It seems fairly clear that our system of public education has deteriorated over the years since I was involved.  The anecdotes are numerous.  A funny (but sad) compilation is Non Campus Mentis compiled by Andres Henriksson.  May blame the NEA and the AFT (2 largest teachers' union) for this.  I think that is too simple and too simplistic.  What should graduating high school kids know?  What skills should they have?  How much responsibility to parants bear for their kids' education?  How much can we expect of teachers?

To many parents in my opinion soley depend on the U.S. public education system to give their kids a good education.  Ain't going happen.  What skills?  Basic math, reading, knowledge of history, writing, and vocational skills for people going into a trade.  People planning for academic style college need algebra, history, biology, reading, writing, and mostly book smarts.  Our schools are a failure, its time for school vouchers.

It seems fairly clear that our system of public education has deteriorated over the years since I was involved.  The anecdotes are numerous.  A funny (but sad) compilation is Non Campus Mentis compiled by Andres Henriksson.  May blame the NEA and the AFT (2 largest teachers' union) for this.  I think that is too simple and too simplistic.  What should graduating high school kids know?  What skills should they have?  How much responsibility to parants bear for their kids' education?  How much can we expect of teachers?


The teacher unions do deserve some of the blame, which I'm sure a teacher doesn't want to hear.  If you discount the fact that the union's appear more concerned with money and benefits, they tend to allow too many tenured teachers to continue in the profession that most likely shouldn't be there.  I was an above average student in school, though not overly motivated, and I can certainly say that I had teachers that were tenured that were excellent.  I also had a couple that were clearly there to ride out their service to retirement. 

There's also the mistaken belief that more money, means better teachers.  All it really means, is you get people applying for a position because it pays well, and they hope to get their summers off. Conneticut has the highest paid teachers in the country, and yet their schools are failing.  There goes that theory. Maybe it works at the college level, but most large universities have expensive professors who don't teach the undergrads.  No wonder most of them don't go on for additional degrees.

The opposition to standardized testing is also a mistake.  Even with several of the tests dumbed way down, they're still failing plenty of students.  That's a sign that there's students that shouldn't be in grade levels that they're in. The argument is that teachers will teach towards the test.  Of course they will.  I was taught basic standarized test taking techniques.  The SAT tests practically require you know about trying to eliminate incorrect answers, etc. That only gets you a small edge on the overall test.  If you can't read, you can't apply that technique.  If you can't tell which answers are not even likely contenders, than you can't improve your odds if you don't know an answer. If you told the teacher unions, that you weren't going to require ceritfication tests for new teachers, I'm sure they'd freak out over it.  Surprisingly, they don't think the issuance of a degree they teach, should require the same level of effort by their students.

The other side of the coin, is that students are expected to know a greater deal of material now, compared to 20 years ago.  How many people over the age of 40 had to take an entire course in computer technology? How many other advances also need to be covered? The more time you spend on things outside of the core curriculums, is time you don't spend teaching the basics. 

Parents are also nowhere near as involved in the education process as they need to be.  The only time you ever see parents involved in the process, is when it involves organized sports (a total waste of public money that gets spent on a small minority of students), or when something they don't like, such as evolution is taught.  Children need to be encouraged and supervised heavily.

My town is building a new school.  The state requires a ridiculous number of athletic fields for a school the size they plan on building. This requires more money to purchase additional land, and construction of the fields themselves.  Outside of basic phys-ed, these items are a total extravagence, and do very little to help non-athletes learn better. I guess without the sports teams, the parents have nothing to get hyper over.  That money could easily be spent on history books that cover, let's say the Vietnam war (which in the late 80s, I didn't have). 

so yeah, no simple solution for the poltiicans to campaign over.

To many parents in my opinion soley depend on the U.S. public education system to give their kids a good education.  Ain't going happen.  What skills?  Basic math, reading, knowledge of history, writing, and vocational skills for people going into a trade.  People planning for academic style college need algebra, history, biology, reading, writing, and mostly book smarts.  Our schools are a failure, its time for school vouchers.


Vouchers are a waste of public money.  If you want to send your kids to a private school, you should expect to pay the full cost of said education.  I don't get a break on my taxes for not sending kids to school because I don't have any, I don't get a break for the taxes spent on roads if I don't have a car, etc.  All it does, is help the private schools raise their tution rates because they're now free to charge more.

Private schools in general are not always better than the public schools.  Ultimately, what a student puts into his education, is what he will get out of it. I knew plenty of people who went to private schools after doing K-6 in public schools.  They didn't end up going to college, or if they did, it was no better than a community college.  Sure some of them went on to expensive colleges, but they probably would have anyways.

To many parents in my opinion soley depend on the U.S. public education system to give their kids a good education.  Ain't going happen.  What skills?  Basic math, reading, knowledge of history, writing, and vocational skills for people going into a trade.  People planning for academic style college need algebra, history, biology, reading, writing, and mostly book smarts.  Our schools are a failure, its time for school vouchers.


"knowledge of history"?  Sure, but whose?  

Vouchers?  Why?  to further ruin public schools?  Remember, public schools have to take everyone.  Privatre schools can pick and choose (with some limits, theoretically).
As a   kid, my parants were totally involved in my education, helping me with (especially) math homework, insisting to see EVERYTHING I proposed to turn in, and always encouraging me to read (books, newspapers, even comic, just READ).  How many homes in the US today even subscribe to the local newspaper?

You seem confused here.  You seem to say that parants aren't doing enough to help their kids, but the answer is vouchers.  Sorry, I just don't get it.

I teach lots of future teachers, and I can attest that their lack of knowledge of basic US history is deplorable.  I can also attest that they don't read.  Most report reading 0-2 hours/week for my course which demands AT LEAST 6-8 hours of readings in the texts and in other sources.

I don't attribute these failings to their public schools, but rather to their parants and to the anti-intellectualism of our society.  My parants instilled in me a love of learning which, I fear, most young people lack.

Let me add that when I was young, both my parants worked, so that's no excuse.

It seems fairly clear that our system of public education has deteriorated over the years since I was involved.  The anecdotes are numerous.  A funny (but sad) compilation is Non Campus Mentis compiled by Andres Henriksson.  May blame the NEA and the AFT (2 largest teachers' union) for this.  I think that is too simple and too simplistic.  What should graduating high school kids know?  What skills should they have?  How much responsibility to parants bear for their kids' education?  How much can we expect of teachers?


For me, there are several reasons behind this problem.  In fact, there are so many causes it is impossible to list them all.  But I will hit several at which I think is to blame.

One of the biggest problems is "Outcome Based Education".  I know that it is not the intent, but the result of it is that it tends to bring all of the students down to the LOWEST common denominator.  Add to that the fact that some schools now do not give "failing" grades, it means that you can't fail in school.  A nice idea, but it leaves our kids totally unprepared for real life.

The politicizing of our teachers has not helped.  In the 1960's and 70's, a lot of people got into Education (as well as Reporting) to "make a difference".  Once again, it is a nice goal, but who made the choice of placeing THEM in charge of our future?  As an example, in 1982 I was in a High School Civics class in Los Angeles.  One of the things we had to discuss was "Pornography".  

The teacher drug out a booklet from the 1960's showing dead Vietnamese children.  "This is pornography" he told the class.  "This is what the US Army did to innocent people in another country.  This is the most disgusting form of Pronography there is!"

I got up and walked out of that class.  He yelled at me, but I left anyways, and went to the Principals office, demanding a change of instructor.  After a counselling session with the instructor he was forced to give an apology to me in front of the class, and was admonished strongly to never do political indoctrination again in class.  I met my wife in his class, and she had a similar run-in with him a few months earlier, when he insisted that Argentina was wrong in trying to take back the Malvinas Islands (Falklands).  He would state that everything she tried to say about the incident was a lie, even after she brought proof that England stole them from Argentina from a Brittish edition of "Encyclopedia Britanica" from the school library!

The unions are a problem in my mind, for another reason.  "Tenure" is a nice idea, but it prevents the removal of unqualified or problematical teachers.  This robs our children of having the best possible teachers, and keeps ones that should be removed in their job because of the power of a group which is not involved in the rights of the students, but in the rights of the teachers.

One problem with education is that to often it attracts the people who are unable to "hack it" in the private sector.  I had one instructor for Business in a community college in LA, who had failed at 2 business of his own, and been fired from 4 corporations.  In the 4 weeks prior to my dropping the class, he had covered NONE of the material in the book, and on the 5th week he did not even bother to show up or call in to the administrator, even though we were supposed to have an exam.  Even though it was past the "drop point", the assistant dean approved my refund when I said I wanted out of the class.  I am sure that he was not granted tenure (this was his first class with that College).  I have seen similar things in private schools though, so not just public schools suffer from this problem.

For one, I support mandatory teacher requirements and testing.  And they should either be instructing a topic that was either their Major or their Minor in college.  To many times, we see Math majors teaching History, or Political Science teachers teaching English.  Make sure that their education matches the subject they are trying to teach.

Also, just like Accountants and Engineers, require further education.  Unless the Teachers themselves "Go back to school" occasionally, they will fall behind of newer discoveries and techniques.  Maybe have them get 1 credit in their chosen field and 1 in Education every 2 years.

