| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5763 Registered: 8-2003 |
The New York Times July 18, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Spinning a Bad Report Card By JOHN TIERNEY Thanks to a new federal report comparing public and private schools, there’s no doubt that public schools have one huge advantage: the leaders of their unions are unrivaled masters of spin. They didn’t merely celebrate the report’s release on Friday, they complained that the Bush administration tried to bury it by releasing it for the weekend. They spun so well that the report was treated as a public-school triumph that “casts doubt on the value of voucher programs,” as The Wall Street Journal described it. But if anything, the report from the Education Department did just the opposite. It concluded, after compensating for socioeconomic differences and other factors, that public-school students score slightly better on tests in fourth grade, while private-school students score slightly better in eighth grade. Given a choice, would you rather be ahead in the fourth inning or later in the game? But even if you ignore that trend, even if you focus on the overall similarity of the scores in both types of school, that’s still bad news for public schools. Their students ought to be scoring higher if you believe in the unions’ favorite prescription for improving education: more money. Most private schools are not places like Exeter or Dalton. They’re Catholic parochial schools and others on lean budgets. According to federal surveys, the typical private school’s tuition is only about half what a public school spends per pupil. The public schools are spending more even if you exclude their expenses for special education, buses, lunch programs and central administration, as William Howell and Paul Peterson found in a study of New York elementary schools. The political scientists calculated that the public schools were still spending twice as much per pupil as were the Catholic schools in New York. General Motors would not celebrate the news that its $40,000 Cadillac performed almost as well as a $20,000 Honda. It would not have its dealers put up signs reading: “Why Pay Less? Our Cars Are Nearly As Good.” But that’s the logic of the teachers’ union leaders who want to prevent students from getting vouchers and taxpayers from saving money. For fans of public schools, about the only bright spot in this new study is that it’s not as damning as previous comparisons, but that’s because it’s a much less rigorous study. Its authors caution that it’s of “modest utility,” and other scholars think that’s too kind. Some critics fault its methodology and say it understates the advantages of private schools, and some don’t think this kind of comparison can prove anything. The best way to compare schools is not to simply look at test scores one year, because it’s impossible to account for the students’ intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, and their varying motivations for choosing one type of school over another. Researchers can try to control for factors like family income and ethnicity or race, but these are crude measures. Why, for instance, do some poor parents switch to a private school while their equally poor next-door neighbors are content with public school? Are the private-school parents more motivated because they put more value on education? Or are they just more desperate for a change because their children were doing much worse in public school than the children next door? The most scientific way to compare schools is with the kind of randomized experiment that has been conducted in New York, Dayton and Washington. In these cities, students from low-income families were given a chance to apply for school vouchers. After the vouchers were awarded by lottery, researchers tracked the voucher students in private schools and compared them with a control group: the losers of the lottery who remained in public school. After three years, the white and Hispanic voucher students were doing as well as their counterparts in public school, and the African-American voucher students were testing a full grade level higher than the blacks in the control group. The parents of all the voucher students — white, Hispanic and African-American — reported that there was much less fighting, cheating, vandalism and absenteeism in their schools than did the public-school parents. Even though the private schools spent less money per pupil than the public schools, the parents were much more satisfied with them. Happier parents, better students, lower costs — those are the clear advantages of private schools and voucher programs. No wonder the teachers’ unions are so busy spinning. Also, some interesting stuff on charter schools: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/smarter_charter_kids_regionalnews_carl_c ampanile.htm | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1894 Registered: 5-2001 |
False debate. Private schools will always score better than public schools because they can kick out the poor achievers. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5764 Registered: 8-2003 |
False charge, backed up by no data far as I can tell. Did you read the article? The scores were similar, with public schools edging slightly ahead in the early grades and private schools leading in 8th grade. And who's to say that a voucher automatically means they'll pick a private school when there are tons of wonderful public schools that aren't miserable failures but happen to spend twice as much per student even leaving aside special ed, lunches and busing? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5305 Registered: 5-2001 |
