scores, additionally feedback from students/parents etc.
3) Implement some sort of breakfast/lunch/dinner school food program for especially the underprivilege.
4) Implement some sort of 'stay at school while parents are at work program' for especially the underprivilege.
5) Allow the termination/reassignment of poor performing teachers.
6) Allow the termination of habitual 'bad' (I'm sure this can be defined somehow) students. Some kids are just cancer to the rest of the classroom. Get rid of them to (someplace else).
7) Accept that some students will never graduate HS as they don't have the support structure/intelligence/aptitude/attitude/maturity and create an apprenticeship program (or like) for them. Of course, allow them to resume HS at a later date if appropriate.
8) Accept that the government's role is to provide opportunities and avenues for education and can only do so much. There will always be 20% that is left behind.

Privatize it. Use government subsidies and private schools. Diversify and inject competition. The good will get better and the worst will dissappear.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Its sounds good, but in reality it will just be a giveaway to private schools. There aren't enough companies/non-profits for there to be any real competition in most of the country. Some will be good, but there will be a large number of mediocre to poor schools that are just in it for the money. Its like a lot of government privatization schemes, it sounds good, but in the end we don't save money and the results are the same.

That being said, I'm more than willing to try it on a small scale and see what happens. One of the biggest problems in education is the unwillingness to try solutions. Let's experiment and see if we can find better methods.

Agree with JPhillips. There is a role for private schools, however this is just unrealistic for the majority of parents/students. Allow vouchers but Public education must be supported for the other 80% of students.

Make parents responsible for bringing up their children.

The problem is as much a result of poor parenting as it is the school systems.

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

If we rely on parents, then I pity the kids who have poor parents.

Conceptually, I agree with making parents more responsible but do not see how this is enforceable. I think our solutions have to assume this is not doable.

Originally Posted by clintl

The main predictors of student success are the socioeconomic status of the student's family, the education level of the parents, and parental involvement.

Agreed with your main predictor statement. The book, Freakonomics, support this also.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Eliminate teaching in languages other than English. The language barrier causes segregation in schools. Force all student to learn English and teach all classes in English.

Didn't think about this one but I like it. Of course teach foreign languages but teach classes in English. From my point of view, an immigrant kid may be 2 years behind because of this (ex. to learn English adequately) but it will benefit them in the long run.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

FWIW, I think there are a lot of colleges out there with pretty low standards so every kid can be college bound easily. College is no longer a higher institution of learning; it's a cash cow.

I agree. Most kids can get into some college. The BA/Associates degree opens up opportunities.

deal with the salary structure. Here, a starting teacher makes plenty, again imho, but they do nothing later. Why stay in teaching when you only make $5000 more after 10 years than when you started. If you do, in fact, get rid of the idiots, what you have left is worth what it costs to keep them

I personally believe teachers are well paid. GA 2001 average $42K, ranked 20th. MS averaged $32K, ranked 49th. http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/finances/salaries.asp

I don't think pay needs to be increased but do think there should be incentives for performance (ex. merit bonus, recognition etc.). This is a middle income salary for 9 months work, I assume more if summer school is taught.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Everyone gets Benefits in their full time job. Do you count that towards your salary?

You would need to bump everyone's salary up according to benefits.. my fiancee is a teacher and she gets about the same benefits as me, if not less - so it is very disingenuous to include that figure in there.

I don't know what a teachers benefits are but do believe the are within norm. Also, I believe as a state employee, their retirement benefits far exceeds a normal retirement benefit. I do think their benefits should be factored into the equation but no, they should not claim to make 6 figures.

Originally Posted by thealmighty

Maybe it's just where I am, but I don't know what all this benefit talk is about for teachers. I don't have any benefits. We pay out the ass monthly for health insurance, almost $600 a month.

Benefits? Right.

To compare, family coverage for BCBS-GA with regular deductibles are probably $800/month for self insured. I would expect state to subsidize at least 50% of health (ex. $400/month).

I find your situation strange. Can you detail where and if you have any special circumstances?

[Barkeep49]

Taking a look at what Edward so thoughtfully put out there:

Originally Posted by Edward64

1) Continue the certification of teachers and require continuing education of teachers.

Fine. I think there are better ways to promote new ideas than mandating continuing education (which I will talk about below)

2) Implement an incentive program for top performing teachers. Not just raw test scores but improvement delta of test scores, additionally feedback from students/parents etc.

I think incentive programs don't go far enough. I think the whole compensation system is out of whack. I would get rid of pay for seniority and also tenure. Open up the labor market. In this particular design I would actually keep unions as otherwise I think it's far more likely that you'd see a net decrease in teacher pay, rather than a reallocation. Teachers in demand should get paid more. Whether they are in demand because they are good teachers, or teaching a subject with less teachers, or because they are good negiotiators shouldn't matter. The idea would be to create some market forces in the labor market. As previously posted I believe there needs to be more teacher collobartion and by having teachers switch schools more best practices are more likely to be dissiminated.

3) Implement some sort of breakfast/lunch/dinner school food program for especially the underprivilege.

Not sure how this is a change, but I agree with conceptually.