Another area would be choices in textbooks.  Instead of giving the instructor a book and having them teach out of that, let them make a choice between 2 or 3 textbooks.  This way, they can pick one that most closely matches their style and the ability of the class.

Finally, allow them to remove disruptive students.  Remembering back to my time in school, there is little worse then having one or more jerks making it impossible to learn by their disruptive antics and behavior.  Allow a teacher to remove them from the class.  The students need to learn how to restrain themselves and behave, because that type of action will not be tolerated a few years later in "the real world".

After all, that is one of the primary goals of education, to help kids mature into adults, and prepare themselves for the "real world" where jobs are a fact of life.

The teacher unions do deserve some of the blame, which I'm sure a teacher doesn't want to hear.  If you discount the fact that the union's appear more concerned with money and benefits, they tend to allow too many tenured teachers to continue in the profession that most likely shouldn't be there.  I was an above average student in school, though not overly motivated, and I can certainly say that I had teachers that were tenured that were excellent.  I also had a couple that were clearly there to ride out their service to retirement. 

I was a teacher for less than a year.  Teachers are disillusioned if they even THINK that this profession will make them rich (it won't).  I was pretty much forced to join the teacher's union (they suck away your money no matter what) but I'd rather have had my money spent on support structures for improving my own teaching skills than to lobby to get paid more.  Teaching is not about the money...if you want to do it for the money, you are in the wrong field.



There's also the mistaken belief that more money, means better teachers.  All it really means, is you get people applying for a position because it pays well, and they hope to get their summers off. Conneticut has the highest paid teachers in the country, and yet their schools are failing.  There goes that theory. Maybe it works at the college level, but most large universities have expensive professors who don't teach the undergrads.  No wonder most of them don't go on for additional degrees.

Nah.  The good teachers use their summers to prepare for the upcoming year ;)  I was fortunate enough, also, to have college professors who cared enough about the students to teach both undergraduate and graduate students, and who were accessible outside of classes and also in the laboratory.  

I taught in a very affluent neighborhood where I grew up and was appalled by the lack of preparedness that they had (or had not) entering high school.  Even the seniors were subpar.  Money does not guarantee success.

Parents are also nowhere near as involved in the education process as they need to be.  The only time you ever see parents involved in the process, is when it involves organized sports (a total waste of public money that gets spent on a small minority of students), or when something they don't like, such as evolution is taught.  Children need to be encouraged and supervised heavily.

I agree that parents need to take their children's educations more seriously and more to heart but athletics is not a waste of money, and in fact, over half the students at my high school of 2000 students were involved in some sports-related activity sponsored by the school.  The bulk of the money did not come from public funds but were donations by the parents and alumni (hehe, funny to call them alumni, but it's true).  I have noticed that in some of the lesser sports like water polo and golf, the students were more disciplined and organized, so athletics does play a huge role in shaping the student.  This unfortunately doesn't translate over to the more popular sports like football, basketball and baseball.  Hate to be rude and insensitive but these kids were STUPID.  Don't know why that is.

And contrary to popular belief, the cheerleaders in my classes were very bright :)

Our schools are a failure, its time for school vouchers.


I agree, and I also agree with school vouchers.

But I do *NOT* agree with vouchers for everybody.

To me, vouchers should be available ONLY if:

1.  The school is having problems, and not adequately teaching the students.  Washington DC and LA schools are good examples of what I mean.  Schools which have good or above ratings for teacher ability, dropout rates, and funds ahould NOT be eligable to get vouchers.  This will do the idea, to give the STUDENTS a better education.

2.  The parents must fall into the "Lower middle class" or LOWER income ranks.  I do NOT approve of taking funds away from the schools to help send rich kids to a better school.  Instead, help send the kids from the lower classes to better school, so THEY can try and escape from the trap their parents are in.

3.  The vouchers must have a scholarship ability attached.  This means the student must meet at least minimum abilities in order to recieve them, and get a minimum grade point average.  Otherwise, the money should go to a student who will make better use of it.

4.  The school must meet certain requirements for teachers, facilities, and educational abilities.  Trade and Vocational schools would be allowed, as long as the requirements for a High School Diploma were met.  This would allow religious schools (Catholic Schools are well known for their scholastic achievements), but not allow "Jim & Bob's School" from teaching crap in order to make money from the government.

There is a deffinate problem in public schools. The last time I taught, I was a sub for 7 and 8th grade. They were reading MacBeth-only it wasn't MacBeth by William Shakespeare, it was more like MacBeth for Dummies. I admit that I was appaulded. If you are going to read a Shakespeare play-you READ Shakespeare's words. I don't know if it was the teacher's, school's, or distrist's decision (I think it was the teacher's).

One thing that I think schools should really teach is HOW TO LEARN! Learning is not just memerization-which, unfortunately is what is taught. I wish that schools would teach kids to THINK and to reason. For instince, History is NOT just names, dates, and places. I know that is what is taught in schools. History is about cause and effect. This happened because of that, which is the result of something else. I didn't learn that until I was in College.

And yes, I do think parents need to be active in their kids' education. There is only so much time in the classroom, parents can really expend on lessons. Whether it be getting kids books on different subjects, taking them to historical sights, or even taking them to a Shakespeare play.



Cat

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Mt8PHPoPwJIJ:http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214300/214324/Products/7707642.jpgMe Fail English?....That's Unpossible!"

I basically agree with what Chucky and DC have said.  I believer, furthermore, that the problem with public education is less a cause than a symptom of cultural ills.

PART I
I can't fairly use my experience in public education as an example because my circumstances were extremely rotten.  I wouldn't advocate changes based only on what  I PERSONALLY endured.

I agree with conservatives (or anyone) who says public school standards have dropped ever lower in the past 30 years.  Kids' values reflect what they see on TV....fun, leisure, defiance, instant gratification, and entitlement to a good time.  I don't attribute this cultural illness to liberal values so much as corporate and commercial values. 

What does it take to get people to buy things?  Not a message of self-sacrifice, discipline, patience, and intellectual curiosity.  Television is toxic to children, Hollywood is toxic to children, and advertising is toxic to children.  Never, ever, undersestimate the pervasive power of advertising upon the priorities and values of people young and old alike.

Conservatives blame liberals for the collapse of values.  However, when you look behind the curtain of moral corruption, who do you see?  No one I, as a liberal, respect.  Not Ralph Nader, not Jerry Brown, not Howard Zinn, not Noam Chomsky, not Billl Moyers, and so on and so on.  Do you see Bill Clinton behind that curtain?  mmmmaybe...but I don't have much "respect" for him, and I don't think of him as "liberal."  In fact, I don't think of Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, or the captains of the entertainment industry as "liberal."  These guys are opportunists.  They're in it to make money.  That's the corporate spirit, the business spirit, not the liberal spirit.

THE --ISMS
I'm talking about "values" and "values" are what makes or breaks education.  I think the NEA is a troubled institution, but our corporate-driven culture of consumerism, hedonism, and anti-intellectualism has done 95% of the damage to our public schools.  It's capitalism, not liberalism.

PART 2
The other issue in education is MOTIVATION.  Let's face it, the blue collar economy that made this country great is in the dumper.  Back when my parents were young, a kid who didn't want to go to college could get a job in a union shop factory, buy a little house, raise a family, and work at the factory until he retired with a pension.  Not a glamorous or affluent life by any stretch, but a secure one.  (no, I'm not saying there weren't major problems back then, too, so don't bop me over the head with petty gainsaying)
Today, a kid who doesn't want to go to college can look forward to getting about half the pay his grandfather did for the same kid of work--if he can get work at all--with no union, no security, and no respect.
With this in mind, schools push as many kids as they can onto the college track.  Never mind that most kids don't want to study liberal arts.  Suburban schools like mine give not-so-subtle messages that vocational education is for dummies.  The way to get a "good" job is to go to college.  In fact, most young men and women would be much better served by taking a year or two certificate in a marketable skill.
It's one thing to come from wealth and take a leisurely study of Plato and French, but most kids rightly question how any of these liberal arts courses are going to help them in life.  I could give the highbrow answer about the "well-rounded" individual, but that's crap.  Most kids know they're in for sinking deep into debt as they go to college and sit through Shakespeare and medieval history all over again.
These days, a BA is practically worthless in the marketplace, and a BS isn't much better. 
So, our problem with education may also have something to do with a sense of insecurity, purposelessness, and apathy.  Among the pupils, this attitude is hardly unfounded.

Education is a service like any other.  There is no reason for public schools to exist, and there is no reason for the government to require students to attend.  Forcing kids whose parents don't care about education to be there puts teachers in an impossible position and causes major disruption for the kids who are there to learn.  My wife teaches second grade and every year there are one or two students who frankly make her life miserable because there's no reason for them to be there, yet she's still required to baby-sit them all day while trying to get through to the other kids.  Schools HAVE to be able to unload the kids whose parents "leave them behind".  It's simply unfair to the rest of the kids, the teachers, and the teachers' poor husbands who have to listen to them complain every day after school  ;). 

