OT: Teacher Unions

[CamEdwards]

All right, boyz… here are my thoughts on teacher unions. I’ve stated elsewhere that I think teachers unions are out for themselves, not for the kids. I’ll use this post to back up my assertion that 1)teachers unions aren’t looking out for the best interest of education, 2)the social agenda of the NEA provides more “meddling” than any parent ever could, and 3)the system as it stands right now is broken.

It’s actually easier if I deal with number #3 first. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re no better off educationally than we were 50 years ago. In fact, that’s exactly what the National Association of Scholars says. But how can that be? After all, our class sizes are smaller. Isn’t that supposed to be the way to improve our educational system? It’s one of the key tenets of faith for the NEA. But in 1950, the student/teacher ratio was 22.6:1. In 2000-2001 it was 16:1. You’d think for the additional money we’d see some additional knowledge. In fact, in 2002, the Class Size Reduction Research Consortium found that a billion dollar a year California program to reduce class size in K-3rd grade from 30 students to 20 students or less per class “found no relationship between statewide student achievement and statewide participation in class size reduction.” It did provide 60,000 jobs for members of the California Teachers Association… not to mention $25,000,000 per year in annual dues for the union.

Well, then… we simply need to spend more per pupil. That’s what the NEA also believes. But in 1982, the per pupil spending was $4,903 (that’s an inflation adjusted amount in FY2000 dollars). In 1999-2000 it was $7,086. Again, you’d think that an additional $2,000 a year would show some increase in student productivity. Instead, the crisis in education is so bad that we’re now spending a billion dollars a year in this country on remedial programs for college students, because they’re graduating without the basic knowledge necessary to succeed in college.

All these “reforms” that have taken place in the past 30 years have done nothing to better the education that our children receive. What it’s done is get more dues paying members for the NEA.

The NEA also supports things like abortion rights, homosexual/bisexual/transgendered rights, gun control, socialized medicine, and reparations to Native Americans. Now I don’t care if you’re for or against these things. The question I have is why do teachers unions need to take a public stand on things like this? Do my kids get an education or an indoctrination at school?

Think about it. The opposition of school vouchers by the NEA is well known. They say the NEA “have been leaders in the fight to improve public schools — and oppose alternatives that divert attention, energy, and resources from efforts to reduce class size, enhance teacher quality, and provide every student with books, computers, and safe and orderly schools.”

Well, I’ve already demonstrated that class size doesn’t make a difference. You can’t enhance teacher quality when your goal is to enhance teacher quantity, and all the books and computers in the world can’t take the place of a good teacher. Besides, the last time I checked private schools didn’t seem to have near the problems finding books and computers for students that public schools have.

Here are some of the other reasons for the NEA’s opposition to vouchers:

-About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction.

Wrong. The Constitution prohibits a “state” religion. Vouchers could be used to send your child to a Jewish school, Methodist school, Muslim school, etc.

-A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.

Wrong. A pure voucher system would allow more minorities and lower income children to be a part of the ivory tower of private education. What we have now is racial and socio-economic stratificiation between urban and suburban schools.

-Each year, about $65 million dollars is spent by foundations and individuals to promote vouchers. In election years, voucher advocates spend even more on ballot measures and in support of pro-voucher candidates.

So what? I would say that shows a lot of Americans (both liberals and conservatives) feel vouchers are a good thing.

One more quick aside… someone mentioned teacher salaries. The average teacher salary in 1999 was “a mere $40,574”, according to the American Federation of Teachers. In Broolyn, for example.. the average annual income (1999-00) was $29,642. Teachers in the Brooklyn school system started at $30,000 and could make $67,000. While I think good teachers need to be paid more, I think we do that by getting rid of the bad teachers (and I’ll save that rant for later).

[panerd]

Once agian, like I said in the other thread, a lot of your data seems to be based on test scores, which are mostly a result of a students upbringing and their SES than they are of teaching performance. We have a nationally recognized teacher of the year teaching 7th grade science at my school. His test scores were at the 73rd percentile. We also have a guy who is regarded as possibly the worst teacher in the district. (I do agree the NEA should not defend this guy. So you get points there.) His test scores last year were at the 72nd percentile. Are the kids learning more from the quality teacher? Absolutely! Are these tests, which often times don't even test our curriculum's material or grade level, something that should be used as arguments against smaller class sizes? Are you kidding?

On your Brooklyn arguement. Is the $29,000 the avergae salary for college-educated professionals (most with master's degrees or higher) or was it the general population? Teachers are some of the most educated professionals out there. So you would expect us to be near the top in terms of saleries. I actually don't care much about salaries. I knew what I was getting into before I became a teacher and didn't expect to be busting the bank. But anytime anyone starts making implications that we are overpaid (or even paid well) I just have to laugh.

