| Author |
Message |
    
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:19 am: | 
|
Chris,
What other professions don't require schooling or training, in your opinion? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Nice try, dave23.
I DIDN'T SAY A THING ABOUT SCHOOLING OR TRAINING.
I am talking about a master's degree. I am talking about union rules that prevent anyone but one who has the requisite piece of paper from the appropriate credentials factory from teaching.
Nice attempt at disorting the issue, though. Pretty typical of what the unions have been doing to this entire issue ever since it came to a head. Distort and obfuscate.
And do anything, ANYTHING, to avoid discussion of the fact that the main reason public schools waste so much money versus private ones is not only union pay scales and benefits, but bureaucratic overhead.
For a good example of that, look no further than right here, in MSO. We have more paperpushers on the BOE payroll than teachers!
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Chris,
I'm all for removing some of the bureaucrats. But that's an entirely different issue (demostrating that you know a thing or two about obfuscation). I was replying to this comment of yours:
"You either can teach, or you cannot. It does not seem to be something that can be given with a piece of parchment."
So what other professions fall under the "either you can or you can't" umbrella?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5321
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
The masters' requirement is set by state and local Boards of Education, not by unions. New York State, for example, has a requirement for a masters; New Jersey does not. The same unions work both sides of the Hudson, so it's not them making the rules.
Again, methinks that too much of this is being driven by the overwhelming urge some conservatives have to smash unions. But Southerner thinks that, in the full flower of competition, teachers salaries will shoot up. Chris thinks that, once the noose of teachers unions is undone, circumstances will finally allow us to pay teachers less.
It's not going to be both ways. But at least we can all agree that administrations are bloated. Seems every year Dr. Horrorshow was adding staff even as programs were being cut. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Amen to that. Less money to the educrats and more to the classroom.
I attended a parent's night at CHS a while back, and a lady from the audience asked what I thought was a very piercing question. What had happened to the industrial arts program, she asked. When told it had been eliminated in budget cuts, she said: what of those who want to work with their hands? Not everyone will get a job in an office, what about the others? The educrats just sat in silence.
In a microcosm, there is the problem. We spend more and more, and get less and less.
And this is not some conservative conspiracy to smash unions. I work in a business that is 100% union. But it is a private business, there is open competition. When the unions take over the school system, you will have an insoluble problem. Because there is no competition. They stick a gun to our heads, and we have to pay up.
And if you really believe that the unions have no influence on the state boards of education, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5322
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Of course unions have influence. But so do cities, counties, towns and voters. Sometimes, even, the Dems they support aren't even in power.
You're right about shop, and it's not even that woodworking is a very valid career choice for some (there's a lot of prestige and money, not to mention personal satisfaction, in custom furniture building). Everybody needs to know how to handle tools a little bit, and understand the basic principles of how stuff works. In the school district I attended, shop was divided into four sections; mechanical drawing, wood shop, metal shop, and electricity.
I recall in mechanical drawing, we learned to use rulers, compasses, t-squares and so forth; but also if you drew a corner that didn't intersection precisely, you were marked down. An important lesson for any kind of endeavor: be accurate, be precise, watch the details. Similarly, a lot of time in wood and metal shop was devoted to how to properly handle very powerful electric tools. How many Darwin Award winners would still be alive today if they'd learned some basic principles?
Yes, education is more than passing the latest test mandated by NCLB. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 5:52 pm: |
|
tom,
We aren't really that far apart like I said. Do I like unions? No. However, the solution I have chosen after looking at the issue isn't drawn from my dislike of the unions. They are a part of the problem but not the root. The root is bureacracy and political power. If you go with the private option then you immediately take care of the political power part of the problem and a "for profit" institution would be much more efficient. They wouldn't be totally efficient but the current state doesn't even consider efficiencies.