I wholeheartedly agree with what Chucky said about teachers.  Instead of attracting the brightest, hardest-working people, raising teachers' pay has convinced legions of slackers who aren't smart enough to be doctors or lawyers to go into teaching.  The pay is pretty freakin' good, summers off are SWEET, and an ed. degree is about the easiest one to acquire.  When someone tells me "teachers are underpaid", I have to change it to:  "No, GOOD teachers (like my wife) are underpaid.  Lots of them suck @ss."

Ideally, all schools would be private, and the free market would ensure that you'd get what you'd pay for--a good education for your kids, or a school wouldn't survive.  Teachers who don't care would be out of teaching, and kids whose parents didn't care wouldn't be allowed to disrupt the educations of everyone else (and their parents would be incentivized to start caring--this free day care crap is for the birds).

Education is a service like any other.
No sir, education is the holistic process by which we human beings distinguish ourselves from the beasts of the jungle and the fishes of the sea.  Education is not a "service," it is an integral part of humanity.

  There is no reason for public schools to exist, and there is no reason for the government to require students to attend.
There is if we expect the future to be something greater than a Dark Age of ignorance and savagery.

Forcing kids whose parents don't care about education to be there puts teachers in an impossible position and causes major disruption for the kids who are there to learn.  My wife teaches second grade and every year there are one or two students who frankly make her life miserable because there's no reason for them to be there, yet she's still required to baby-sit them all day while trying to get through to the other kids. 
"No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher." -- Mr. Miyagi.  Who told the missus teaching was supposed to be easy and students were supposed to be little angels who can't wait to start learning.  Children bring a world of trouble to school.  It's not fair to teachers, but life isn't fair.  When a teacher qualifies to teach in a public school he or she pledges to meet the challenge of reaching the most stubborn and stupid. 


Exactly, if at first you don't succeed...give up!  So, because the parents are negligent, you want to punish their children?  By all means, leave them behind!  Did you ever see the book How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis?  That's what we have to look forward to.  Mobs of feral and hungry seven-year olds roaming the streets.  The kind of children who might shank your mother for her pocket change.  That's what we had in our cities at the turn of the 20th century.  Heck, they have that problem now down in cities such as Sao Paulo and Lima.  Down there, the cops just shoot the little buggers. 

I wholeheartedly agree with what Chucky said about teachers.  Instead of attracting the brightest, hardest-working people, raising teachers' pay has convinced legions of slackers who aren't smart enough to be doctors or lawyers to go into teaching.  The pay is pretty freakin' good, summers off are SWEET, and an ed. degree is about the easiest one to acquire.  When someone tells me "teachers are underpaid", I have to change it to:  "No, GOOD teachers (like my wife) are underpaid.  Lots of them suck @ss."
Ay-yi-yi, more teacher bashing, more duck-billed platitudes and bogus assumptions from the Rush Limbaugh show.  Claude, would you happen to be a pupil in your wife's class?

Ideally, all schools would be private, and the free market would ensure that you'd get what you'd pay for--a good education for your kids, or a school wouldn't survive.  Teachers who don't care would be out of teaching, and kids whose parents didn't care wouldn't be allowed to disrupt the educations of everyone else (and their parents would be incentivized to start caring--this free day care crap is for the birds).

Great schools for rich kids, terrible schools for poor kids.  That's what you'd get if you eliminated public funding.  A lot of that "you get what you pay for" comes into play already with the schools funded by property taxes.  Your attitude towards this utopian "free market" reminds me of a young Chinese Maoist's attitude toward "The Five Year Plan."

Education is such a sore point with me, because of the abuse of what should be the crown jewel of
life in the United States.  I am discussing public education on the elementary/high school level. Every child deserves a good education, whether they have lousy parents or not.  Teachers should have to be tested and qualified in their area. How many of us had teachers who were hired based on their relationship to the mayor/councilman/pricipal etc. and that was the extent of their expertise?  I have found well trained teachers know how to control students. Well trained administrators know how to deal with the students who seem beyond control.  Here in Massachusetts the school year ends at the end of June and begins again after Labor Day.There isn't any way in this day and age that  a ten week gap in education is acceptable, especially in the younger years, the month of September is used to refresh what was lost over summer vacation, that makes 14 weeks. Vouchers for private school?  Nice thought for some, but what about transportation to whatever school you are able to be accepted into, and where do you get the money to make up the difference in tuition?  I have a son who is special needs,  I would need a school close enouth to transport him, that has the expertise to teach him, and private special needs schools, if there is a space open, do not offer scholarships or financial aid, "but I have a voucher!  big deal, that and a dime" 

Education is a service like any other.  There is no reason for public schools to exist, and there is no reason for the government to require students to attend.  Forcing kids whose parents don't care about education to be there puts teachers in an impossible position and causes major disruption for the kids who are there to learn.  My wife teaches second grade and every year there are one or two students who frankly make her life miserable because there's no reason for them to be there, yet she's still required to baby-sit them all day while trying to get through to the other kids.  Schools HAVE to be able to unload the kids whose parents "leave them behind".  It's simply unfair to the rest of the kids, the teachers, and the teachers' poor husbands who have to listen to them complain every day after school  ;). 

I have to disagree with the statement that there's no reason for public schools to exist.  Quite simply, if the general public isn't educated, our society would begin to crumble pretty fast.  If you have a large number of people who can't work at McDonald's or other low paying jobs, because they lack basic reading and math skills, you're going to have a lot more people on welfare, etc.

Young children are very hard to deal with, If there's two or three in a class that can't be kept in line, they should be moved to a special class that can deal with them.  Keeping kids in a class they don't belong in, is entirely the wrong idea. Half the reason I was bored through most of my pre-high school classes, was because the teachers were forced to teach to the slower students.  There was a statistic on education I once saw, where 5% of the students take up 80% of the time of the teachers. Unloading the problem isn't quite the right solution, moving the problem to where it can be properly handled is the solution.  No one wants to pay for it I'm sure.


I wholeheartedly agree with what Chucky said about teachers.  Instead of attracting the brightest, hardest-working people, raising teachers' pay has convinced legions of slackers who aren't smart enough to be doctors or lawyers to go into teaching.  The pay is pretty freakin' good, summers off are SWEET, and an ed. degree is about the easiest one to acquire.  When someone tells me "teachers are underpaid", I have to change it to:  "No, GOOD teachers (like my wife) are underpaid.  Lots of them suck @ss."

No one gets rich teaching at public schools, but you certainly won't hear of any starving either.  When I found out recently what the teachers in my area were making, I wasn't ipressed with their arguments about making too little. Not when I make maybe 30% more than they do and do plenty of overtime. If they're pulling 60 hour weeks on a regular basis, and only get three weeks (or less, I usually only end up with 2 weeks a year) then maybe I'll sympathize more.  I remember one of my teacher's complaining that she had a degree, she should be making much more in the private sector. I have news, a college degree is no guarantee of a higher salary anywhere.  I also spend a lot of time going to classes every year, just to keep up.


Ideally, all schools would be private, and the free market would ensure that you'd get what you'd pay for--a good education for your kids, or a school wouldn't survive.  Teachers who don't care would be out of teaching, and kids whose parents didn't care wouldn't be allowed to disrupt the educations of everyone else (and their parents would be incentivized to start caring--this free day care crap is for the birds).


Unfortunately, this helps to re-enforce the cycle of poverty.  You force people to decide whether they want to eat or educate their children better.  Currently, if you think the private sector can educate your child better, you're more than welcome to send them to a private school, the only thing holding you back is money, which would still be the same thing holding you back if you didn't have public schools.

Okay, i've done this before and i'll try it again.

LIBERAL'S PHONY CLAIM: School vouchers will destroy education in America.
''Vouchers would be financial suicide for the public schools.'' -Amy McGlynn, Grand Rapids, MI, Board of education and officer in Michigan Parents Take Action (PTA.)

THE FACTS:

1.The most comprehensive study of vouchers ever undertaken was made public in August, 2000, and its conclusions are nothing less than devastating for the public school teachers' union establishment and their subsidiary, the Democratic party.  For two years, Harvard University examined voucher programs in New York, the District of Columbia, and in Dayton, Ohio.  Students were chosen for the study by lottery and were representive of low-income black families who want something better than public school for their kids.  The Harvard researchers found that in all three cities, that black students who switched to private schools scored 6 percentile points higher on achievement test than their public-school counterparts, or about one-third of the gap between white and black students.  Parents reported huge improvements in school-parent communication, disipline, and homework.  And you can tell all the national education association defenders of the taxpayer-funded status quo to read the following very carefully: ''If the trend line observed over the first two years continues, for black students who use a voucher to switch from public to private schools.''

2.Howard Fuller, a former public-school superintendent in Milwaukee who heads the Black Alliance for Education Options (BAEO) told the Christian Science Monitor:  ''It's absolutely clear there is high support for school vouchers in the black community.''  The Monitor reports that some recent polls place support for school vouchers among black families as high as 83%.  That popularity was one of the reasons why none other than democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D, CT) was among those pushing for vouchers for the District of Columbia.  Until Gore tapped him for the democratic ticket in 2000, that is.