[ColtCrazy]

A voucher system masks the real problems in education. Basically, you end up shuffling kids around, not fixing the problem. Get a voucher to leave school A because school A isn't cutting it academically. More than likely it's because the school is poor, has little resources, and while it might have solid teachers, it'll also have to bottom of the barrell because good teachers are probably moving to better districts. Move the kids and you'll see a reduction in the test scores at those new schools. Attack the problem where it lies, fund the schools, get rid of the dead weight teachers, and help educate uninformed parents.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
The NEA also supports things like abortion rights, homosexual/bisexual/transgendered rights, gun control, socialized medicine, and reparations to Native Americans. Now I don’t care if you’re for or against these things. The question I have is why do teachers unions need to take a public stand on things like this? Do my kids get an education or an indoctrination at school?

Besides, the last time I checked private schools didn’t seem to have near the problems finding books and computers for students that public schools have.

So, I see your real beef with the NEA. They're liberal! Down with liberals! I can honestly speak from having gone through the public school system, that there are just as many conservative teachers as liberal ones, I had steady arguments with 3 of them my senior year, all in back to back periods. Those were good times. Teachers who feel the need to get into political issues encourage debate, and don't teach their ideology, and most teachers don't even go into "politics" as much as you'd think. My wife is a flaming liberal, but she never argued politics with her kids (and the only arguably PC thing I can think of that she's done is discourage the use of "bitches" and "gay" as derogatory terms).

And, I don't think public schools have any problems FINDING books or computers. They know where they're located.

[Airhog]

You thoughts intrigue me, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter... All kidding aside, I think that merely spending money, and shrinking class sizes will not fix the problem.

Here are my personal thoughts about education.

Do away with summer break. Sure its nice for the kids, but it hurts them in the long run. If you don't continue to apply what you have learned, you will soon forget it. Disperse the 12 weeks throughout the rest of the year.

Stop teaching kids the same crap every single year. I believe that between 6-12 grade, I had american history like 3 years. Even worse is the fact that every time I took it, we started at the beginning of history. I had maybe one class that made it past the revolutionary war. I had 1 semester of world history.

I dont think that longer hours, less days, actually works. Increasing the time spent in the class room should not mean that you can cut the year in half. If you take a college class that is a 4 credit class, you can expect to spend 4 hours in the class room a week. Just because you go twice a week instead of four times a week doesnt give the school a reason to cut the semester in half.

Increase the number of credits a high school student needs to pass.

And the best thing you could do for the education system, is remove those students who do not wish to learn. Why should my learning be hampered because some student would rather be somewhere else smoking pot or drinking 40's? That is one reason why I enjoyed college so much more than HS, 99% of the people in the classes were there to learn, and those that werent didnt last more than a few weeks.


Now these are just my personal thoughts, and not all schools may have these policies.

[ColtCrazy]

I agree that year around school would help student retention.

[Fritz]

once again, CamEdwards is my hero.

Great post Cam.

A question: why should anyone think ANY union has a purpose other than to act in the interests of its members?

[NoMyths]

Housekeepers' unions in hospitals are most concerned with their members, not health care.
Factory workers' unions are most concerned with their members, not the product they make.
All unions are (in theory) primarily concerned with providing various forms of security for their members. The business they work for is primarily concerned with whatever their product is, not their employees. Between the two it balances. I don't see how unions are the villains...they do what they are supposed to do.

[Fritz]

I don't see a ballance

[NoMyths]

That doesn't surprise me.

[Craptacular]

suck

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
That doesn't surprise me.

In the case of the teacher's union, what is the ballance?

[stkelly52]

The problem that I have seen with year round schooling is that it eliminates the time that teachers have to take continuing education (which is required to keep their certification current).

[cuervo72]

First off - Go Cam, Go!!!

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, I see your real beef with the NEA. They're liberal! Down with liberals! I can honestly speak from having gone through the public school system, that there are just as many conservative teachers as liberal ones, I had steady arguments with 3 of them my senior year, all in back to back periods. Those were good times. Teachers who feel the need to get into political issues encourage debate, and don't teach their ideology, and most teachers don't even go into "politics" as much as you'd think. My wife is a flaming liberal, but she never argued politics with her kids (and the only arguably PC thing I can think of that she's done is discourage the use of "bitches" and "gay" as derogatory terms).

And, I don't think public schools have any problems FINDING books or computers. They know where they're located.