The single most determinative factor in student performance is parental involvement. Private school kids are a pre-selected bunch with one thing in common -- by definition, they have involved parents. As the researchers note, income isn't all that relevant (yet they stress anyway that these are low-income people). So, the parents in this study who went through the effort to apply for the lottery, went through the necessary paperwork, worked with the researchers -- don't you think that on the whole they are qualitatively different from the parents who didn't? By the way, at the 8th grade level the private schools only pulled ahead in reading. There was still a dead heat in math. I wonder how the private schools' art, language, music, and media components stacked up. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67  Post Number: 561 Registered: 11-2002  |
If there were a voucher program in NYC, they wouldn't have had to close 50 Catholic schools over the last 2 years. Every one would have been filled to capacity. The NYC public school system is such a disgrace that parents would for obvious reasons flock to ANY private school given the chance to pull their kids out of the public schools. There is no voucher program because the UFT lobby will not allow it. I would be more OK with that if NYC were able to hire competent teachers to teach in their schools. Before you get into the salary thing, you couldn't pay enough to get any teacher to go into some of these schools...they are THAT bad. Bloomberg and Klein have made a good attempt at reform, but are only putting a band-aid on a bullet wound, not solving the real problems-lack of parental any parental involvement. Dave23-yours is the busing argument...people in the Bronx have been crying that they want to send their kids to affluent Bronxville, since they have such a highly rated school system. The question is will the better teachers there get through to the minority kids from the Bronx, or will the kids from the Bronx drive down the test scores, making Bronxville numbers-wise a less effective school system? It's time for the Mayor to stop pandering to the UFT and make some real, positive changes. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1895 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yes, I read the article. Tierney almost got it right. Eighth grade reading is better in private schools, but the public schools still did better at math in that grade. Tierney does, accidentally of course, help disprove the notion that private schools are heads and shoulders above public ones. Public schools spend $8,300 per student. Parochial schools spend $4200 per student (largely because they don't spend ANY money on infrastructure because the buildings are provided by the churches). Private schools spend $8500 per student. School voucher advocates like to average the parochial and private numbers for obvious reasons. An honest debate on the subject is a great idea, but don't rely on Tierney to provide you with anything valuable except a good nap. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5765 Registered: 8-2003 |
Isn't the public school spending you cite an average, given that some $12K per student is spent here in NJ? And I agree on the single most determining factor is the parents involvement. And the answer is to spend more money. To infer from this report that it's an endorsement for public schools is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps that's why education bureaucrats like to send their kids to private school, or cheat the system to get their kids into a public school that's not failing, or use their wallet that's not available to the average Joe to move where they must to get the schooling they desire. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5309 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sure $12K is an average, but at least it's an average of schools that all have to pay for their own building and maintenance, their own heat, water and electricity. I wouldn't infer that it's an endorsement of public schools; but I wouldn't infer that it's an endorsement of private schools, either. Maybe throwing money at them isn't the answer. I'm sure that's true for a lot of districts, though not for ours. But if you take a bunch of sub-par public schools, and subtract all the good students, do you think they're going to get better? Why, I'd bet that the result would be even worse public schools, with rapidly eroding public support verging on taxpayer revolt. But maybe that's the plan. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 83 Registered: 5-2006  |
I’m not sure what to make of this whole school choice thing. I saw John Stossel’s report on 20/20 the other night and it was very persuasive. An example he used was Belgium where the money for school is attached to the child versus the school. The child enrolls where they want and that’s were the check gets sent. Schools can spend the money, within certain parameters, how they want. Higher salaries, better facilities, special programs, etc. However, at the end of the day, the school must produce a superior product or they disappear and the teachers are out of work. I do think the whole money thing is a bunch of garbage. If money mattered, Washington DC would have the best schools in the country. Stossel also profiled some district in the mid-West where pursuant to court order the city and state had to pump some crazy amount of money into the schools. You should see the facilities they have there now. But scores actually went down. My problem is with parents. Increasingly schools, especially in the inner city where they are the worst, are being asked to be surrogate families and teachers surrogate parents. If an inner city school has a student population with a large number of kids who were raised by teenage mothers without a father in the house, have never had a book read to them, never been told to turn off the TV and study, are allowed to hang around the street corner until whenever, and go to school the next morning with no breakfast, how can the teacher be held responsible for the failure of the students? I would submit that the private and parochial school children, on average, outperform their public school counterparts because, on average, their parents are much more involved in their educations. The same can be said about home schooled kids. Yes, home schooled kids blow public school kids out of the water on standardized testing (at a fraction of the cost) but is that because home instruction is better or because, by definition, you are dealing with a population of kids who have parents that are hugely involved in their educations. I think those kids would do great in any educational setting. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 562 Registered: 11-2002 |