1.The most comprehensive study of vouchers ever undertaken was made public in August, 2000, and its conclusions are nothing less than devastating for the public school teachers' union establishment and their subsidiary, the Democratic party.  For two years, Harvard University examined voucher programs in New York, the District of Columbia, and in Dayton, Ohio.  Students were chosen for the study by lottery and were representive of low-income black families who want something better than public school for their kids.  The Harvard researchers found that in all three cities, that black students who switched to private schools scored 6 percentile points higher on achievement test than their public-school counterparts, or about one-third of the gap between white and black students.  Parents reported huge improvements in school-parent communication, disipline, and homework.  And you can tell all the national education association defenders of the taxpayer-funded status quo to read the following very carefully: ''If the trend line observed over the first two years continues, for black students who use a voucher to switch from public to private schools.''

2.Howard Fuller, a former public-school superintendent in Milwaukee who heads the Black Alliance for Education Options (BAEO) told the Christian Science Monitor:  ''It's absolutely clear there is high support for school vouchers in the black community.''  The Monitor reports that some recent polls place support for school vouchers among black families as high as 83%.  That popularity was one of the reasons why none other than democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D, CT) was among those pushing for vouchers for the District of Columbia.  Until Gore tapped him for the democratic ticket in 2000, that is.


Why call it vouchers?  What that study describes sounds remarkably like busing.  Study your history of the 60s and 70s, and see how well that turned out.  It's certainly not the utopia described above.

Vouchers for private school?  Nice thought for some, but what about transportation to whatever school you are able to be accepted into, and where do you get the money to make up the difference in tuition?  I have a son who is special needs,  I would need a school close enouth to transport him, that has the expertise to teach him, and private special needs schools, if there is a space open, do not offer scholarships or financial aid, "but I have a voucher!  big deal, that and a dime" 

Absolutely!  I sometimes wish the pro-vouchers crowd got their every wish, then they'd find out what a joke their plan really is.  Unfortunately, it would come at too great a price to the children of America.
Well, those who were naive enough to believe it in the first place would find it was a joke.  Newt Gingrich-type cynics already know vouchers are a joke.  It's just another strategy in the class warfare prosecuted by the rich against the rest of us.

GWBush wrote:
THE FACTS:
You're still dealing with a tiny population of students.  The problems endemic to low-income school districts are both macro-economic and cultural.  When you are talking about vouchers by the hundreds of thousands, you are talking about the need to place hundreds of thousands in private or parochial schools.  There would be a large population for whom the subsidy would not be enough to get them out of the public schools, thus they would be stuck in ever poorer and more ghettoized schools. 
Supposing you got, say, 30% of poor inner city kids into voucher programs.  All the problems caused by the economic and social conditions in which these children live would follow them into whatever private schools they attended.  You could say, "then the private school has the right to throw problem kids out."  Such deprivation and ostracism would only exacerbate the social pathologies we see now.
You can take a few bright kids from failing schools--or even a few troubled kids--and place them with care in better circumstances, and you will get better results.  En mass, results would be quite different.
Again, the woman from Michigan is correct.  Every time a public school's enrollment drops by one, the school district loses thousands of dollars.  Conservatives say you can't solve the problems of education by throwing money at it.  But for anyone to honestly believe punitively depriving failing schools fo funds would snap them to attention is delusional!
Your "facts" are "facts" from a study of limited circumstances, and not reliable indicator of what the future holds if we go ahead with "voucherization."

Chucky G wrote:
I have to disagree with the statement that there's no reason for public schools to exist.  Quite simply, if the general public isn't educated, our society would begin to crumble pretty fast.  If you have a large number of people who can't work at McDonald's or other low paying jobs, because they lack basic reading and math skills, you're going to have a lot more people on welfare, etc.
Hey, don't give those McDonald's jobs to drop-outs, those of us with liberal arts degrees need them!
;D ;D
Actually, as Barbara Ehrenreich demonstrated in Nickeled and Dimed, you can't earn enough to support yourself, let alone a family, working 80 hours a week for minimum wage.  When they count up the "unemployed" (a grossly understated figure as it is), they don't account for the "underemployed."  There is a significant percentage of the population--even college educated--that the market has no use for.  Simply put, the way our economy is set up, there's just not enough for everybody to do.

The teacher unions do deserve some of the blame, which I'm sure a teacher doesn't want to hear.  If you discount the fact that the union's appear more concerned with money and benefits, they tend to allow too many tenured teachers to continue in the profession that most likely shouldn't be there.  I was an above average student in school, though not overly motivated, and I can certainly say that I had teachers that were tenured that were excellent.  I also had a couple that were clearly there to ride out their service to retirement. 

There's also the mistaken belief that more money, means better teachers.  All it really means, is you get people applying for a position because it pays well, and they hope to get their summers off. Conneticut has the highest paid teachers in the country, and yet their schools are failing.  There goes that theory. Maybe it works at the college level, but most large universities have expensive professors who don't teach the undergrads.  No wonder most of them don't go on for additional degrees.

The opposition to standardized testing is also a mistake.  Even with several of the tests dumbed way down, they're still failing plenty of students.  That's a sign that there's students that shouldn't be in grade levels that they're in. The argument is that teachers will teach towards the test.  Of course they will.  I was taught basic standarized test taking techniques.  The SAT tests practically require you know about trying to eliminate incorrect answers, etc. That only gets you a small edge on the overall test.  If you can't read, you can't apply that technique.  If you can't tell which answers are not even likely contenders, than you can't improve your odds if you don't know an answer. If you told the teacher unions, that you weren't going to require ceritfication tests for new teachers, I'm sure they'd freak out over it.  Surprisingly, they don't think the issuance of a degree they teach, should require the same level of effort by their students.

The other side of the coin, is that students are expected to know a greater deal of material now, compared to 20 years ago.  How many people over the age of 40 had to take an entire course in computer technology? How many other advances also need to be covered? The more time you spend on things outside of the core curriculums, is time you don't spend teaching the basics. 

Parents are also nowhere near as involved in the education process as they need to be.  The only time you ever see parents involved in the process, is when it involves organized sports (a total waste of public money that gets spent on a small minority of students), or when something they don't like, such as evolution is taught.  Children need to be encouraged and supervised heavily.

My town is building a new school.  The state requires a ridiculous number of athletic fields for a school the size they plan on building. This requires more money to purchase additional land, and construction of the fields themselves.  Outside of basic phys-ed, these items are a total extravagence, and do very little to help non-athletes learn better. I guess without the sports teams, the parents have nothing to get hyper over.  That money could easily be spent on history books that cover, let's say the Vietnam war (which in the late 80s, I didn't have). 

so yeah, no simple solution for the poltiicans to campaign over.


Absolutely no simple solutions, we agree on that.

To an extent, I agree that teachers unions can get in the way at times.  At my school some time ago we had a sexual harassment case between two professors.  I knew the guy was guilty and testified against him, even though I was the chapter grievance officer, but the union had to defend him (my testimony brought him down and  my union colleagues saw no problem with what I did.  In fact, I was elected chapter chair the next year).  My point is that you need to recognize that teachers are employees in addition to being public servants.  Their (our) unions are not designed to protect the public interest but our interests as employees.  But in most contracts that I am familiar with, there are ways for management to get rid of bad teachers before they get tenure, and even after.  Before tenure is easier, as it should be.  The problem, I think, is that often management simply doesn't have the cojones to do its job when it needs to.  But when it does try, the union has to defend its member.  That's called due process.

I agree that throwing money at a problem is no solution, but without sufficient incentives for good people to enter the system, there will be no solution.

Standardized tests, if well designed, can be a valid assessment tool, but "teaching to the test" isn't instruction in test taking techniques.  It has to do with the content, like what dates to remember etc. which tends, some think, to distract from critical thinking and analytical skills.

You are right that there is a mountain more to learn than when I went to public school.  I never heard of computers when I was in high school!!!  Imagin that.  And that does present a problem which will only get worse.

Ultimately though, I do believe the answer lieswith parants.  If they support education and insist that their kids seek it out, and model intellectual curiosity by reading, and by discussing things with their kids, and laying down rules early that build habits along these lines, kids will do better.  Teachers, to use an old saying, can only "lead the horse to the water".

For me, there are several reasons behind this problem.  In fact, there are so many causes it is impossible to list them all.  But I will hit several at which I think is to blame.

One of the biggest problems is "Outcome Based Education".  I know that it is not the intent, but the result of it is that it tends to bring all of the students down to the LOWEST common denominator.  Add to that the fact that some schools now do not give "failing" grades, it means that you can't fail in school.  A nice idea, but it leaves our kids totally unprepared for real life.

The politicizing of our teachers has not helped.  In the 1960's and 70's, a lot of people got into Education (as well as Reporting) to "make a difference".  Once again, it is a nice goal, but who made the choice of placeing THEM in charge of our future?  As an example, in 1982 I was in a High School Civics class in Los Angeles.  One of the things we had to discuss was "Pornography".  

The teacher drug out a booklet from the 1960's showing dead Vietnamese children.  "This is pornography" he told the class.  "This is what the US Army did to innocent people in another country.  This is the most disgusting form of Pronography there is!"