Liberal or not, why does the NEA need to state an agenda on som of these issues? What do abortion, socialized medicine and Native American reparations directly have to do with the quality of education? (I suppose you could argue that with less abortions there would be a greater load on the educational system...of course, cracking down on illegal immigration would cut that load as well).

The political inclination of *good* teachers won't really matter by and large, at least not for most subject matters (unless you have questions like - "if a group of x white supremecists has 36 guns, and there are 4 guns per supremecist, what is the value of x?). My favorite teacher in HS - who taught American History - to me seemed like an ex-hippie who still had a liberal bent. But it had little or no bearing on his presentation of historical facts. I agree though, political discussion in the schools is a good thing - which is why subjects need to be presented unbiased and unsanitized. Better to present a topic and a teacher discuss various views than to gloss over it completely.

It's a problem however (IMO) when the union itself throws its considerable weight, and money, around on these issues. Spend more time on finding real solutions to the education problem, and less time lobbying for social reform.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, I see your real beef with the NEA. They're liberal! Down with liberals! I can honestly speak from having gone through the public school system, that there are just as many conservative teachers as liberal ones, I had steady arguments with 3 of them my senior year, all in back to back periods. Those were good times. Teachers who feel the need to get into political issues encourage debate, and don't teach their ideology, and most teachers don't even go into "politics" as much as you'd think. My wife is a flaming liberal, but she never argued politics with her kids (and the only arguably PC thing I can think of that she's done is discourage the use of "bitches" and "gay" as derogatory terms).

And, I don't think public schools have any problems FINDING books or computers. They know where they're located.

Your arguements make it even worse for the teacher's unions to be involved in liberal (or conservative politics) Teachers are required to be part of a union, but thier money goes to support many causes that the teachers do not support. Why should a conservative teacher have his money go to support liberal causes?

[Airhog]

Well my dad was a member of a Union his whole career as a telephone repairman. I saw alot of good things that they did, but I also saw alot of bad things that they did.

There was a special on hbo a few years back about the Teamsters, it was really a good special, and portrayed what can go on without a union, or without the resources to fight back.

[CamEdwards]

I love it.

Panerd: where do you get that my stats are based on test scores? I never MENTIONED test scores! As far as teacher pay goes, the national average pay for a teacher is $40,000. By any standard that's pretty good pay. Are you going to get rich? Nope. But I know a lot of teachers who own their own home, drive better cars than I do, and get three months off every summer.

Butters: Out of three points, you can only pick on the most subjective one? Yes, I have a problem with the social agenda of the NEA. So do many NEA members. The problem is, when you're required to pay dues regardless of whether or not you're a member (agency fees), you might as well join the union and get the ancillary benefits. I still see no need for an organization that was established as a professional association to devote time and energy to political causes like reparations of Native Americans, abortion rights, etc. It has NOTHING to do with my personal beliefs. If the NEA was supporting a repeal of gun laws, or backing the death penalty I'd still be wondering why.

Both of you chose to attack me instead of my arguments. Can you refute any of my statistics? Can you tell me, honestly, that we're doing a measurably better job of educating kids than we were 30 years ago? I've already shown you we're spending more money and we have fewer students per teacher. You'd think there'd be some concrete benefits you can point to.

As to vouchers only masking the problem... bad students can already attend private school. It's just that right now, it's bad students that can afford it. If you don't want the lower socio-economic class to have the same sort of financial clout that middle and upper class sections of society have, then oppose vouchers. And even IF vouchers mask the problem, would it hurt the educational system in this country? At worst it would stay the same. And really, when you factor in how much more efficient private schools are, you'd be saving money... which could be spent to improve the public schools.

[Subby]

once again, NoMyths is my hero.

Great post NM.

A question: why is Fritz' beard so scraggly?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
once again, NoMyths is my hero.

Great post NM.

A question: why is Fritz' beard so scraggly?

stop breathing. you are wasting valuable air.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good job Cam, too bad that there aren't more people who've managed to identify the situation as clearly as you.

And that's coming from about as pro-union a guy as you're likely to find.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
stop breathing. you are wasting valuable air.

I'll stop breathing if you get back to work. You are wasting valuable tax dollars...

[stkelly52]

Cam,

In general I agree with you...however as someone who works in education, I have seen the difference that having smaller class sizes makes. The #1 difference is that teachers maintain their sanity. Yes kids can be taught, and taught well with large classes, but smaller classes prevent burnout, ulcers, and make the work load much easir to cope with.

As for 3 months of vaction...I don't think so. Teachers need to be going to school themselves, summers are when most of them do so. Also there is curiculum development. Sure they arn't working full days every day during the summer, but most of the teachers I know spend 10-12 hours working (frequently at home doing grades or lesson plans) every day.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Good job Cam, too bad that there aren't more people who've managed to identify the situation as clearly as you.