4) Implement some sort of 'stay at school while parents are at work program' for especially the underprivilege.

Strongly agree. As Edward stated later on it's less likely that parents are suddenly going to know how to parent. So giving parents some structure is good. One of the best schools I know of, KIPP Charter Schoools, have a very long school day. I'm wholely in favor of this idea.

5) Allow the termination/reassignment of poor performing teachers.

Again I agree that the labor situation needs to be redefined and this would go along with what I was saying with getting rid of tenure.

6) Allow the termination of habitual 'bad' (I'm sure this can be defined somehow) students. Some kids are just cancer to the rest of the classroom. Get rid of them to (someplace else).

Amen.

7) Accept that some students will never graduate HS as they don't have the support structure/intelligence/aptitude/attitude/maturity and create an apprenticeship program (or like) for them. Of course, allow them to resume HS at a later date if appropriate.

I think every student should graduate HS. However, what is done with the last two years of high school should be rethought more. I see nothing wrong with demanding a student have, for instnace, four years of English. But also allowing for mroe apprenticeships is a good idea.

[JPhillips]

I'll add increased funding for lead abatement in homes and apartments. Its the easiest way to raise the average IQ in poor children.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I find your situation strange. Can you detail where and if you have any special circumstances?

The only special circumstances are that:

1. I am in Texas. Special being that in this state we have no right to strike as teachers. That's not to say that I have a sign in my closet waiting, but that in some states/cities that have that right, they are able to strike to get better deals for benefits and salary. Texas was, last I looked, in the bottom half of states for average teacher pay.
2. I am in Dallas, where stupidity and corruption are monthly topics in the news.

Now, I would love to get $$, $$, $$ out the ass. More, more, more? I would take it. That isn't my main concern in the salary area, however. It just pisses me off, as with many of the rest of you, that I can have 90+% of my students pass the state exam and get the same renumeration as someone that sits around constantly and has a 30% passing rate.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I personally believe teachers are well paid. GA 2001 average $42K, ranked 20th. MS averaged $32K, ranked 49th. http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/finances/salaries.asp

I don't think pay needs to be increased but do think there should be incentives for performance (ex. merit bonus, recognition etc.). This is a middle income salary for 9 months work, I assume more if summer school is taught.

You really think that an average of $32K, say for a 10th year professional , possibly with a masters degree, is what people teaching the future of this country are worth? Or $37K to put the number in the middle of the two examples you give? You think postmen with no degree are more worthy, because a friend of mine is a postman and he makes more than I do (good for him. That's not my point.)? Or garbage collectors, or plumbers? How do you judge what a teacher should get? Do you get enough? Are you actually overpaid like teachers, since we "only work" 9 months a year (fallacy, in lots of places/cases)?

[Galaxy]

20/20 did an interesting two-piece story on education reform, competition, and the teacher unions (which he pissed off the NYC union).

Personally, re-develop K-8 to teach and instill the basics. Then, privatize high school. One thing you could do is develop magnet schools. If students like science, develop a school with labs, research centers, and that. If a student wants to learn about construction or business, develop programs and facilities around those subjects.

Also, I think that the way things are taught needs to be updated. Create more projects and interaction.

[duckman]

Here is the entire episode:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

Here is an article that John Stossel wrote in response to the New York Teachers' Union remarks about the special:

hxxp://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1701265&page=1

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

It just pisses me off, as with many of the rest of you, that I can have 90+% of my students pass the state exam and get the same renumeration as someone that sits around constantly and has a 30% passing rate.

I do believe there should be incentive bonus based on other criterias in addition to straight passing rates. Otherwise, teachers in depressed areas will be at an disadvantage.

Originally Posted by thealmighty

You really think that an average of $32K, say for a 10th year professional , possibly with a masters degree, is what people teaching the future of this country are worth? Or $37K to put the number in the middle of the two examples you give? You think postmen with no degree are more worthy, because a friend of mine is a postman and he makes more than I do (good for him. That's not my point.)? Or garbage collectors, or plumbers? How do you judge what a teacher should get? Do you get enough? Are you actually overpaid like teachers, since we "only work" 9 months a year (fallacy, in lots of places/cases)?

The simple answer is yes. Here's my reasoning.

(Please do not consider my response as anti-teacher. I see the difference teachers make in my 2 children's life and certainly respect them).

To try discuss this based on 'teaching the future of this country are worth?' will not be productive. The world is not fair, no one thinks they are being paid enough but bottom line, the supply-demand does not support paying teachers more.

This is the key point. You may think teachers should be paid more because they are teaching the future of the country ... however market forces is saying there are plenty of others who believe 'total compensation' of teaching is satisfactory enough to warrant them being teachers.

I view the total Teacher 'total compensation' package as

1. Current Salary
2. Current Benefits
3. Retirement Benefits
4. Quality of Life
5. Self actualization

I would appreciate real world feedback on 2-3.

(1) Current Salary.

Lets first establish that average Teacher salary is basically the US average also. US average was range of $36K in 2001-02.

http://www.bls.gov/cew/state2002.pdf

(2) Current Benefits. (please share your situation)

No hard data but I will assume it is norm.