I got up and walked out of that class.  He yelled at me, but I left anyways, and went to the Principals office, demanding a change of instructor.  After a counselling session with the instructor he was forced to give an apology to me in front of the class, and was admonished strongly to never do political indoctrination again in class.  I met my wife in his class, and she had a similar run-in with him a few months earlier, when he insisted that Argentina was wrong in trying to take back the Malvinas Islands (Falklands).  He would state that everything she tried to say about the incident was a lie, even after she brought proof that England stole them from Argentina from a Brittish edition of "Encyclopedia Britanica" from the school library!

The unions are a problem in my mind, for another reason.  "Tenure" is a nice idea, but it prevents the removal of unqualified or problematical teachers.  This robs our children of having the best possible teachers, and keeps ones that should be removed in their job because of the power of a group which is not involved in the rights of the students, but in the rights of the teachers.

One problem with education is that to often it attracts the people who are unable to "hack it" in the private sector.  I had one instructor for Business in a community college in LA, who had failed at 2 business of his own, and been fired from 4 corporations.  In the 4 weeks prior to my dropping the class, he had covered NONE of the material in the book, and on the 5th week he did not even bother to show up or call in to the administrator, even though we were supposed to have an exam.  Even though it was past the "drop point", the assistant dean approved my refund when I said I wanted out of the class.  I am sure that he was not granted tenure (this was his first class with that College).  I have seen similar things in private schools though, so not just public schools suffer from this problem.

For one, I support mandatory teacher requirements and testing.  And they should either be instructing a topic that was either their Major or their Minor in college.  To many times, we see Math majors teaching History, or Political Science teachers teaching English.  Make sure that their education matches the subject they are trying to teach.

Also, just like Accountants and Engineers, require further education.  Unless the Teachers themselves "Go back to school" occasionally, they will fall behind of newer discoveries and techniques.  Maybe have them get 1 credit in their chosen field and 1 in Education every 2 years.

Another area would be choices in textbooks.  Instead of giving the instructor a book and having them teach out of that, let them make a choice between 2 or 3 textbooks.  This way, they can pick one that most closely matches their style and the ability of the class.

Finally, allow them to remove disruptive students.  Remembering back to my time in school, there is little worse then having one or more jerks making it impossible to learn by their disruptive antics and behavior.  Allow a teacher to remove them from the class.  The students need to learn how to restrain themselves and behave, because that type of action will not be tolerated a few years later in "the real world".

After all, that is one of the primary goals of education, to help kids mature into adults, and prepare themselves for the "real world" where jobs are a fact of life.


While I am a college professor, I'm not trained in "education" so I'm not up on the jargon or the theory of that specialty.  I will say that students do have different ways of learning, which I ttry to ferret out and accomidate as best as I am able, but my focus is teaching history the best way I can, which suites some students better than others.  I don't support passing kids who don't know the material, or can't demonstrate, orally and in writing, that they do.  That is a disservice to them and everyone else.

While I agree that what happened at Mai Lie was more porngraphic than images of people engaging in the love act, I agree that there is a fine line between raising issues, even controvercial ones, and forcing a political agenda on students.  I also agree in principle that teachers may sometimes cross that line.  I'm sure that some people might think I do.  I do advance interpretations, which are always changing as I read and learn more, but in my defense, I make it a point to go easier on students who disagree with me than on those who appear to agree.  I welcome and encourage then to voice their opinions, which can never be "wrong", although I challenge them to use facts to argue their case.  Their "facts" however, can be just wrong.  In the case you describe, I would say that walking out might not have been the best response, but an understandable one given the power relationship in the classroom.  I guess, as an arrogant sob, that was never a concern of mine, so when confronted with positions with which I disagreed I argued my case.

As I said in response to Chucky, you need to understand the role of unions in education, as in and employer-employee relationship.  Both sides have an obligation to defend the contract and enforce its provisions.  As a tenured full professor, I can be fired for cause, including incompetance, but that has to be proven by the administration.  My union's job is to defend me against whatever charge is brought against me - thats why I pay union dues.  Tenure is not a garantee of employment, but a protection against harassment and of intellectual freedom.  At one point, before I had tenure, an associate dean who didn't like me wrote a very misleading and inaccurate assesment of my teaching.  Turned out that I didn't need the union because the dean was smart enough to see the hatchet job for what it was, but I'm sure glad I had the union as a backup.  Also check out the case I mentioned in my response to Chucky re unions.

I agree that teachers should be able to select their own texts - I do - but the problem goes deeper.  The Texas school board has way too much influence on the content of all text books.  Another problem is the way they are written, especially in history.  They are writen in the omiscient "this is the word" style instead of raising questions and advancing tentative answers.  For example, what WAS the nature of Jacksonian Democracy?  Historians don't agree, but highschool texts (and college texts too) give one answer and don't raise the questions.  Thats why I responded to GWB as I did when he said that students need to learn history.  Whose?

Encouraging (or requiring) teachers to update their knowledge and skills is a great idea that many districts, at least in VT support.

I also agree that teachers should only be certified in those subjects they have actuall studied, which is the case in vt.

I also support the idea of maintaining discipline in the classroom, although I have never had a problem with this.  Here again, though, the parants need to be supportive of the teacher.  In eight grade I changed schools, and found myself ahead of the class.  I was bored and naturally, I got "wise".  My teacher called my father, who said "so keep him in line, I'll support you, just don't hit him".  Nor did he, but he did communicate his displeasure, and I did fall in line.  Parental support is critical.

I basically agree with what Chucky and DC have said.  I believer, furthermore, that the problem with public education is less a cause than a symptom of cultural ills.

PART I
I can't fairly use my experience in public education as an example because my circumstances were extremely rotten.  I wouldn't advocate changes based only on what  I PERSONALLY endured.

I agree with conservatives (or anyone) who says public school standards have dropped ever lower in the past 30 years.  Kids' values reflect what they see on TV....fun, leisure, defiance, instant gratification, and entitlement to a good time.  I don't attribute this cultural illness to liberal values so much as corporate and commercial values. 

What does it take to get people to buy things?  Not a message of self-sacrifice, discipline, patience, and intellectual curiosity.  Television is toxic to children, Hollywood is toxic to children, and advertising is toxic to children.  Never, ever, undersestimate the pervasive power of advertising upon the priorities and values of people young and old alike.

Conservatives blame liberals for the collapse of values.  However, when you look behind the curtain of moral corruption, who do you see?  No one I, as a liberal, respect.  Not Ralph Nader, not Jerry Brown, not Howard Zinn, not Noam Chomsky, not Billl Moyers, and so on and so on.  Do you see Bill Clinton behind that curtain?  mmmmaybe...but I don't have much "respect" for him, and I don't think of him as "liberal."  In fact, I don't think of Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, or the captains of the entertainment industry as "liberal."  These guys are opportunists.  They're in it to make money.  That's the corporate spirit, the business spirit, not the liberal spirit.

THE --ISMS
I'm talking about "values" and "values" are what makes or breaks education.  I think the NEA is a troubled institution, but our corporate-driven culture of consumerism, hedonism, and anti-intellectualism has done 95% of the damage to our public schools.  It's capitalism, not liberalism.

PART 2
The other issue in education is MOTIVATION.  Let's face it, the blue collar economy that made this country great is in the dumper.  Back when my parents were young, a kid who didn't want to go to college could get a job in a union shop factory, buy a little house, raise a family, and work at the factory until he retired with a pension.  Not a glamorous or affluent life by any stretch, but a secure one.  (no, I'm not saying there weren't major problems back then, too, so don't bop me over the head with petty gainsaying)
Today, a kid who doesn't want to go to college can look forward to getting about half the pay his grandfather did for the same kid of work--if he can get work at all--with no union, no security, and no respect.
With this in mind, schools push as many kids as they can onto the college track.  Never mind that most kids don't want to study liberal arts.  Suburban schools like mine give not-so-subtle messages that vocational education is for dummies.  The way to get a "good" job is to go to college.  In fact, most young men and women would be much better served by taking a year or two certificate in a marketable skill.
It's one thing to come from wealth and take a leisurely study of Plato and French, but most kids rightly question how any of these liberal arts courses are going to help them in life.  I could give the highbrow answer about the "well-rounded" individual, but that's crap.  Most kids know they're in for sinking deep into debt as they go to college and sit through Shakespeare and medieval history all over again.
These days, a BA is practically worthless in the marketplace, and a BS isn't much better. 
So, our problem with education may also have something to do with a sense of insecurity, purposelessness, and apathy.  Among the pupils, this attitude is hardly unfounded.






As a history professor, and therefore a member of the lilberal arts community, I have to strongly disagree with this.  The skills, knowledge, and habits of mind embodied in a liberal arts education are MUCH more important than the mastering of specific skills becuae one who has internalized the message of the liberal arts has learned how to learn, learned to be curious, and  as a result, learned to adopt to change.  I could go on, but...

Education is a service like any other.  There is no reason for public schools to exist, and there is no reason for the government to require students to attend.  Forcing kids whose parents don't care about education to be there puts teachers in an impossible position and causes major disruption for the kids who are there to learn.  My wife teaches second grade and every year there are one or two students who frankly make her life miserable because there's no reason for them to be there, yet she's still required to baby-sit them all day while trying to get through to the other kids.  Schools HAVE to be able to unload the kids whose parents "leave them behind".  It's simply unfair to the rest of the kids, the teachers, and the teachers' poor husbands who have to listen to them complain every day after school  ;). 