And that's coming from about as pro-union a guy as you're likely to find.

That's the funny thing. My mom worked for a union the entire time I was growing up. I think the radio and television industry should be more unionized. I don't have a problem with unions. I have a problem with the NEA and the AFT.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
I'll stop breathing if you get back to work. You are wasting valuable tax dollars...

ah yes, they could be spent as part of the 15 billion dollar AIDS package.

wait, that is a bigger waste.

[oykib]

The problem with vouchers as most conservatives put them forth is that they aren't enough to help the truly poor family. I've seen voucher programs that'd give one or two thousand dollars a year per child. That ain't gonna cut it. If the voucher program was going to provide the seven or so tousand dollars per student that said student'd be entitled to from the gov't, then I'd be down.

Honestly, I've had enough of giving public schools a chance to work. The public schools in wealthy areas work. The ones in poor areas don't. If I had a ten year-old, I wouldn't want to wait four or five years to see the failure of the next five year plan. I 'd want to make sure that my kid could read when he got out of college.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
ah yes, they could be spent as part of the 15 billion dollar AIDS package.

wait, that is a bigger waste.

What are you babbling about?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Subby
What are you babbling about?

I want to hold you till I die
Till we both break down and cry
I want to hold you till the fear in me subsides

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by oykib
The problem with vouchers as most conservatives put them forth is that they aren't enough to help the truly poor family. I've seen voucher programs that'd give one or two thousand dollars a year per child. That ain't gonna cut it. If the voucher program was going to provide the seven or so tousand dollars per student that said student'd be entitled to from the gov't, then I'd be down.

Exactally! I am all for vouchers. But most plans are not really vouchers. They are an opportunity for rich and middle class people to get a tuition break on private schools.

Vouchers should cover the full cost of private education (including uniforms, books, etc.) and transportation to the school. Then they would inspire real choice and change. Any other plan will not help the people who need the most help. I am pretty sure, however, that this voucher plan would be too expensive to implement.

[bigdawg2003]

I attend a private high school, and the tuition is $500 a month. This is considered to be an amazing deal, and thinking of the education i've recieved it is. I've heard of private schools that cost as much as some colleges to go to. So if we are going to create a voucher program for lower income kids to attend private schools, it's going to have to be a good chunk of change. This $1000-$2000 stuff won't cut it

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Exactally! I am all for vouchers. But most plans are not really vouchers. They are an opportunity for rich and middle class people to get a tuition break on private schools.

Vouchers should cover the full cost of private education (including uniforms, books, etc.) and transportation to the school. Then they would inspire real choice and change. Any other plan will not help the people who need the most help. I am pretty sure, however, that this voucher plan would be too expensive to implement.

To me, what you're asking for goes beyond what we're entitled to. For instance, my school district has already told my child they're not required to transport them to so-called "choice schools". That's up to the parent. If the public school system isn't transporting my child to school... why should a private school have to?

Both my kids wear uniforms. Both attend public schools. The schools certainly don't pick up the tab, and I don't think vouchers should either.

There will be work/study programs at private schools. There will be private scholarship funds. The $65,000,000 spent annually that the NEA says is goint to promote vouchers could instead be used to set up additional scholarships for low-income students.

But even if you can't fully fund vouchers, does that mean we should stick with a broken system?

[albionmoonlight]

This may come down to a disagreement on what is a better allocation of resources for society.

First, I think that your district should pay for your kids' transportation and uniforms. Second, many low SES parents do not have a realistic choice to transport their kids to certain schools. Public transit in many places is not comprehensive and these parents either do not own a car or have to work several jobs and do not have the time to drive across town to get to the good schools. This problem is made worse by the fact that the best schools tend to be far away from the worst neighborhoods.

I think that we will all be better off in the long run if we spend the money now to allow these kids to get to good schools so that they are educated citizens later (and not on public assistance of one form or another). I cannot prove this point, and others believe that our money could be better spent elsewhere (both inside and outside of the system).

In my world, there would be parents who take advantage of the system. Parents who can afford to transport their kids but who abuse the taxpayers generosity and make us pick up the tab. To the extent we can stop that behavior, we should, but I am not naive enough to believe that it won't happen.

I simply believe that it is a worthwhile investment of money now in order to educate the next generation. We could start by using the money that we would save by implementing your suggestions about class size.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I didn't answer your last question. I think that 1/2way voucher programs are not a good use of money. I would rather the money be spent in a way that gets more to the students who need it. I think that they will help, but not enough to justify their expense.