I totally agree with your last sentence about mandatory government tests. Once again, the bureacracy is so deep that schools have become nothing more than test prep institutions to, guess what - bring more money and political power to individual districts. District A could care less about District B and so forth. Do the good public school districts in wealthy New Jersey care one bit about the decay of the NYC school system? Of course not. As long as they got theirs.
Again, I know nothing will change substantially in one fell swoop. It will be a long process to tear down the system. And of course, the Democrats will fight to the death to keep the masses uneducated. They don't want to lose the voting bloc or political issue. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5326
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
And of course, the Democrats will fight to the death to keep the masses uneducated. They don't want to lose the voting bloc or political issue.
And of course, the Republicans will fight to the death to keep the masses uneducated. They demand a deep supply of cheap labor. |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 572
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
Tom, before you go straight to the strictly partisan union busting argument, spend 5 minutes in an urban public school. Typical Maplewood Ivory tower stuff... |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:24 am: |
|
Lawsuit in NJ to force state to pay for private schools:
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/n_j__dad_wants_to_teach_failing_public_schools_ a_harsh_leon_commentary_andrea_peyser.htm |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5331
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Gregor, probably a half dozen posters on this thread blamed the unions before I even mentioned them.
I have no doubt that big-city public schools are unacceptable. My beef is with people who are pushing school choice in the name of better education when their real agenda lies elsewhere. Like the lip service paid to "rebuilding Iraq so that Iraqis have a better life," or to "preserving social security for future generations," the real aim is to redirect money into the right pockets. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 93
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
So it's not the results that matter but rather the motives. Why is it that almost everything in our society that's driven by "greed" works so well but that almost everything driven by caring, compassion, and altruism is so fouled up? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Wow. The Tap gets the Cynical Post of the Year award. (And Tap: No weaseling out of your post by falling back on your use of the word "almost.") |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 94
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Damm! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5334
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
If someone claims that they are trying to improve something when their real intent is to undermine it, yes, their motives are important. Because whatever they build, if it in fact does end up improving things it will be a total accident.
Considering the way the Bush people have screwed up everything they've touched, maybe we should ask them to destroy SS and public schools -- maybe they'll end up saving them. |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 573
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Yet another good healthy discussion has officially turned into partisan party-bashing...*yawn... |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 95
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Generally speaking, I have more faith in the ability of the private sector and the free market rather than the government, to provide quality service to the largest number of people. I don't see why this should not apply to schools. If people get rich from it, I couldn't care less as long as my kid is receiving a superior education. Of course, "Leaving No Child Behind" is a utopian fantasy that the private sector would not indulge in so I guess were are out of luck.
Now is that more or less cynical than my previous post?
How about getting rid of all the thugs in the schools? Isn't that what Joe Clark did when he took over? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5778
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
tom -- at least you agree that SS and the public schools need to be saved. If you just cross over that continuing what has been tried in the past won't work -- in other words 'stay the course' -- maybe you'll get somewhere. I suppose as long as you've got your bases covered, there's no hurry. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Tap,
Much less cynincal and much more expository.
I agree that the private sector is better for most things, but not all. When there's a confluence of government and the private sector--such as the DoD and Homeland Security Dept--corruption and waste are particularly rife. Given that the government would be heavily involved in education even if it were "privatized", I'm certain similar problems would arise.
Also, I don't think there would be as much competition as advocates like to believe. Parents want to send their kids to schools that are close to home. It's not as if high schools will suddenly start popping up all over your local neighborhoods. Most people will still be stuck with whatever is most convenient.
Of course, I haven't even mentioned all of the corporate sponsorship and advertising that would drench the halls and classrooms. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
The public school system is to the left what Iraq is to the right. One side of each issue wants to keep pumping more and more money into what they believe is a worthwhile venture while the other side believes it is a money pit that failed. Let the political battle rage. |
Ender
Citizen
Username: Enderw
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Dave - your argument falls flat because the Government is vested in the Constitution with the obligation to protect - currently done via the DOD and admittedly less effectively by the DHS (which the Democrats wanted to turn into a union run bureacracy, but that is neither here nor there). If you actually study the evolution of our type of government, it is really all about protecting citizens from attack (military defense), protecting citizens from each other (police force) and deciding disputes between citizens (judiciary). Nothing in the Constitution about government run, union-driven, grotesquely underachieving, ridiculously expensive schools.