I wholeheartedly agree with what Chucky said about teachers.  Instead of attracting the brightest, hardest-working people, raising teachers' pay has convinced legions of slackers who aren't smart enough to be doctors or lawyers to go into teaching.  The pay is pretty freakin' good, summers off are SWEET, and an ed. degree is about the easiest one to acquire.  When someone tells me "teachers are underpaid", I have to change it to:  "No, GOOD teachers (like my wife) are underpaid.  Lots of them suck @ss."

Ideally, all schools would be private, and the free market would ensure that you'd get what you'd pay for--a good education for your kids, or a school wouldn't survive.  Teachers who don't care would be out of teaching, and kids whose parents didn't care wouldn't be allowed to disrupt the educations of everyone else (and their parents would be incentivized to start caring--this free day care crap is for the birds).


This is so far off the wall I can't even think of a response, except to say that from the earliest days of at least my state, even before we entered the union, we recognized the value of a tax supported manditory public education.  Democracy demand no less.

As a history professor, and therefore a member of the lilberal arts community, I have to strongly disagree with this.  The skills, knowledge, and habits of mind embodied in a liberal arts education are MUCH more important than the mastering of specific skills becuae one who has internalized the message of the liberal arts has learned how to learn, learned to be curious, and  as a result, learned to adopt to change.  I could go on, but...

Well, I know you are right.  I'm just bitter and cynical, not about education, but the education system.  Learning is as valuable now as it was in the time of Socrates.  Learning institutions, however, think of themselves as businesses.  Education is becoming a commodity for the rich.  Tuition and fees keep skyrocketing, and students keep borrowing more and more money from the government.  I managed to get through college, but I was disabled for many years after.  My credit-rating is deep in the negative range, and I still owe tens of thousands I can barely begin to pay back.  My situation isn't unique.  People are gruaduating from college owing thrity grand now, for advanced degrees, some own forty or fifty.  Medical students routinely owe in the six figures.

It seems fairly clear that our system of public education has deteriorated over the years since I was involved.  The anecdotes are numerous.  A funny (but sad) compilation is Non Campus Mentis compiled by Andres Henriksson.  May blame the NEA and the AFT (2 largest teachers' union) for this.  I think that is too simple and too simplistic.  What should graduating high school kids know?  What skills should they have?  How much responsibility to parants bear for their kids' education?  How much can we expect of teachers?


whew I can write a 500 page on my point of view on education (but I dont think chucky would like that :) ) Since I'm going to graduate soon because I'm now a senior in highschool (yes I actually made it whoohoo!) I had a lot of trouble and had to work my A$$ off to get to where I am.  I see all around me that many kids want to learn but they just dont get a lot of stuff.  To me its hard very hard, kids have to deal with other things to in their life maybe bullying, parents going through divorce, growing up in foster homes, or whatever problems that might occur and to top it off having to deal with THAT and having to worry on your future? its a stressful thing.  The skills HS kids should know is the basics, basic math, English, a little science, and History.  Whatever the kid chooses to do then they should take those classes.  But we cant just take whatever...we have to have required classes.  AND we have to pass stupid tests or else we dont get out of hs? some  kids try so hard but still dont get the simplist things no matter how much help they get.  Some kids dont even try cause they see the "Smarter students" who can do "Every thing" and apply themselves better so some students think "Why try? I cant be like that...." I think if we want better education then we should get more help.  I mean I see what goes on or how teachers say "I already explained it once, I'm not going to do it again so pay attention" Thats their JOB is to HELP any student who NEEDS it and are willing to want help.  Parents need to help to.  They need to be there for their kids and listen to what they have to say.  Then there are kids who really dont want help or dont even try.  growing up for me was hard around the educational part. To this day I still cant do long division and do fractions.  Sometimes I cant even spell great but that shouldnt stop me for doing what I want to do.  and as for money problems it's funny that schools have no money cause I always see new play grounds and Cr@p being built.  Screw the playground equipment that money could go into books and sutff.  If kids want to play then they can do it after school.  Yes children need to run around and get some energy out but thats what Physical education is about.  and the athelets (sorry football players but this is what I see mostly) they get a lot of money from the school to buy new equipment all the time.  this may not happen in every schools but I see it in many around here.

As a conclusion I'm sure people will disagree with me but this is my point of view and liek I said as a student getting ready to graduate, :) I'm just glad I got around the basic stuff (Barely) and the required stuff (Barely) but I still feel for people who try their best and cant.  I dunno if this was off-topic but theres some of the answers from me to questions you asked.

No sir, education is the holistic process by which we human beings distinguish ourselves from the beasts of the jungle and the fishes of the sea.  Education is not a "service," it is an integral part of humanity.


There is if we expect the future to be something greater than a Dark Age of ignorance and savagery.


 
"No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher." -- Mr. Miyagi.  Who told the missus teaching was supposed to be easy and students were supposed to be little angels who can't wait to start learning.  Children bring a world of trouble to school.  It's not fair to teachers, but life isn't fair.  When a teacher qualifies to teach in a public school he or she pledges to meet the challenge of reaching the most stubborn and stupid. 


Exactly, if at first you don't succeed...give up!  So, because the parents are negligent, you want to punish their children?  By all means, leave them behind!  Did you ever see the book How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis?  That's what we have to look forward to.  Mobs of feral and hungry seven-year olds roaming the streets.  The kind of children who might shank your mother for her pocket change.  That's what we had in our cities at the turn of the 20th century.  Heck, they have that problem now down in cities such as Sao Paulo and Lima.  Down there, the cops just shoot the little buggers. 


Ay-yi-yi, more teacher bashing, more duck-billed platitudes and bogus assumptions from the Rush Limbaugh show.  Claude, would you happen to be a pupil in your wife's class?


Great schools for rich kids, terrible schools for poor kids.  That's what you'd get if you eliminated public funding.  A lot of that "you get what you pay for" comes into play already with the schools funded by property taxes.  Your attitude towards this utopian "free market" reminds me of a young Chinese Maoist's attitude toward "The Five Year Plan."

It's a dangerous arrogance to dismiss the importance of parental accountability.  I know it sounds outrageous to suggest that we'd be better off without public schools but maybe that's only because we've always had them as long as everyone reading this has been alive.  We've done nothing but throw more money at the problem, and it's grown steadily worse, especially for those who need quality education the most. 

You can twitter all you want that education is too important to be considered just another service, but the fact remains that it IS a service, and as such it's subject to the same market incentives that determine the quality of other services.  Just what is it about government employees that make them magically superior to the private sector?  The removal of the nefarious profit motive?  Please don't tell me you're that naive.  As a gov. employee myself, I'm pretty curious because I guarantee that I and everyone I work with is a self-interested human being just like every worker in the private sector, just like every politician, for that matter, is a human too (insert Nader joke here).  When you consider the effectiveness of private enterprise, compared to the clumsy bureaucracy of government, I'd say that education is too important NOT to be thought of as just another service.  Oh, and yes, I do happen to be a student in my wife's class, and she tells me I'm VERY NAUGHTY.  But I'll spare you the details.

I have to disagree with the statement that there's no reason for public schools to exist.  Quite simply, if the general public isn't educated, our society would begin to crumble pretty fast.  If you have a large number of people who can't work at McDonald's or other low paying jobs, because they lack basic reading and math skills, you're going to have a lot more people on welfare, etc.

Young children are very hard to deal with, If there's two or three in a class that can't be kept in line, they should be moved to a special class that can deal with them.  Keeping kids in a class they don't belong in, is entirely the wrong idea. Half the reason I was bored through most of my pre-high school classes, was because the teachers were forced to teach to the slower students.  There was a statistic on education I once saw, where 5% of the students take up 80% of the time of the teachers. Unloading the problem isn't quite the right solution, moving the problem to where it can be properly handled is the solution.  No one wants to pay for it I'm sure.


No one gets rich teaching at public schools, but you certainly won't hear of any starving either.  When I found out recently what the teachers in my area were making, I wasn't ipressed with their arguments about making too little. Not when I make maybe 30% more than they do and do plenty of overtime. If they're pulling 60 hour weeks on a regular basis, and only get three weeks (or less, I usually only end up with 2 weeks a year) then maybe I'll sympathize more.  I remember one of my teacher's complaining that she had a degree, she should be making much more in the private sector. I have news, a college degree is no guarantee of a higher salary anywhere.  I also spend a lot of time going to classes every year, just to keep up.



Unfortunately, this helps to re-enforce the cycle of poverty.  You force people to decide whether they want to eat or educate their children better.  Currently, if you think the private sector can educate your child better, you're more than welcome to send them to a private school, the only thing holding you back is money, which would still be the same thing holding you back if you didn't have public schools.

Not a lot of time this morning so I'll have to be brief.  The main point I'd like to make is that I never said that education wasn't important.  I think every parent should value education and instill a lifelong love of learning into every child, same as (I assume) everyone else feels.  I just don't think government can or should be charged with making that happen.  Parenting is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly, but for some reason it is, by many people.  Isn't it possible that's because many people have gotten the impression that it's not their responsibility, but the government's?  Just a thought.