[Fritz]

I have an idea.

Why don't we get the fed out of the education business and let the states deal with this. It a state wants a voucher program then they can have it.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Butters: Out of three points, you can only pick on the most subjective one? Yes, I have a problem with the social agenda of the NEA. So do many NEA members. The problem is, when you're required to pay dues regardless of whether or not you're a member (agency fees), you might as well join the union and get the ancillary benefits.

Ever heard of principles? If I had to pay dues to a union that headed right-to-life rallies, there's no way in hell I would join their union. They can have my money (so I could have my job), but they could also not have any participation from me. Also, most unions elect their leadership. If most members of the NEA were not for the political agenda that is supported, then they should vote out the leadership, and vote in someone who reflects their beliefs.

It has NOTHING to do with my personal beliefs. If the NEA was supporting a repeal of gun laws, or backing the death penalty I'd still be wondering why.

I SERIOUSLY doubt it. Saying that it has nothing to do with your personal beliefs is suspect.

Both of you chose to attack me instead of my arguments. Can you refute any of my statistics? Can you tell me, honestly, that we're doing a measurably better job of educating kids than we were 30 years ago?

I fail to see where I attacked you. I noted that your main beef was with their liberal agenda, which it is. I can point to just as many studies as you can that lower class size = improved achievement (like this one from the DOE). You have a point with per pupil spending, but for example, here in Ohio, there is a serious question as to HOW school districts spend money. Waste is prevalent, and many school districts have to spend a LOT of money to upgrade their crumbling infrastructure, which doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on the quality of education.

I don't think anyone could tell you we're doing a measurably better job of educating kids than we were 30 years ago. Level of education is pretty hard to measure, but I agree that the educational system is malfunctioning.

As to vouchers only masking the problem... bad students can already attend private school. It's just that right now, it's bad students that can afford it. If you don't want the lower socio-economic class to have the same sort of financial clout that middle and upper class sections of society have, then oppose vouchers. And even IF vouchers mask the problem, would it hurt the educational system in this country? At worst it would stay the same. And really, when you factor in how much more efficient private schools are, you'd be saving money... which could be spent to improve the public schools.

As for vouchers, I think this ties in with the question asked in the other thread: parents who tend to care about their children will jump all over vouchers and send them to so-called "better" schools. These same parents will tend to have a more active role in their child's education, and the students tend to be more motivated and perform better because of their parents interest and involvement. Private schools are efficient at points. But the idea at the heart of this argument is how do we bring the sort of motivation and drive that helps good students perform well to the poor students who don't perform as well?

I don't know. But I don't think vouchers are the answer.

Edit: Took out a sentence that was a straggler from a previously deleted and not posted paragraph.

[AZSpeechCoach]

A few quick things during lunch, from one of the resident teachers.

In terms of class size, it is much easier to get the 1 on 1 contact with students in a smaller class. Cam cited a study that showed that it had minimal to no impact. From my experience, I am able to be a more effective grader and instructor with 90 essays a week rather than 150. Can I quantify it? Probably not. But my wife says I'm happier Sure, I could "manage" a class of 50. Remember your college lecture hall classes? That would be the environment. They'd be able to regurgitate the information, but I could'nt tell if they "got it."

For politics, the candidates who are more likely to promote education funding also promote some of the causes that Cam states. NEA scratches their back, the candidate will scratch NEA's. In Arizona, there is no mandate to pay dues, so we don't worry about people funding causes they can't support.

In terms of vouchers, we already have a bright-flight in my district. Or is it rich-flight? Many times, they are the one in the same. The students who are still here are the ones who would be rejected from a private school anyway. Even if they had the voucher $, they would wind up back on our doorstep. Actually, our speech team is the only draw for the gifted and talented students that our school has. Personally, I disagree with the concept of tax dollars subsidizing a private, exclusionary, enterprise. I also don't like the Cardinals stadium project, but at least I'll get to go there. I don't get to go to Brophy College Prep next door .

BTW Cam, what do you think about the proposed AFTRA/SAG merger? As a member of SAG, I think that the combined union would provide strong leverage for entertainers.

Power in numbers my friends.

Kevin

[CamEdwards]

Butters,

The NEA also supports things like abortion rights, homosexual/bisexual/transgendered rights, gun control, socialized medicine, and reparations to Native Americans. Now I don’t care if you’re for or against these things. The question I have is why do teachers unions need to take a public stand on things like this? Do my kids get an education or an indoctrination at school?

Out of my entire first post, this is all I said about the agenda of the NEA. You still want to say it was my main point? It's simply the easiest to attack because it's the only part of my argument that's subjective.