(3) Retirement Benefits. (please share your situation)

No hard data but conventional wisdom tells me retirement benefits from State government is good, certainly better than many public corporations.

(4) Quality of Life.

Two items here (a) 3 months off and (b) not high stress.

I'm just going to assume teachers gets 3 months more off-time than the typical corporate employee. This factors in summer and spring break etc.

Sure we can say add x% more to average teacher wages and consider this true compensation. But I believe the value of the 3 months break is far greater than a simple x%. The ability to have 3 months break and ability to continue back on your job is an extraordinary perk.

Also, I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I believe teaching is generally, as a whole, on average a relatively, non-high stress job. This is not to say its a low stress job, just that its not high stress ... not out of the norm.

(5) Self Actualization. Talk about getting instant gratification, being able to make a difference in a child's life etc. The vast majority of workers do not have this privilege. I have to believe this aspect of the job goes a long way to the reason why teachers teach.


Therefore ...

With this all said, when you factor in total compensation, I believe a teacher has many non-monetary compensation that makes their job more than worthwhile, even after accounting for market forces in $ inequity.

I would add as an afterthought (because I do not know the subject well) that teacher unions may contribute to the pay inequity. The tradeoff on 'lower' pay maybe job security and retirement benefits? Can someone speak to this?

[Barkeep49]

Edward: But are teachers an "average" profession? I would argue no. And that doesn't even go into the fact that teachers are more highly educated, with many having masters degrees and more, than the average person.

2-3. Benefits are fairly good, I won't lie, in Illinois. The fact that public school teachers can get a pension is a good thing. Of course I don't expect to see a pension by the time I retire. But then again most of the people my age won't. Health care is fairly standard with most industries.

4. I've had low stress jobs and teaching is not one of them. Good teachers have to be mentally on every moment you are teaching. When I'm working at the library, if I'm off my peak for a minute, or even five, perhaps I don't find the books a patron was looking for as quickly. If I do that while teaching? Utter chaos. Further, good teachers are invested in kids. So there is stress in that. I'm not going to claim that it's the same level of stress as say a divorce lawyer or hedge fund manager, but teaching is it's own unique challenge.

The three months off are great, I won't lie. But I think you make the picture a little easier than it is.

5. This is why most teachers teach. However, I get a lot of enjoyment out of other things I do with kids, such as being a librarian, without a lot of the other things.


But this whole discussion gets away from the reform idea.

[wade moore]

(b) not high stress.

You just showed your lack of knowledge of the teaching profession.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do believe there should be incentive bonus based on other criterias in addition to straight passing rates. Otherwise, teachers in depressed areas will be at an disadvantage.



The simple answer is yes. Here's my reasoning.

(Please do not consider my response as anti-teacher. I see the difference teachers make in my 2 children's life and certainly respect them).

To try discuss this based on 'teaching the future of this country are worth?' will not be productive. The world is not fair, no one thinks they are being paid enough but bottom line, the supply-demand does not support paying teachers more.

This is the key point. You may think teachers should be paid more because they are teaching the future of the country ... however market forces is saying there are plenty of others who believe 'total compensation' of teaching is satisfactory enough to warrant them being teachers.

I view the total Teacher 'total compensation' package as

1. Current Salary
2. Current Benefits
3. Retirement Benefits
4. Quality of Life
5. Self actualization

I would appreciate real world feedback on 2-3.

(1) Current Salary.

Lets first establish that average Teacher salary is basically the US average also. US average was range of $36K in 2001-02.

http://www.bls.gov/cew/state2002.pdf

(2) Current Benefits. (please share your situation)

No hard data but I will assume it is norm.

(3) Retirement Benefits. (please share your situation)

No hard data but conventional wisdom tells me retirement benefits from State government is good, certainly better than many public corporations.

(4) Quality of Life.

Two items here (a) 3 months off and (b) not high stress.

I'm just going to assume teachers gets 3 months more off-time than the typical corporate employee. This factors in summer and spring break etc.

Sure we can say add x% more to average teacher wages and consider this true compensation. But I believe the value of the 3 months break is far greater than a simple x%. The ability to have 3 months break and ability to continue back on your job is an extraordinary perk.

Also, I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I believe teaching is generally, as a whole, on average a relatively, non-high stress job. This is not to say its a low stress job, just that its not high stress ... not out of the norm.

(5) Self Actualization. Talk about getting instant gratification, being able to make a difference in a child's life etc. The vast majority of workers do not have this privilege. I have to believe this aspect of the job goes a long way to the reason why teachers teach.


Therefore ...

With this all said, when you factor in total compensation, I believe a teacher has many non-monetary compensation that makes their job more than worthwhile, even after accounting for market forces in $ inequity.

I would add as an afterthought (because I do not know the subject well) that teacher unions may contribute to the pay inequity. The tradeoff on 'lower' pay maybe job security and retirement benefits? Can someone speak to this?

I can see from some remarks that you have no idea what teaching is like or the equity gap from compensation/benefits from one place to another. Market price is what you are paying and it is why you have so many unqualified or piss-poor teachers in so many, many classrooms, which is one reason education is in the state it is in.

Everthing is relative to where you are.