I also believe that along with the responsibility to raise your child, you also have the right to raise your child as you see fit.  For example, I hope that most people realize that spanking children is generally limited in effectiveness and often does more harm than good.  But I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't spank their child, because I don't want anyone telling me how to raise mine.  The question then is, why is education any different?  Where do you draw the line?  We can hope and try to persuade people that ed. is important, but ultimately it's the parent's responsibility, and that, bottom line is my problem with public ed.  Crap, I really gotta get to work now.

It's a dangerous arrogance to dismiss the importance of parental accountability.  I know it sounds outrageous to suggest that we'd be better off without public schools but maybe that's only because we've always had them as long as everyone reading this has been alive.  We've done nothing but throw more money at the problem, and it's grown steadily worse, especially for those who need quality education the most. 




Money HASN'T been thrown at education. That is the problem. Many schools (especially in urban areas) are deteriorating, some history books state that Richard Nixon is still the president, over-crowding classrooms, etc. There are many schools have one teacher for 30+ students. Many classes have students that have several different ability ranges. It is very difficult for one teacher to give the low-ability kids the individual assistance they need while trying to stimulate the high-ability kids at the same time. I have heard of classes being conducted in closets because of lack of room. There are many special education programs being cut. Yes, I do think that more $$$ should go into education. I know money isn't the total solution to the problem but it does help. Also, if teachers were offered decent salaries, maybe schools can maintain GOOD teachers. I have known many really good teachers but they left teaching behind them because of the pay. I also know that most teachers use their own money to buy supplies-including books.



Cat

It's a dangerous arrogance to dismiss the importance of parental accountability.

Who dismissed it?  I didn't.  Never have.

  I know it sounds outrageous to suggest that we'd be better off without public schools but maybe that's only because we've always had them as long as everyone reading this has been alive.  We've done nothing but throw more money at the problem, and it's grown steadily worse, especially for those who need quality education the most. 
All social and economic factors considered, I have never heard a justifiable reason for eradicating the public school system.  I have never heard an alternative that would work in reality.  I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying anti-public schoolers have never made the case.

You can twitter all you want that education is too important to be considered just another service, but the fact remains that it IS a service, and as such it's subject to the same market incentives that determine the quality of other services.
Again, the same people who make that claim about education also make it about healthcare, and again I have yet to hear any of them make a reasonable case for how public education is like buying a car or hiring a landscaper.
Just what is it about government employees that make them magically superior to the private sector? 
I never said they were.  And I don't hate the private sector like you hate the government.

The removal of the nefarious profit motive?  Please don't tell me you're that naive.  As a gov. employee myself, I'm pretty curious because I guarantee that I and everyone I work with is a self-interested human being just like every worker in the private sector, just like every politician, for that matter, is a human too (insert Nader joke here).  When you consider the effectiveness of private enterprise, compared to the clumsy bureaucracy of government, I'd say that education is too important NOT to be thought of as just another service. 

Who is naive here?  Are you saying the profit motive is what makes people hard-working, virtuous, and accountable?  Corporate America itself can't cut it in the private sector.  Corporations are America's biggest welfare client.  Businesses are full of crooks, leeches, and layabouts.  Private enterprises fail all the time.  A lot of private schools fail too.  
Private enterprise can do great things the public sector cannot.  However, true private enterprise is always risky.  We need a reliable safety net for education.  It would be suicide to entrust all our education to the private sector.

Money HASN'T been thrown at education. That is the problem. Many schools (especially in urban areas) are deteriorating, some history books state that Richard Nixon is still the president, over-crowding classrooms, etc. There are many schools have one teacher for 30+ students. Many classes have students that have several different ability ranges. It is very difficult for one teacher to give the low-ability kids the individual assistance they need while trying to stimulate the high-ability kids at the same time. I have heard of classes being conducted in closets because of lack of room. There are many special education programs being cut. Yes, I do think that more $$$ should go into education. I know money isn't the total solution to the problem but it does help. Also, if teachers were offered decent salaries, maybe schools can maintain GOOD teachers. I have known many really good teachers but they left teaching behind them because of the pay. I also know that most teachers use their own money to buy supplies-including books.



Cat



LIBERAL'S PHONY CLAIM: More money will fix the failing public schools.
''You can't run a quality school without quality dollars.'' -Stanyan Vukovich, principal of Lakeview Elementary School in Oakland, CA quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.


THE FACTS:

1.Professor Eric Hanushek, chairman of the economics department at the University of Rochester, published the definitive in-depth analysis of the relationship between spending and educational proformance.  After reviewing 400 studies of student achievement, Hanushek found in his 1997 report no consistent connection between students proformance and school resources.

2.Stuart Butler notes that SAT scores support Hanushek's claims.  ''Typical was New Jersey,'' writes Butler, ''which had the highest per-pupil expenditure ($10,241 per student) in thr 1996-1997 school year and the second smallest pupil-to-teacher ratio.  New Jersey recieved nearly 50% of its public educational funding from federal sources, yet the students ranked 39th on the 1998 Scholastic Aptitude Test.  Conversely, Minnesota, which ranked 27th in per-pupil spending ($5,826), recieved the HIGHEST ranking in student achievement on the same test.

3.Catholic schools, with far low per-pupil costs ($3,500), have been out-proforming public schools for decades, even in urban areas, and even with minority and disadvantaged student populations.  The difference?  Higher expectations and standards, both academic and behavioral.

LIBERAL'S PHONY CLAIM: More money will fix the failing public schools.
''You can't run a quality school without quality dollars.'' -Stanyan Vukovich, principal of Lakeview Elementary School in Oakland, CA quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.


THE FACTS:

1.Professor Eric Hanushek, chairman of the economics department at the University of Rochester, published the definitive in-depth analysis of the relationship between spending and educational proformance.  After reviewing 400 studies of student achievement, Hanushek found in his 1997 report no consistent connection between students proformance and school resources.

2.Stuart Butler notes that SAT scores support Hanushek's claims.  ''Typical was New Jersey,'' writes Butler, ''which had the highest per-pupil expenditure ($10,241 per student) in thr 1996-1997 school year and the second smallest pupil-to-teacher ratio.  New Jersey recieved nearly 50% of its public educational funding from federal sources, yet the students ranked 39th on the 1998 Scholastic Aptitude Test.  Conversely, Minnesota, which ranked 27th in per-pupil spending ($5,826), recieved the HIGHEST ranking in student achievement on the same test.

3.Catholic schools, with far low per-pupil costs ($3,500), have been out-proforming public schools for decades, even in urban areas, and even with minority and disadvantaged student populations.  The difference?  Higher expectations and standards, both academic and behavioral.


You mean "SOME OF THE SUPPOSED FACTS"

No one (including Cat) said that money was the answer, but schools without proper lab equipment can't adequately teach science.  Schools without libraries can't adequately reach history (and you never answered mt question about which history should be taught) etc.  Again, as in most of your posts, you present simplistic solutions backed by one-sided or limited studies to complex and multi-dimensional problems.

By the way, what is your estimation of The Bell Curve (can't think of the authors off hand)?

Well, I know you are right.  I'm just bitter and cynical, not about education, but the education system.  Learning is as valuable now as it was in the time of Socrates.  Learning institutions, however, think of themselves as businesses.  Education is becoming a commodity for the rich.  Tuition and fees keep skyrocketing, and students keep borrowing more and more money from the government.  I managed to get through college, but I was disabled for many years after.  My credit-rating is deep in the negative range, and I still owe tens of thousands I can barely begin to pay back.  My situation isn't unique.  People are gruaduating from college owing thrity grand now, for advanced degrees, some own forty or fifty.  Medical students routinely owe in the six figures.


I totally agree that the debt burden faced by college graduates is a disgrace.  I have been a strong advocate for adaquate funding for public colleges for years, and testified before a state legislative committee on that.  I think public colleges should be free for state residents, and states should offer reciprcity, maybe on a 1 for 1 basis.  Based on ability of course, ie students woiuld still need to be admitted and to pass.  The notion that post secondary education is a luxury, in this day and age, is VERY outdated.

^ So maybe they should think about applying for scholarships or grants.  Billions of dollars to be had there.

Higher expectations and standards, both academic and behavioral.

I agree that sheer volume of dollars doesn't fix all the problems plaguing schools.  I also agree with raising the standards.  However, improving the academic and behavioral boils down to improvement of the economic circumstances and security of families in poor communities.
It is true that an intact family structure improves a child's academic performance better than anything--all children, not just Asians!

However, the shattered family structures we find in our impoverished areas are not going to get fixed without a vast economic renewal.  No, bulldozing Jadakis and whipping out Jesus is not a plausible solution.  People need economic hope. 
Furthermore, it is not fair to look just at per-pupil expenditures in poor communities and say, "Oh well, they got plenty of money, the problem is the parents, teachers, and kids have sh*t attitudes."  No, you really do need to take into account the entire macro-economic situation, the sociological history of each community, and the social realities the community faces.  It's not something you can just sum up into an elegent soundbite.
Of course, you can keep chanting GOP talking points until the cows come home, but the prescriptions therein will only further undermine the educational opportunities for poor children.

Who dismissed it?  I didn't.  Never have.


So you're saying that parents ARE responsible for their children's education?  Then why is it the government that has to provide them with it and force them to go?  What exactly does accountability mean to you?