To be honest, there's nothing I can do to stop you from believing that's the most important thing to me. I can simply tell you it's not. I'm married to a woman who doesn't share my political or religious beliefs... I'm pretty open minded. My point was that the NEA shouldn't be taking a stand on issues like that. That's not the point of the NEA. Keep harping on it all you want, it makes no difference to me.

Now, as to the political beliefs of NEA members. I'm sure I don't have to educate you on how the union is run... but since you don't belong, maybe I do.

Members of the NEA elect site representatives in the school where they work, representatives to the state organization, and delegates to the annual Representative Assembly. You know as well as I do how busy teachers are. After you work a 50 hour week (which is what most teachers are working these days), how much time do you have to devote to union activities? You'd probably know more about the candidates for site rep than you would state candidates, and you'd probably know more about the state candidates than you would delagates to the Representative Assembly.

Also, keep in mind that the Representative Assembly is made up of 10,000 people out of 2.7 million members. You have to figure that the vast majority of those delegates are the ones active in the union, as opposed to the vast majority who pay their dues and go on with life.

To say that every NEA member supports the agenda of the NEA leadership is just ridiculous. Does every Catholic believe that if you get a divorce and remarry you're going to hell? Does every Catholic believe priests shouldn't marry? Nope... but don't tell the pope.

On class sizes: I'm not going to argue that at some point a smaller class becomes easier to deal with, and therefore becomes easier to teach. Look at homeschooling (oh wait, the NEA is against that...). But come on, we're already at a ratio of 16:1 nationally. How much smaller do we need to get, and at what cost? Nationally, the education of our kids hasn't gotten any better since 1970, while the student/teacher ratio has declined considerably.

This is what it boils down to with me: The NEA says class sizes and per pupil expenditures are the two things schools can do to improve education. We've seen falling class sizes and increased per pupil expenditures for three decades. Have the schools improved? No. Then it's time to do something different, and it's time to take away the power of the teachers unions to influence how our schools are run. They've already shown they're out to benefit their members first, kids second (as any good union should).

BTW, you wanna talk about salaries out of whack... try and find out what some of the staff at the Ohio Education Association are making.

[Arles]

I'll throw my hat into the ring. The average student costs a private school $4000 to educate. Compare that with the public school cost of $7000 per student. So, the immediate question is why?

The answer is fairly simple. Public schools have enormous amounts of red tape. Just look at the number of districts in your state. Out here in Arizona, we have over 80 school districts. Each one has their own staff, leadership and priorities. Each district receives the money and spends it as they see fit, with little consequences. There was a story out here about the Scottsdale school district where one of the female district supervisors decided to hire on her best friend as a secretary at a salary of $90,000. You would think the school board wouldn't allow it right? Well, most of the district board's members had no idea she had been hired and the ones that did know didn't care as they were just as politically based and she was.

If someone wants to champion real Public school reform, I'm all for it. But I haven't seen it yet and doubt it will occur in my lifetime. There are too many strong interests with their hands in the cookie jar to allow someone to come in and change the public school system. That's where vouchers come in. Between Catholic, Private and Charter Schools, there would be enough competition to cause the public school system to seriously rethink its rediculous spending habits. Another point here is that there are a lot of very good Public schools. Where I lived (the Kyrene distict) is one of the top in the state and has outstanding leadership.

So, the only way I see this education system working is if you go with some sort of voucher system. Now, those of you saying this system doesn't allow poor kids to go to Xavier prep or other top private schools are correct. But, it would allow them to go from a woeful public district like South Phoenix to a much better public district like Kyrene or even Tempe. It would also allow them to send their kids to Catholic school or a Charter school if they so chose. All of these options are very inexpensive and can be paid by vouchers. If you atleast give kids the option of choosing the best public, charter and catholic schools (forget the private), you can start fixing the district problems. If everyone is flocking to the Kyrene district and the bad South Phoenix district is losing students, chances are they will make changes in their leadership/policies so that they can compete. But, if they don't, there is a penalty as they will go out of business. Their schools will most likely be taken over by Charter organizations and reopened for the better (as it already has in areas with vouchers).

The only provision I would add would be a "bonus" for taking kids from families below a certain economic level. Notice how I said economic level, not color. There's no reason the son of a black millionaire should get a higher voucher than an asian or white kid from a family making 30K.

I think a system like this would work and, more importantly, allow kids in failing school districts a chance that they do not have right now.

Arlie

[sabotai]

And why exactly should a techer UNION be looking out for education? What union out there looks after anything except its members? None. So why is it different for a teacher union?

Unions exist (theoretically) so that people will have good job security and not get screwed on benefits.