Very good Spinal Tap...I agree with you 100%. Maybe now we can stop quoting meaningless statistics about how much public schools spend per pupil...Your statements are dead-on, but will be construed by many as racist. Until parents in the inner cities start giving a crap about their kids there will be no improvement. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3101 Registered: 12-2001  |
"An example he used was Belgium where the money for school is attached to the child versus the school. The child enrolls where they want and that’s were the check gets sent." They are socialists there. They have a national teachers' union. National. With a national contract. Stossel forgot to mention that. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 84 Registered: 5-2006 |
Union or no union, socialism or no socialism, if their schools don't produce a superior product - they disappear. Samsa's post reminded me of another program I saw on I think 60 Minutes. It profiled some suburbs outside Atlanta. Gated communities, million dollar McMansions, top-notch schools and faculty, highly educated, professional parents and high achieving kids - all over 90 percent black. Race is not the issue. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1896 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yes, cjc, the number I cited was the national average, as were the statistics cited by you and Tierney. About half of the students who attend private schools go to parochial schools, which typically don't have to pay for infrastructure. NJ's per-student spending in public schools is indeed well above the national average. We were talking about national averages. If you want to remove NJ from the US stats, go ahead. That will only bring it down and make the public schools look even better (something you, Tierney, Stossell and other admin parrots are loathe to do). Also note that NJ's private schools are quite expensive too. You guys just can't stand the idea that there may be good news about public schools. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12201 Registered: 5-2001 |
Where can you get information on private school test results? In Maplewood a lot of parents send their elementary age kids to Our Lady of Sorrows and speak highly of the school and the education their kids receive, but the test scores, if tests are taken at all, aren't included in the state NCLB tables. Ditto with high/prep schools. Nobody really knows how well students do at schools ranging from Seton Hall Prep to Newark Academy. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 563 Registered: 11-2002 |
I have nothing further to add to this discussion. Feel free to keep on comparing meaningless statistics. You obviously have never been inside a public or private school recently. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1898 Registered: 5-2001 |
Samsa, Everyone agrees that these stats are (mostly) meaningless and that parental involvement trumps all other factors. My point is that public schools are too often derided for political gain, mainly by conservatives who'd like to abolish them altogether. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5766 Registered: 8-2003 |
dave23 -- public schools are pumped up for political gain, mainly by liberals who want to keep blacks in an inferior education monopoly while they send their own kids to private schools. Do black parents who want choice want to abolish public schools, or are they ignorant of what they think they desire? (they are products of public schools, so...well...go figure). Take out hyper-expensive Newark, NYC and DC school districts where failure is the norm, and the per-pupil spending looks very good for public school advocates. Those building drives in parochial schools are a sham I guess, as they don't have to pay for infrastructure. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 564 Registered: 11-2002 |
If you've been in any public school in NYC, even for 5 minutes, you'd walk out the door wondering why there isn't school choice, or why they won't grant more charters for charter schools. My job takes me to all the different types of schools in NYC. With very few exceptions very little learning goes on in public schools. I have seen in the last year some downright violent and disturbing things in MIDDLE SCHOOLS. Most of the charter schools in NYC offer a refuge from this. They require parental involvement. One school that I deal with is a K-6 Charter School in Harlem, and their test scores will blow away most schools in the affluent suburbs. Again, not that test scores really mean anything, but the parental involvement, and partnership with the school administration creates a true learning environment. The Catholic schools have always offered a similar learning environment. These schools were left to die on the vine rather than have been put to excellent use as an alternative to the failing public schools. Shame on Randy Weingarten, shame on the UFT. One a positive note, the new "small high schools", created by Bloomberg/Klein/Gates $$ seem to be on the right track, also stressing parental partnership, accountability and discipline. Again, all these statements I have jsut made area based on my own observations visiting the different schools in NYC over the past few years. As a conservative, I have never felt that public schools be abolished, but the do need to be stripped, gutted, and rebuilt to actually attempt to meet the needs of the students attending them. Right now they do not. In NYC anyway, they are being held hostage by a corrupt union. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1713 Registered: 10-2004  |
