Is the U.S. behind in the sciences?

[Darkness]

... the EU and Japan, where scruples are hard to find ...

That doesn't sound very nice to the EU and Japan.
From the context it seems to me that insult wasn't your intent, though, right? Please be a little more careful with how you phrase things. Thanks.

 

[d20fool]

Private school myths

I agree with you that quality teachers could do nothing but improve the educational situation we find ourselves in. And I further agree that paying them more can only help attract better applicants. These are commonly understood "market forces" that apply to most segments of our economy and I'm very much in favor of them.

The problem, as I see it, is the state-run, virtual monopoly of our public educational system. Like any institution of its size it is laden with beurocracy and that beurocracy eats up a tremendous amount of the money that goes toward education in this country. Furthermore the tenure system makes the firing of a bad teacher who has managed to hang in there for a few years nearly impossible barring some egregious misconduct.

If I had the money to send my child to private school then I would do so because I believe there is a greater degree of accountability to be found in a system where they have greater control over the academic environment (by virtue of not having to adhere to the standards set by the state and NEA). I'm in favor of vouchers as a means of giving me a real choice in how my child is educated. If that somehow makes me automatically wealthy then I wish somebody would hurry up and send me a big fat check so I don't have to worry about whether we'll be able to pay our bills each month.

A. Thank you for agreeing with me on teacher pay. You wouldn't believe the arguments against it.

B. Private schools vary widely in quality of education. Students I receive from our local private schools often have trouble being independent and there is apparently no training in writing whatsoever other than copying out of a book. That's just here though.

There are some private schools that are excellent and their reputation seems to shine for all private schools. This is not the case. Private schools often have less money than public schools do, less qualified teachers, fewer and older books, etc. Private schools are often more about agenda, political and religious, than education.

To give credit where it is due, I have had two students with severe problems go to private schools and do much better. The very small class size was helpful. Further, we have students called "tweeners" who have academic problems but don't qualify for special services that would benefit from a small classroom vs. a larger public classroom. I have to admit that.

Private schools do not have ANY of the safeguards and guarentees public school does. Kid accused of a crime he didn't committ (seen it happen), he can't come to our school. Wrong color or religion (seen that happen too), she's not welcome here. Severe learning disability, no can do. As for accountability, if you have a compliant, your child suddenly becomes "unsuitable" and you have no legal recourse. Seen that happen as well.

However, if you have a compliant about public school, you can lots. You can petition the school board, write your congressman, get a lawyer. I had one parent, angry over a state law that almost kept her A honor roll grandson in 5th grade a second year (low reading level) run for the school board where she's been for the last 4 years. You have LOTS of power in your local schools, just take it. I've seens groups of parents do very serious amounts of damage.

As for tenure, I can think of only two teachers in my time who needed to get the boot but couldn't because of tenure. A move for a review system across many states will take care of that. Honestly, there's not a hoard of "bad" teachers out there bogging the system down and it is too easy for a principal to run off any teacher they don't want anyway. That is what happened to those two teachers, BTW.

John "d20fool" McCarty

 

[d20fool]

Why we have public schools.

Imagine if the state ran the dry-cleaning industry and told you where your designated dry-cleaner was. Imagine if they designated that your dry-cleaner was way across town. Imagine that they designated a dry-cleaner that did a mediocre job. Imagine that you had to apply for an exception if you wished to switch to a different dry-cleaner that was more convenient or did a better job.

I can't quite wrap my brain around why most people would be outraged if their choice of dry-cleaner was dictated in this way but they're just find with it being applied to their child's education.

But you don't have a choice of post office, unless you want to drive further. Or what policeman pulls you over for a speeding ticket, or what fireman comes to your house when it is burning down. Education is not a dry cleaners, it's a state institution. What you are asking for is consumer's choice when it comes to education. Let's look at that a second.

You see, the whole voucher thing comes about with the premise that competition is good, ergo schools should be competitive. This will give us better students, right? Wrong. That's because by the time the clients (the students) are in a position to reflect on whether or not they had a good education, it's already over.

I automatically distrust any system that leaves children wide open for exploitation. If each child comes with a fat voucher check, that school is going to be interested in keeping as much of that check as possible. That means less qualified teachers who are paid less, poorer quality buildings, outdated curriculum (since new curriculum costs $) and so on. Children find it hard to advocate for themselves in such a situation. We would like to believe that parents would not subject their kids to such a school, but that simply is not the case. They might not have a choice, if the only school in town that doesn't require extra money is that way. Can't parents complain? Sure, but when you're the bottom rung on the ladder there is no place else to go.

You can see why the wealthy like vouchers. By supplementing their voucher, they can send their student to a quality school that is likely to give in to their input, while poorer parents have to send their kids to lower quality schools. In one bold stroke, the wealthy get their private school AND more say in the school (they have a lot to say now in public schools, I HATE affluent parents) AND seperation of class. Wow.