Many of you know I'm about as anti-union as they come, but to have a different criteria for evaluation a teacher's union and other unions is total BS.

There's no reason why the teacher's union should be looking out for the education of the kids. Their function is to make sure teachers keep their jobs and not get screwed over. Looking out for the education of the kids is the responsibility of teachers and parents themselves.

[panerd]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I love it.

Panerd: where do you get that my stats are based on test scores? I never MENTIONED test scores! As far as teacher pay goes, the national average pay for a teacher is $40,000. By any standard that's pretty good pay. Are you going to get rich? Nope. But I know a lot of teachers who own their own home, drive better cars than I do, and get three months off every summer.

.

1. OK. How do you think your studies are measuring student achievment? (which is the basis of half of your critique) My guess, until proven otherwise is test scores.


2. Why do businessmen get 7 weeks off every year? (Becuase they don't, they only get 2.) Well I only get 7 weeks off, not 12.

[Arles]

I have to agree with Sabotai here. As much as I think the teacher's union is detrimental to the cause of educating our children. That's simply not their job. Their job is to protect the teachers, their benefits and their pay. And, much like the player's union in MLB, their actions often come at the expense of the overall system.

Arlie

[sabotai]

Holy crap, Arlies agreed with me on something! Pigs are flying and it's raining frogs!

[Anrhydeddu]

Here was what I wrote last year about this issue (from the old forum) about the local Charter School that I wanted my son to attend:

Here is what they will expect of each student before they move on to 1st grade:

„X be able to read at a typical level expected of 2nd graders, through phonemic awareness
„X be able to write letters and words in cursive
„X be able to understand the rudiments of mathematics (adding, subtracting, etc.)
„X be able to know fundamentals of American history (presidents and stuff like that)

They will accomplish this through explicit and focused instruction on decoding (phonics), breaking skills down into learnable chunks, teacher-directed learning, learning more in less time, high interaction and clear expectations. In other words, they believe that high success=high mastery=high motivation=high selfesteem. There is much more I have in front of me that talks about the technique and reasons, esp. for phonics and the approaches to reading, but I won¡¦t bore you with them (plus, I don¡¦t understand all of it myself).

This is not a private school, it is not a school for academically gifted, it¡¦s just a publically-funded charter school stuck in an old post office building. And speaking of teachers, each of the teachers here are paid less than their colleagues in the regular school district. They difference here is that with such a highly motivated and aggressive approach to teaching, they know they will see high standard results ¡V that is their reward.

The question for the group is: why do not ALL schools have high expectations for their students? If you start any child in kindergarden rigorously learning the basics of reading, writing, math and others, wouldn¡¦t they be able to learn it (as proven by nearly all of the classes this and other schools have had over the past 10 years)? Why do teachers and administrators in a typical(?) public school think children are ¡¥not ready¡¦ to learn these things at this stage? Isn¡¦t the fundamental problem of education in this country is not the lack of funding or teacher salaries or school choice but the expectation level of the teacher and the students? In other words, if you don¡¦t expect the students to learn at a high level nor does a teacher expect to teach in a rigorous manner, is it any wonder of the poor results of education in this country?

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by sabotai
Looking out for the education of the kids is the responsibility of teachers and parents themselves.

Italics are mine to show emphasis.

Here is the key point I would use to refute Cam's statistics. The main point of the first part of his post seems to be that reduced class size hasn't returned any noticable improvement in student achievement, and implies that the union's drive was to add more teachers (and thus generate more dues revenue).

His second part seems to show that increasing the cost of educational spending per pupil hasn't improved student achievement either.

To both of these points I ask: Are these comparisons between now and 20-30 years ago fair comparisons? I don't believe they are.

Look around you and ask yourself: Has there not been an increase in the number of households with both parents working increased in the last 20-30 years? Has there not been an increase in the number of single-parent households?

For education to work there needs to be a partnership between the teachers and the students. If the student is not receiving much in the way of help or encouragement at home, or if he or she is forced to spend more free time working to help put food on the table, then the level of engagement by those students in class and on homework is bound to suffer.

I think Cam's stats are incomplete - let's see some more statistics that describe the other half of the equation here. It's my suspiscion that if these statistics showing no discernable positive impact from reducing class size and increasing per pupil spending are true, it's because the benefit of such actions is being masked by decreases in the level of engagement by the students and support from parents.