Do you really mean this? Personally, I am a proud graduate of the public school system of New York City and I am proud to say my children are publicly schooled. There may be problems with public schools but that doesnt mean that they arent effective in teaching our children. As dave23 stated the most important component in education is parental involvement. No school, whether private or public, is going to reach a kids who is not motivated and receives poor feedback from their parents. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3608 Registered: 5-2001  |
...liberals who want to keep blacks in an inferior education monopoly... You were doing fine until then. Couldn't resist putting up a strawman, huh? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1899 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, Half of the schools labeled "private" are Catholic schools. You think us conspiratorial liberals are sending their kids to Catholic schools? We're too busy mandating demonstrative sex ed in the public schools to do that! I'd be all for vouchers if they provided 100% funding for the families that opted in and didn't draw any money away from the public school system. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5767 Registered: 8-2003 |
notehead -- I was just responding in kind to the charge that conservatives want to abolish public schools. But I suppose dave23 was doing just fine with his charge by you? dave23 -- so you'd like to leave the 15K a kid that a school in Newark receives even if the kid doesn't go there any longer? Then...we could spend 18K a kid if enough people flee that hellhole and the kid will still come out uneducated. Results don't matter. Money does. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1900 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yep. You take away that 15k (times however many) and the infrastructure will get that much worse, the teacher salaries will be cut, books won't be bought, etc. etc. etc. If you were actually serious about providing choice, you'd agree. This won't only affect the "hellhole" schools. This will affect the many, many good and great public schools. There aren't many of spaces in private schools, particularly non-Catholic ones. A few voucher students would get in, but most would remain in the public school. Let's not pretend there are infinite numbers of spaces? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5769 Registered: 8-2003 |
They had to close Catholic schools because they had too many spaces, dave23. Now, if the parents could have had their education dollars following their children, perhaps that wouldn't be the case then. You don't necessarily have to cut teacher salaries etc etc etc, especially when in Washington DC's case less than 50% of the money actually goes to instruction in the classroom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38726-2005Apr8.html And your monopoly is really handling the school construction and infrastructure of same well in this state I might add with the School Building Commission. And how many parents are going to flee the many, many good and great public schools (and I don't for a minute deny that's true)? And why? Doesn't make sense. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 85 Registered: 5-2006 |
I have a friend who started out as a public school teacher in Harlem. She said that at the beginning of her first year her attitude was, "I'm gonna save the world!". By the end of the year her attitude had become, "I'm gonna save myself!" She said that the school was just the total absence of reason. While there were some very dedicated teachers, there were many who did nothing. Literally – nothing. They would just sit in the classroom reading the paper while the kids went wild. Elementary school kids would regularly curse out teachers with the most disgusting, sexually explicit, verbiage imaginable. If a teacher tried to stay in the classroom an extra 30 minutes after the bell to help a student, a representative from the union put a stop to it. No amount of money will allow a teacher to effectively teach in that environment. She is now a private special education tutor for some very wealthy clients. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1026 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dave 23, I fail to see the logic in your argument. Most public schools are OK, but we are discussing the ones that are utter, dismal failures. You cannot defend most inner city schools. They are condemming an entire generation of mostly minorities to a life of poverty. The unions running them don't give a damn. Maybe some individual teachers care, but the bureaucracy grinds them down. We have been told for decades that throwing money at them would fix the problem. The bureaucracy got bigger and fatter and the schools got worse. So much for throwing money at the problem. Which brings us to private schools, which do a lot more teaching and learning for a lot less dollars. So let the parents in the failing inner city schools have a choice of where they send their children, instead of putting a gun to their heads and telling them they have no choice. You said: "This won't only affect the "hellhole" schools. This will affect the many, many good and great public schools. " Why would parents pull their kids out of a good school? You're trying to hijack the argument. We are talking about the failures, not the successes. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 565 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dave, yes there are definitely a finite number of spaces in non-Catholic private schools, but, today's Catholic school is not the one of the 70's, filled only with Irish, Italian and Polish kids. They are open to any child of any religion whose parents want them to learn in a caring, nurturing environment. These spaces should be filled and would be filled with students if there were some sort of school choice. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3610 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc - I honestly didn't even see dave23's comment. I don't believe that conservatives in general want to abolish public schools. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5770 Registered: 8-2003 |
