Hangin' is too good fer this boy. I'm gonna fill him full of lead!
Dat's just wastin' gud buckshot.
|
I find it terribly ironic that someone who can neither spell, nor punctuate feels they have the authority to discuss whether public schools, home school or private schools provide higher quality educations.
Some school districts in the US may spend more than other countries on their students, but that is far from the norm. Many school districts have difficulty supplying students with textbooks and frivolous things like heat or asbestos-free buildings. Underfunded districts have a hard time attracting high-quality teachers, who would like a decent salary. These schools are often forced to make do with any vaguely qualified teacher. Then when the students, who have no stake in the tests that measure how schools are doing (but are not used for student evaluations), do poorly on these tests (because they are doodling on them, making Christmas tree patterns in the fill-in-the-bubble sheets), do poorly on these tests, the district, state, and federal government cut school funding.
School voucher programs are, therefore, a dumb idea. Taking funding away from underfunded schools will not make them better. The very thought that it will is patently ridiculous, and makes my brain die a little more every time I hear it. Please, stop killing my brain, and those of others, with this stupid idea.
[loudly]I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SIR. I DON'T SPEAK TEXAN. ENGLISH? DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?[/inanely speaking louder as if that will help him be understood]Hangin' is too good fer this boy. I'm gonna fill him full of lead!
Danged ferners! Git a rope.
*Blamm!!!* *misses Celestial Healer and hits Courtfool* I reckon I've been a huntin' with Cheney too much.
*Blamm* *misses Celestial Healer and hits Courtfool* I reckon I've been a huntin' with Cheney too much.[loudly]I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SIR. I DON'T SPEAK TEXAN. ENGLISH? DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?[/inanely speaking louder as if that will help him be understood]Hangin' is too good fer this boy. I'm gonna fill him full of lead!
Danged ferners! Git a rope.
It's okay Gary, he was obviously coming right for you. Now grab a shovel.
|
*Blamm!!!* *misses Celestial Healer and hits Courtfool* I reckon I've been a huntin' with Cheney too much.[loudly]I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SIR. I DON'T SPEAK TEXAN. ENGLISH? DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?[/inanely speaking louder as if that will help him be understood]Hangin' is too good fer this boy. I'm gonna fill him full of lead!
Danged ferners! Git a rope.
So this is hunting then? Texas is truly a fascinating culture. You seek out dogs to eat? *takes notes*
I find it terribly ironic that someone who can neither spell, nor punctuate feels they have the authority to discuss whether public schools, home school or private schools provide higher quality educations... Please, stop killing my brain, and those of others, with this stupid idea.
Have a superiority complex much? You know, most people will tell that resorting to name calling proves you don't have a leg to stand on in the argument.
The reality of teaching.
And so the most talented/smartest/brightest are driven from the profession. Working as (apparently) intended.
Plus the "those who can't...teach" crowd always cracks me up...they're usually utterly incompetent *and* completely oblivious.
*Blamm!!!* *misses Celestial Healer and hits Courtfool* I reckon I've been a huntin' with Cheney too much.
Yipe! Yipe! Yipe!
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
James,
When I was a freshman at Chaminade College Peparatory for Young Men (yep, that was the school's name), there was a movement sponsored by some of the parents and teachers to get a tax break for families that had won places for their children in public schools --or homeschooled their kids-- using that same argument, that they were removing their children from the system.
My counter-argument then, as a 14-year-old, was "Then why should single people pay for schools? Or married people without children? Or people whose children have already grown out of school age?" It was an unsophisticated position, but nobody's been able to shake me from it.
We pay for public education, not because our own children benefit, any more than our support of fire departments comes from their dousing the flames at our own house. We pay for public education because we are a healthier culture and a stronger democracy with a well-educated populace.
And, for the record, I was a math teacher (high school or junior high) from 1998 to 2008. There was never a week during the school year where I was putting in fewer than 60 hours, between classroom instruction, lesson preparation, professional development, tutoring, and grading. With a master's degree in the subject area, I never made more than $31,000.
Chris, I too am a former teacher. I don't discount what you're saying - that we need public schools for the sake of a well-educated society. My main issue is, CHOICE. If a family doesn't like the public school their child is attending, then they ought to be allowed to send that child to a registered, private school of their choice; and they ought to be able to use vouchers to help pay for it. No one loses with that (except the unions).
|
|
Hangin' is too good fer this boy. I'm gonna fill him full of lead!Dat's just wastin' gud buckshot.
And not to mention the environmental impact statement from the lead, the hazmat paperwork from the blood and all of the forms you have to fill out to dispose of biowaste.
Biowaste. that's a nice word for all those yankee carpetbaggers...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
I'm also going to make a plug for Unions here. Without the Actors Equity Association, it would be almost impossible for actors to get even close to fairly compensated for their work considering the competition in the system. Without Equity, it is nigh impossible to even survive as an actor. Because Equity mandates certain conditions including pay, hours, etc. and because these benefits also apply for non-union actors working in equity theatres, everyone in the system benefits. Unions are necessary, and while they're imperfect like every institution, nine times out of ten I would take them over a non-unionized system.
As for school vouchers, HELL NO. Vouchers has to be the worst idea for education possible. Our education system does not need to be sucked dry any more. Vouchers only benefit the rich by making it even easier for them to pull their children out of the real world and put them in a private-school bubble. I should know, I went to private school my whole life. What's really needed, at least in my state, is an elimination of tax breaks for more children. Here in Utah, families with 8 children in public school pay less for public school than my family did, with one child in private school.