}In fact, if you think about the freedoms we are afforded, it is quite bizarre that 1. we are not allowed to choose which school to send our kids to and 2. that so many lemmings actually defend that peculiar practice. Not one word about whether every kid should have the opportunity to go to school (let's all agree they should to make this issue simpler - it's all about whether it is the parent's choice or the gummint's choice.
In fact "provide for the common defense" shows up in the Preamble and much of Articles I and II discuss our warmaking and defensive obligations and responsibilities.
Finally, most Democrats are in favor of less government when it comes to most social issues - and failing education nationwide is a social issue. When will they learn? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5337
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Set up the straw men and knock 'em down. Impressive.
Quote:Nothing in the Constitution about government run, union-driven, grotesquely underachieving, ridiculously expensive schools.
Maybe that's why the federal government doesn't run the public school system. On the other hand, the New Jersey State constitution says, "The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years," which at least covers the government-run portion of your statement.
Quote:it is quite bizarre that 1. we are not allowed to choose which school to send our kids to
Why do you make such a patently false statement? You can send your kid to any school they can get accepted into.
Quote:Not one word about whether every kid should have the opportunity to go to school
Not only does every kid have the opportunity to go to school, they have to go to school, by law.
This is an example of the union-bashing that motivates some of the voucher proponents. Would disbanding the unions make the deadbeat parents of the failing students any more effective? When we lower teacher salaries and benefits to the point that anyone remotely capable of holding a job in the public sector gives up teaching in order to avoid homelessness, is that going to bring on a golden age of education?
Here's a modest proposal. Start a voucher program, but grandfather out famliies with any kids already in private or religious schools. Poor families in Newark will get a voucher and a chance, but the wealthy folks who are already sending their kids to Kent Place or wherever get nothing. Still feeling altruistic? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
Ender,
Where in the Constitution does it say that the country must be defended by a bloated, wasteful and corrupt agency? |
Ender
Citizen
Username: Enderw
Post Number: 79
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Tom - all good points. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I was thinking about NCLB - Federal initiative - and its effect on locally run public schools. Also, the teacher's unions are all federal in nature - NEA and AFT - albeit not government organizations, at least huge supporters of certain elements of the Fed. govt (i.e the spending apparatus).
To the extent the State Constitution says "The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years," then the system we have now must be unconstitutional. We all pay a ton and then some (i.e. it is not free).
I said we are not allowed to choose and you said "Why do you make such a patently false statement? You can send your kid to any school they can get accepted into." I guess I should have clarified what I thought was obvious. One could pay for the public school system but can opt out of it without a refund and go to any school they want paying for that one additionally. That may be an option for some limo libs who post on this board, but not for us hardworking stiffs 
You wrote "Not only does every kid have the opportunity to go to school, they have to go to school, by law. " I have a problem with that law also. If a kid is egregiously misbehaving, I think the schools should be allowed to kick 'em out a lot easier than it is now. Also, I think we would all agree that it would be a waste for everybody to go through and get their PhD. To the same extent, I think for some kids, going through senior year in HS might be a waste. They could do better at some sort of job-training once they hit a certain age rather than learn English Lit Since the 1800's or a politically correct version of US History.
I like your modest proposal Tom - I think the poorest families have the most to gain from school choice. Most of the elementary schools in Maplewood, Millburn, Chathams, Summit, etc. are de-facto private schools anyway. The schools in the slums (politically correct word is 'inner-city') are pretty lousy (choose your own more pejorative word here, I don't want to get kicked off). As an aside, do we live in the 'outer-city'? Does anybody live in the outer-city or is there just an inner-city.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page