notehead -- fair enough then. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1901 Registered: 5-2001 |
Chris, Do you honestly think that, given the opportunity, every single parent at good public schools would pass up the opportunity to send their kids to even more highly regarded private schools for no or next-to-no money? You don't think many parents with kids in the MSO district would send their kids to Far Brook and similar schools if tution were, say, $2000 instead of $20,000? Don't accuse me of "hijacking the argument" if you've failed to think the whole thing through. (By the way, the same union that "grinds down" the failing schools are part of the great successes at quality public schools.) So, no, this is not only about the failing schools. It's about pulling funding out of the public school system. It's why the administration waited six months to announce the news that public schools are testing nearly as well as private (at least in grades 4 and 8), and chose to release it on a Friday afternoon. Think of it this way: If every child is, for lack of a better word, "worth" $13,000 in our district and only twenty kids (a very modest number) move on to private schools in a voucher program, that's $260,000 less for our district. Also note that the federal government only provides 7% of school funding, yet they are the ones pushing this. This would be--in essence--another unfunded mandate from on high. I repeat: I'm 100% for school choice, but not at the expense of public schools. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 570 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dave, that's not true...in NYC teachers belong to the UFT, in NJ they belong to the NEA... | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5314 Registered: 5-2001 |
An important question that's not being asked is, at what point to market forces for tuition start to play a part? Let's assume for a minute that every school-age kid in Maplewood has his or her $10,000 to take wherever their parents choose. As "green flight" becomes a virtual stampede and we're in fierce competition for locker space with parents of similar persuasions from a hundred other towns, who is going to win? These private schools aren't going to just magically double or triple their enrollment. They don't have the space. Since presumably these private schools are being run "like a business," as conservatives encourage, with more dollars chasing their services they're going to be able to raise tuition, and they no doubt will. And of course most of these new kids with $10,000 burning a hole in their parents' pockets are going to be rejected and end up right back in public school anyway. Will entrepreneurs flock to the secondary-education business? Will we see a tremendous boom in the founding of schools unfettered by the heavy hand of government and unions? Maybe. But who will those schools really be serving, and what is their mission? Will a school that absolutely must meet the demands of its investors and shareholders do a better job than a school that must conform to union regulations and local school boards? At least school boards are elected. Today, the mission of any business is to make money. That's why General Motors is less in the auto business and more in the financing business than it used to be. There's no reason to entertain the fantasy that schools founded this way are going to be in the business of educating children. They're going to be in the business of increasing shareholder value. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5774 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yes, business are there to turn a profit. They have to sell a product that people want, and if people don't want the product they'll go out of business. Public schools can keep selling excrement if they want because people are forced to go to them. See GM, until competition kicked their can and they lost their dominance in the market. What is the primary concern of the teachers unions. The students? HA! You ask who is going to win when people are seriously losing right now and you'd like to keep them there, promising improvement some time down the road, while their shot at education at the appropriate age and grade level goes out the window. They'll fix it hopefully just after they receive their empty diploma. That's why lawsuits are being filed. You wouldn't leave your kids in a school like that and you know it. Lucky you that you're able to take care of that while there is no choice. And why would people flee this wonderful school district? If they did, then others fleeing lesser districts would come here. Unless you worried about 'those kids' bringing down what your kids have right here? Those kids just might be as motivated as yours is. Maybe they'd be white too. And if people did try to improve the lot of their kids with choice, what's wrong with that? Sure, some would get in, some wouldn't. They'd have to compete to get in, just like they do in the most successful area of education we have in this country -- at the college level. Colleges have to compete for money and their students by doing well. The kids that don't make it? They'd go into less prestigous schools who would nonetheless compete for that same money and have to show results to get it. You seem to have this knee-jerk reaction to holding on to public school monopolies despite demonstrable failures just as you do with Social Security. You know there are problems, and you advocate patches and promises that don't alleviate the problems at a very real human cost that fortunately for you doesn't effect you. Or if it does, your willing to be forced to overpay and settle for a Pinto. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1339 Registered: 2-2004 |
As a conservative, I definitely want to see money drained from the public schools in hopes of private education taking over. I am not afraid to say this. The system is broke and is unfixable thanks to the unions and our own politicians. Therefore, I am in favor of completely scrapping the system and starting over. I know this won't happen, so therefore, I am for any movement that will incrementally pull money and students from the public schools. I am for "starving the beast". | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5317 Registered: 5-2001 |