Vouchers are based on the capitalist presumption that competition is good. However, this is based on greed. Reducing students to dollar amounts can only be bad and undoes over a 100 years worth of work. I think it's a seriously bad move and would rather talk about improving public schools than waste more time on an idea voters hate anyway.

Remember the two reasons for public schools is to 1.) produce better educated citizens for a better democracy. This is hard to do if we have a variety of private schools producing students of differing quality. 2.) To keep kids from being exploited. The reason for mandatory school attendance was to get kids out of factories. Vouchers put kids right back in that exploitation category.

John "d20fool" McCarty

 

[d20fool]

Glad to be wrong

What?!? Where on earth did you hear that?

I mean, this conversation is in context of the Western world, right? Poor Eastern European countries are really no more relevant to the conversation than poor African countries are. I know of no Western country which starts teaching kids to read at seven.

A teacher who had visited Europe told me that Europeans believed children started acquiring literacy "naturally" at age seven. I am so very glad to be wrong about that. According to my information from Education Weekly, Europe does trail us in literacy but stomps us by a larger margin in math and science.

 

[d20fool]

Parents

Huh. d20fool, I'm suprised that you, a teacher yourself, would say this. In my experience there is one thing that impacts a classroom more than a quality teacher - quality parenting. Respect and desire for education begins at home. And the teacher generally can't do diddly if the kids don't have it.

Amen! However, money doesn't grow on trees. You know that respect and desire for education that begins at home? Well, it's the parents who pay the taxes that go into teacher salaries.

Well, that depends upon what you call "qualified". There may be a great many people who have the technical knowledge of their fields to teach. But teaching itself is a skill set that you don't usually get without doing it.

Plus, it depends upon where you live. In Massachusetts, for example, within the next two years, a full 40% of the public school teachers will become elegible for retirement with full benefits. And in MA, while the salaries aren't up to corporate levels, the retirement package is pretty darned sweet for old-timers. There's very little incentive for them to stay on, and MA may well have a serious shortage of people who are qualified to teach.

I am not going to speak on the subject of NCLB. I think of it as far too political to touch here.

A.) Are you suggesting we pay parents to be good parents? We have NO control over the parents. We get the kids that we get. Yes, good parents are important, but not consistant. Teacher quality is something we can control, and studies show that a single, quality teacher has more impact than anything else. I would love to hit the mom who refuses to give her kid medication with a mackerel, but I have to accept it while doing my best with her son and keeping him from kicking anybody.

B.) Most parents are more than willing to pay more taxes for education. They are our voting base in our local bond issues. It's folks without kids in school who don't like to pay teachers.

C.) Back in Colorado, there is an entire class of teachers who quit after several years becaus e they simply could not afford to teach and had to get a better paying job. Insurance companies advertise in my teacher union magazine for exactly that reason, to recruit people.

The upcoming wholesale retirement of teachers has been happening for the last 5 years or so. I'm actually hoping for a teacher shortage. Maybe somebody will pay us then. We have a great retirement plan too, but I'm not quitting until they tell me to go home.

 

[Devilkiller]

d20fool,

What grade/subject(s) do you teach? What is your yearly salary for the regular September-June or so school year? Also, do or could you make extra money from the school or school district for coaching sports, teaching summer school, etc? If so how much does or could that pay add up to? Finally, is your income close to the national average for teachers with your job description?

I have always heard complaints about the low pay of teachers, but I have never had a clear picture of just how much money it is that teachers make. Without that it is tough to tell whether or not their pay is "fair". Some folks would consider $40,000 chump change and insufficient to pay the bills. Others would consider it a "pretty good job". The same could be said of $30,000 or $70,000. Give us some numbers here? I can't see paying somebody $150,000/yr to teach 4 year olds to spell C-A-T, but if there are guys teaching Calculus to 17 year olds for $6/hour that's probably silly too.

 

[reanjr]

OK, how about something more global, like the number of nobel prizes won in the sciences?

That may be helpful, but if one country has two guys that happen to come up with wonderful new breakthroughs and win Nobels while the rest of the country has no scientists at all, it would certainly be skewed. This would probably only be useful over a long period of time and to predict trends, but no good for a snapshot of whether one country was behind another.

 

[reanjr]

I had one parent, angry over a state law that almost kept her A honor roll grandson in 5th grade a second year (low reading level) run for the school board where she's been for the last 4 years.

That's exemplary of the problem with public education. The idea of grade levels is absolutely absurd. Should the kid be pushed ahead to 6th grade without having proficiency in skills he/she will be required to utilize? No. Should the kid be kept in 5th grade due to deficiency in only one of numerous skills? No. The system from the ground up is designed to fail; or at least teach to the lowest common denominator, which IMO is failure.

Many private schools schools, especially at the secondary level, are much better at focusing on a child's skills and minimizing the impact of the weaknesses.

This probably varies from state to state (and maybe even on a district level), but everything I've ever seen indicates that public education is fairly similar across the country.