[tucker342]

I agree sabotai

[panerd]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu

The question for the group is: why do not ALL schools have high expectations for their students? If you start any child in kindergarden rigorously learning the basics of reading, writing, math and others, wouldn¡¦t they be able to learn it (as proven by nearly all of the classes this and other schools have had over the past 10 years)? Why do teachers and administrators in a typical(?) public school think children are ¡¥not ready¡¦ to learn these things at this stage? Isn¡¦t the fundamental problem of education in this country is not the lack of funding or teacher salaries or school choice but the expectation level of the teacher and the students? In other words, if you don¡¦t expect the students to learn at a high level nor does a teacher expect to teach in a rigorous manner, is it any wonder of the poor results of education in this country?

My only question is how you go about figuring what the typical school is? According to you, most schools don't have expectations. I strongly disagree with you. Throw me some facts.

[CamEdwards]

panerd,

The National Association of Scholars used a survey to show that overall, kids are just as smart today as they were 50 years ago... they're just not any smarter.

The same point that NAS makes has been made by those who study SAT and ACT rates. We were doing pretty well until the late 1960's/early 70's, then the test scores started slipping. Lately we've seen some improvement in the math portion of test scores, but at the expense of english and writing skills. Overall, we're a little below where we were when the nation had it's "Great Decline' that led to the report "A Nation At Risk".

Here are some other stats, however.

Graduation rates? In 1973 it was 84%. In 1998 it was 86%. To quote the U.S. Department of Education in 1998 "This net increase of about 2 percent is not very encouraging."

Cost of remedial education at the college level? 30 years ago, the only colleges offering remedial courses were community colleges. Now 80% of public 4 year colleges offer remedial classes, and 60% of the private four year colleges do the same, at a cost of more than a billion dollars a year.

Now, if you want to throw out test scores, keep one thing in mind. Test scores might be hard to interpret based on race, socio-economic status, and the like... but they can still be used as a pretty good snapshot when comparing one generation to the next.

The fact is, we're not improving. And as we pour more and more money into schools, we keep seeing them fall apart physically. We see them kept apart economically and racially. We see them break apart philosophically.

Is it coincidence that the downturn of our education system happened at the same time as the unionization of our schools? Maybe. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that the 30 year stagnation of our schools has nothing to do with the philosophies of education put forth by the NEA.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by panerd
1. OK. How do you think your studies are measuring student achievment? (which is the basis of half of your critique) My guess, until proven otherwise is test scores.


2. Why do businessmen get 7 weeks off every year? (Becuase they don't, they only get 2.) Well I only get 7 weeks off, not 12.

Dola: sorry you only get 7 weeks off every year. How unfair. That doesn't apply to everyone, however. There are plenty of teachers who are off most of the summer, two weeks at Christmas, and Spring Break.

[GrantDawg]

How much does a year at a Catholic school cost? I know most of the "Christian" schools I have been associated with are not that expensive, generally work with parents on transportation and books, and give breaks to lower incomes.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Italics are mine to show emphasis.

Here is the key point I would use to refute Cam's statistics. The main point of the first part of his post seems to be that reduced class size hasn't returned any noticable improvement in student achievement, and implies that the union's drive was to add more teachers (and thus generate more dues revenue).

His second part seems to show that increasing the cost of educational spending per pupil hasn't improved student achievement either.

To both of these points I ask: Are these comparisons between now and 20-30 years ago fair comparisons? I don't believe they are.

Look around you and ask yourself: Has there not been an increase in the number of households with both parents working increased in the last 20-30 years? Has there not been an increase in the number of single-parent households?

For education to work there needs to be a partnership between the teachers and the students. If the student is not receiving much in the way of help or encouragement at home, or if he or she is forced to spend more free time working to help put food on the table, then the level of engagement by those students in class and on homework is bound to suffer.

I think Cam's stats are incomplete - let's see some more statistics that describe the other half of the equation here. It's my suspiscion that if these statistics showing no discernable positive impact from reducing class size and increasing per pupil spending are true, it's because the benefit of such actions is being masked by decreases in the level of engagement by the students and support from parents.

It's no surprise that the divorce rate started climbing at the same time education started declining. It was the 1960's. In 1967, for example, the divorce rate was 2.6 per 1,000. In 1990 it was 4.7. But in 1981 the divorce rate was 5.3... and in 1998 it was 4.0, a rate not seen since 1972. It's actually gone down over the past two decades. Should we not have seen a correlating rise in education?

Besides, if you're trying to say that single parent households are more likely to produce poor students, then that only backs up my assertion that vouchers for private schools (including religious schools) are the way to go. Private schools with religious affiliations are much more likely to have access to aid for single mothers who are part of their community, and the additional support network that comes with a smaller school and church affiliation could go a long way towards dealing without that absent parent.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm off for the day. Kudos to all for one of the more enjoyable online discusssions that I have had in a while.