All social and economic factors considered, I have never heard a justifiable reason for eradicating the public school system.  I have never heard an alternative that would work in reality.  I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying anti-public schoolers have never made the case.

Well, the public school system is doing a pretty poor job of justifying its existence.  The beauty of the free market is that ineffective businesses don't last and effective ones do.  How can that not make sense to somebody?


Again, the same people who make that claim about education also make it about healthcare, and again I have yet to hear any of them make a reasonable case for how public education is like buying a car or hiring a landscaper.


How is it NOT like buying a car?  You want to go places, you buy a car.  You want a better chance at a good job, you get an education.  Your car breaks down, you go get it fixed.  Your body has problems, you go get it fixed.  Tell me what's unreasonable about this.


I never said they were.  And I don't hate the private sector like you hate the government.

You've never said it in so many words.  But why, then, is a government service like public education preferable to private enterprise?  And I've never said I HATED the government.  I see no reason to trust the government, and am absolutely baffled that so many other people do, but if I hate something, it's the contempt for individual rights and personal responsibility that seems to be everywhere I look.


Who is naive here?  Are you saying the profit motive is what makes people hard-working, virtuous, and accountable?  Corporate America itself can't cut it in the private sector.  Corporations are America's biggest welfare client.  Businesses are full of crooks, leeches, and layabouts.  Private enterprises fail all the time.  A lot of private schools fail too.  
Private enterprise can do great things the public sector cannot.  However, true private enterprise is always risky.  We need a reliable safety net for education.  It would be suicide to entrust all our education to the private sector.

I'm saying that profit motive is what drives private businesses to effectively meet the needs of their clients.  Are you saying that government service makes people hard-working, virtuous, and accountable?  (I hope not; I really don't want to pee myself laughing)  Are you saying that public education is "reliable"?  I've heard your corporate welfare diatribes before and I've never disagreed with you that it's appalling.  What I haven't heard is what makes a government agency superior to a private business.  If I could get a straight answer on just that one question, I'd appreciate it.

So you're saying that parents ARE responsible for their children's education?  Then why is it the government that has to provide them with it and force them to go?  What exactly does accountability mean to you?


Well, the public school system is doing a pretty poor job of justifying its existence.  The beauty of the free market is that ineffective businesses don't last and effective ones do.  How can that not make sense to somebody?



How is it NOT like buying a car?  You want to go places, you buy a car.  You want a better chance at a good job, you get an education.  Your car breaks down, you go get it fixed.  Your body has problems, you go get it fixed.  Tell me what's unreasonable about this.


You've never said it in so many words.  But why, then, is a government service like public education preferable to private enterprise?  And I've never said I HATED the government.  I see no reason to trust the government, and am absolutely baffled that so many other people do, but if I hate something, it's the contempt for individual rights and personal responsibility that seems to be everywhere I look.


I'm saying that profit motive is what drives private businesses to effectively meet the needs of their clients.  Are you saying that government service makes people hard-working, virtuous, and accountable?  (I hope not; I really don't want to pee myself laughing)  Are you saying that public education is "reliable"?  I've heard your corporate welfare diatribes before and I've never disagreed with you that it's appalling.  What I haven't heard is what makes a government agency superior to a private business.  If I could get a straight answer on just that one question, I'd appreciate it.


Let me start with some generalizations about our government.  We claim to be a democracy.  If that is reeally the case, than WE are the government (ie "of, by and for the people").  As a people we decided, a long time ago, to provide and require a level of education (which has varied) to every child regardless of ability to pay.  We also decided to maintain roads at public expense, provide police and fire protection, impose standards of behavior on businesses and lots of other things as well in order to protect something called the public good, ie to "promote the general welfare".  Thats what government is about and certainly an educated citizenry is part of the general welfare.

Parants bear a responsibility to create an environment conducive to education for their kids.  Some can do that very well regardless of their socioeconomic status, others can't.  But regardless, we all have a stake in the education of the next generation.  Nor do I understand how a business model would in any way enhance educational opportunities.  Certainly those Catholic schools you mention are not run on a business model.

You may not have said that you hate government, but you have made it clear that you are no fan either.  To say you doin't trust government in a democracy is to say that you don't trust yourself or your fellow citizens.  As to "contempt for individual rights", I see lots of that on the right side of the political spectrtum, like the invasion of privacy contained in the Patriot Act, the desire to control people's reproduction and sex lives etc.  Personal responsibility is nice, maybe Ken Lay and the rest of your corporate heros should take some as should Lill' Georgie.

There are areas of  community life that are well served by responsible firms operating in the marketplace, but there are areas where the profit motive just can't cut it, like the examples I gave above.  It certainly isn't doing such a great job with health care, IMHO.  And by the way, private schools are overwhelmingly "not for profit" organizations.

The teacher unions do deserve some of the blame, which I'm sure a teacher doesn't want to hear.  If you discount the fact that the union's appear more concerned with money and benefits, they tend to allow too many tenured teachers to continue in the profession that most likely shouldn't be there.  I was an above average student in school, though not overly motivated, and I can certainly say that I had teachers that were tenured that were excellent.  I also had a couple that were clearly there to ride out their service to retirement. 

There's also the mistaken belief that more money, means better teachers.  All it really means, is you get people applying for a position because it pays well, and they hope to get their summers off. Conneticut has the highest paid teachers in the country, and yet their schools are failing.  There goes that theory. Maybe it works at the college level, but most large universities have expensive professors who don't teach the undergrads.  No wonder most of them don't go on for additional degrees.

The opposition to standardized testing is also a mistake.  Even with several of the tests dumbed way down, they're still failing plenty of students.  That's a sign that there's students that shouldn't be in grade levels that they're in. The argument is that teachers will teach towards the test.  Of course they will.  I was taught basic standarized test taking techniques.  The SAT tests practically require you know about trying to eliminate incorrect answers, etc. That only gets you a small edge on the overall test.  If you can't read, you can't apply that technique.  If you can't tell which answers are not even likely contenders, than you can't improve your odds if you don't know an answer. If you told the teacher unions, that you weren't going to require ceritfication tests for new teachers, I'm sure they'd freak out over it.  Surprisingly, they don't think the issuance of a degree they teach, should require the same level of effort by their students.

I must ask the question "Are you a teacher?" Let me answer that for you, "Most likely, no". But, I am.

Imagine getting paid little for the enormous work and effort (with little or no help from the community, parent, and administrators). How would you feel? Excuse me, most teachers are not paid over the summer. Either they must save during the year or get a summer job. Also, imagine having to buy most of your work supplies for more than 20 children.

A lot of teachers (with the exception of me, I have my Master's) do not go on to additional degrees, but a degree only gives a miniscule lead in the field. Most often, you are only giving a salary bump of anywhere from $1,000 to $5, 000. As for the unions, I do agree with some things, however, without unions, teachers would royally get "screwed" by many districts.

As for standardized testing, the tests are overwhelmingly biased towards those who may have received inadequate learning opportunities due to inadequate funding, books, teachers, and school environment. So, of course the playing field isn't leveled to use standardized testing as an assessment of the educational system. For the record, many suburban school districts "fix" their numbers/percentiles to avoid any scrutiny of mistakes or occurrences in their school year. Testing will only work if the playing field is balanced.

IMHO, I don't expect you to imagine, b/c you don't dealt with every day, so it's easy to rant and rave as an outsider looking in. I've worked in both an inner-city school and a suburban school. Both environments are in trouble.

Tanya

So you're saying that parents ARE responsible for their children's education?  Then why is it the government that has to provide them with it and force them to go?  What exactly does accountability mean to you?
It's not all one thing or the other.


Well, the public school system is doing a pretty poor job of justifying its existence.  The beauty of the free market is that ineffective businesses don't last and effective ones do.  How can that not make sense to somebody?
There are thousands of public school systems across the country.  Are they all doing a poor job?  Does the public school system exist in a vacuum?  


How is it NOT like buying a car?  You want to go places, you buy a car.  You want a better chance at a good job, you get an education.  Your car breaks down, you go get it fixed.  Your body has problems, you go get it fixed.  Tell me what's unreasonable about this.
Um, employ some gray matter and tell yourself!


You've never said it in so many words.  But why, then, is a government service like public education preferable to private enterprise?  And I've never said I HATED the government.  I see no reason to trust the government, and am absolutely baffled that so many other people do, but if I hate something, it's the contempt for individual rights and personal responsibility that seems to be everywhere I look.
Just maybe your take on "individual rights," "personal responisbility," and who has "contempt" for them is fundamentally flawed.

I'm saying that profit motive is what drives private businesses to effectively meet the needs of their clients.  Are you saying that government service makes people hard-working, virtuous, and accountable?  (I hope not; I really don't want to pee myself laughing)  Are you saying that public education is "reliable"?  I've heard your corporate welfare diatribes before and I've never disagreed with you that it's appalling.  What I haven't heard is what makes a government agency superior to a private business.  If I could get a straight answer on just that one question, I'd appreciate it.

It's not a question of inferior versus superior, it's a question of fitness to purpose.  For example, a German Shepherd may be very good at guarding your house, but you wouldn't ask him to cook your supper.
N