As I acknowledged, teachers' unions and administrations have their own agendas, too. You're offering to simply trade one set of conflicts of interest for another. At least teachers and administrators are right there in the community, and answerable on some level to elected officials. Sure, I suppose parents who aren't satisfied can go elsewhere. If they can get accepted, if they can afford the tuition, if they're willing to uproot their child from his or her structure every couple of semesters until, hopefully, they get it right. Interesting theory you have about how we liberals have this deep motivation to keep minorities down. Even more interesting when you consider that it's also we liberals who fight for affirmative action in college admissions. What do you suppose comes over us, in the three months between high school graduation and starting college, that changes our attitude toward a child from "keep 'em ignorant" to "give them the best chance"? I'd love to hear your explanation. As for an influx of minority kids coming in from "lesser districts," I hadn't thought of that. But thanks for sharing your concern. But I hear what you're saying, I think; I just don't agree that "the market" is going to fix this problem. Privatizing it is only going to lead to other abuses, as for-profit corporations try to give the least and get the most from the taxpayers. Unlike college, primary education isn't optional. Thanks to Southerner for being honest in this. Reprehensible, yes, but at least honest. You talk about politicians like they're some kind of plague of locusts descended upon us by divine curse. If you don't like them, elect new ones (as you're fond of saying in other contexts yourself). | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1341 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, Electing new ones isn't going to help. It is the system. The system is so bureaucratic that even well intentioned people are incapable of fixing it. I do not believe politicians are locusts. I think all of them, Dem and Repub, are well intentioned and then the system gets to them. As far as my position being reprehensible, you use that word a little loosely. We may disagree but I don't think your position is reprehensible. A little over the top I think. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1903 Registered: 5-2001 |
Gregor, Thanks for the info. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5320 Registered: 5-2001 |
The specific position I found reprehensible was, incrementally pulling money and students away from public schools. The kids that are left behind are going to be, well, left behind. It's not right to abandon these kids as a side-effect of a political tactic. FWIW, I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the role of unions in this. I'll cheerfully concede that tenure as it is structured now is a bad idea, certainly here in Maplewood. We can all name teachers who have it but should be tossed out on their ear; and great teachers who were denied it for some reason or other and had to leave. As for the alleged enforcement of work rules -- union reps sending teachers home instead of letting them stay and help kids after hours -- sounds like urban legend to me, or at least, a half-truth. But as far as salaries go, unions aren't doing enough, apparently. For the level of education teachers are required to have -- education that gets more expensive every year, and drives students deeper into long-term debt -- they are paid far worse than any other segment of the population. If you have a masters in education, you can look forward to a day in the dim future when you might make the equivalent of $110,000 a year. On the other hand, if you have a masters in business administration, the sky's the limit. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1343 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, You and I probably aren't that far apart. Here's my position - I already believe the current system is reprehensible with huge segments of students already being left behind. We share this outrage but only those of us looking for changes see the current state of affairs as hurting many more students than the alternatives. Just because a child goes to a building each day doesn't mean they are not being left behind. There is no defense for the current system where entire segments of society are being shuffled through. As for your salary statement, I agree. Again, under the current system this will never change. The government has been throwing money at the Dept. of Ed for decades and we are no better off as a whole, although, of course the districts with the powerful Reps certainly are. As for increasing salaries I say private schools is the answer. Let the schools compete for the best teachers and watch the salaries increase, and watch the piss poor teachers flounder, finally. Now for my partisan shot - of course I realize the Democrats have no desire to create better schools or better students. They need this class of society as a base and they need the issue (like we use gay marriage/flag burning) every few years for political purposes. We all know the game that is going on so let's not be disengenuous. It's all about power and the public education system is a source of huge power for the Dems which is why they love the status quo. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1028 Registered: 7-2003 |
I do not understand why you need a master's degree to teach. You either can teach, or you cannot. It does not seem to be something that can be given with a piece of parchment. Another union innovation shoved down the taxpayer's throats to get more money. And zero benefit to the kids. All these hyper educated teachers seem to have made things worse. As long as the unions run our public schools, nothing will improve, and costs will continue to spiral upwards. Just as they have been for the last few decades. |