As for tenure, I can think of only two teachers in my time who needed to get the boot but couldn't because of tenure.

Really? I've been a student to two. I'm all for higher teacher wages. I'm also all for measuring performance and dropping those that consistently do poorly.

There is another problem, though, that our system does well at addressing. What do you do with all the highly educated people that would come out of a better system? It's bad enough that people with higher degrees can not work in their respective fields. If the average high school student came out with Bachelor's level education (which is quite possible, though probably would not be as specialized), the problem of over-education would only get worse.

 

[reanjr]

You see, the whole voucher thing comes about with the premise that competition is good, ergo schools should be competitive. This will give us better students, right? Wrong. That's because by the time the clients (the students) are in a position to reflect on whether or not they had a good education, it's already over.

Not true. It's readily apparent on a classroom level to anyone who cares to pay attention whether or not the kids are being well educated. This may be more difficult in earlier years, but certainly by the time you're reaching 10 year olds this is not hard to figure out. Making sure the system supports a free market is the most paramount goal. Parents will send their kids to the schools which do the best. It's that simple.

I automatically distrust any system that leaves children wide open for exploitation. If each child comes with a fat voucher check, that school is going to be interested in keeping as much of that check as possible. That means less qualified teachers who are paid less, poorer quality buildings, outdated curriculum (since new curriculum costs $) and so on. Children find it hard to advocate for themselves in such a situation. We would like to believe that parents would not subject their kids to such a school, but that simply is not the case. They might not have a choice, if the only school in town that doesn't require extra money is that way. Can't parents complain? Sure, but when you're the bottom rung on the ladder there is no place else to go.

This happens in public schools. I don't see how vouchers would change anything, except offer the parents an alternative to a compulsory school system that is already cutting those costs.

You can see why the wealthy like vouchers. By supplementing their voucher, they can send their student to a quality school that is likely to give in to their input, while poorer parents have to send their kids to lower quality schools. In one bold stroke, the wealthy get their private school AND more say in the school (they have a lot to say now in public schools, I HATE affluent parents) AND seperation of class. Wow.

Then the voucher needs to be 100%. If the taxes pay $10,000 for education per year, then the voucher should be $10,000. The problem you bring up isn't one with vouchers, it's a problem with any system that is done half-assed.

Vouchers are based on the capitalist presumption that competition is good. However, this is based on greed. Reducing students to dollar amounts can only be bad and undoes over a 100 years worth of work.

Work? The system currently in place was based on that created by an East European (I do not recall the country at the moment) semi-totalitarian regime to keep their citizens in control. It was brought over by industry giants like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford to create a population of non-independent thinkers molded for factory work. Read up. Gatto is a good place to start. Also, if you can hunt them down, try to check out some of post WWII US military research studies on why the average American citizen was no longer competent enough to be in the military. They had to spend billions on re-education of soldiers. Many analysts laid the blame on this new generation of Americans coming out of the public education system.

I think it's a seriously bad move and would rather talk about improving public schools than waste more time on an idea voters hate anyway.

Public schools can't be improved in any significant way. The base assumptions and designs are the problem, not the implementation. It needs to be redone from the ground up. Voting for anything other than complete reform is a waste of time.

Remember the two reasons for public schools is to 1.) produce better educated citizens for a better democracy. This is hard to do if we have a variety of private schools producing students of differing quality.

As I stated above, you are absolutely incorrect on this assumption. Try to go find out the real history of public education. Don't allow big industry (supported by governments funded by such) to put thoughts in your head.

2.) To keep kids from being exploited. The reason for mandatory school attendance was to get kids out of factories. Vouchers put kids right back in that exploitation category.

Incorrect again. The system is designed to exploit the American citizens to their fullest. Mandatory attendence was put into place by those who saw the potential for creating the Nuclear family that would sustain American industry.

 

[reanjr]

I have always heard complaints about the low pay of teachers, but I have never had a clear picture of just how much money it is that teachers make. Without that it is tough to tell whether or not their pay is "fair". Some folks would consider $40,000 chump change and insufficient to pay the bills. Others would consider it a "pretty good job". The same could be said of $30,000 or $70,000. Give us some numbers here? I can't see paying somebody $150,000/yr to teach 4 year olds to spell C-A-T, but if there are guys teaching Calculus to 17 year olds for $6/hour that's probably silly too.

Yeah, also keep in mind the vacation package is absolutely superb. If a teacher gets paid $30k/yr. they are making about as much per hour as your average $40k worker. The only companies I've seen that even come close to comparing are the big three and their associated companies. The UAW (at least the ones I am involved with at work) now get paid vacation for the first day of deer hunting season...

Though I do believe teachers should get paid more. I think it should be turned into a performance based industry with wildly varying salaries based on effectiveness and subject (I don't care how you slice it, your Chemistry teacher should get paid more than your Intro to Earth Sciences teacher; unless they redesigned the curriculum for Earth Sciences). Having a union for teachers is just weird in my opinion.