Public school can work, and does work, it just needs commitment from the community, and MONEY. Taxes aren't the enemy. I'm proud to pay my taxes to the USA in order to support our society and help the entire community. Well-funded public schools work well in other countries, so I don't see why we can't make them work here.
WRONG. Vouchers don't help the so called "Rich". It is a known fact that public schools in poor areas have the worst reputations. They recieve the least financial support in most cases, and the least favorable infrastructure. Poor families suffer because they don't HAVE A CHOICE. They have to use the public school, even if it's no good, because they can't afford any other option. The fact is, we used to have the best schools in the world. They have sunk terribly in the last four decades.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Could you model a workable voucher system for me?I ask, because the voucher proponents whom I've read make some assumptions I don't believe are warranted.
...
- Do you believe that "good schools" where parents would want to send their kids have unlimited room? If not, who decides which students get to attend? Will the "desirable" school get to cherry-pick which students it accepts?
- Should parents who have chosen to pay higher taxes for a better school for their children be required to accept additional students until their school facilities are overstressed and no better than other schools?
What if your child is one of the students who remain in an "undesirable" school? Will your child's education be improved when the cherry-picked students leave, and the school's budget gets cut along with them?
Should all students have the same voucher? Some students (those with IEPs, limited English proficiency, on free-and-reduced-lunch programs) cost the school system more than other students. Should they have proportionally larger vouchers?
How do vouchers address the problem differently or more effectively than magnet schools, charter schools, or simply open enrollment?
Chris, you're obviously an intelligent guy who asks some good questions. I don't have all the answers.... I'll say this though:
Who decides? Parents decide which school looks best to them.Every child has a voucher worth the same as any other child. A school that accepts more students will get more money and hence have more capacity to teach more students. It's the same as for any service. The state government will still certify schools like they always do and only certified schools will be able to accept vouchers. If the school the families choose charge a tuition more expensive than the voucher is worth, the parents can pay the difference -- if they choose to. There'll still be iniqualities, but there are worse ones now. I'd rather have a system that gives people options than one in which the costs make it essentially no choice. We all pay taxes to make available education for the children in our respective states. I just want people to have options.
What if you could only shop at one supermarket? I don't know about you, but I would be terribly annoyed. This is the same principle.
The alternative is somebody else decides what's "best for you". One size fits some. If any of us had the money, we'd send our children to the best school we could. Some great private school with a good reputation. Under the current system, only the well-to-do can afford to do that.
Thanks, btw, for your perspective. It's help me to think over my point of view. And you make some very good points yourself. Best wishes to you!
I'd like to point out that Kirth is describing the reality of teaching in South Carolina. Houston teachers start out at $42k with a degree in the field they're teaching in, a bit more with a masters.
Virginia, not SC. And those are 1995 dollars, which, adjusted for inflation, would now be closer to $26,600.
When you look at that $45,000 for Houston area, the thing to factor in is the chance that your health care and retirement will get yanked out from under you (as many Houston area schools are now doing). If that occurs, the $45K starts to look a lot smaller.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Exactly. Expecting our school systems to save a failing society/culture is just wishful thinking. It's like sending a mouse against an Apatasaurus.I disagree. Assuming that a school can solve the problems of a community puts too much faith in the value of the school system. Raise the standard of living in the community, reduce the crime right, increase the quality of life, encourage parents to play and read more with their children, then, if the school is still failing, fire the teachers.
(Standard Disclaimer: I'm too lazy to find out anything about the quality of life in this community and am probably just full of BS.)
Could you please spell apatasaurus?
Actually old chap, it's ApatOsaurus.
Virginia, not SC. And those are 1995 dollars, which, adjusted for inflation, would now be closer to $26,600.
When you look at that $45,000 for Houston area, the thing to factor in is the chance that your health care and retirement will get yanked out from under you (as many Houston area schools are now doing). If that occurs, the $45K starts to look a lot smaller.
My ex-wife is (for the moment) a teacher in Phoenix, AZ. She recently had her dental insurance benefits eliminated. Luckily, my children are on my plan, but seriously: Are we really going to tell someone they need a college degree to get a job that pays $33k and doesn't even provide dental benefits? And so she probably won't be back next year.
For my part, I really like kids. I really, truly believe that teaching critical thinking is the single best thing we can do to improve the future. Yet there is absolutely no way I'd ever consider taking a nearly 50% pay cut (and losing my dental benefits) to do it. I simply can't afford it, and my children can't afford it. To say nothing of Kirth, who I'm pretty sure is brighter than I am, and was a teacher until he couldn't afford to be one any more!
If everyone is comfortable with those facts, then I guess we're doing just fine.
|
|
Studys have shown recently that it is the skill level of the teacher that influnces how well kids learn rather than the amount of money spent on schools. Washington D.C. used to have the higest per student spending in the country and at the same time had the highest drop out rate in the country as well. Five years ago Utah had the lowest per pupil spending in the country and yet had the fifth highest rate of high school graduation and the sixth highest rate of college graduation in the nation. Even increasing the funding to schools does not mean the money will get where it needs to be. About three years ago Nevada had a scandle where they had doubled the education funding in the state. However, the per pupil spending actually decreased as school districts used that extra money to hire more janitors and bus drivers and to give the administrators big raised.
That's not to say that funding schools is not important. the facts are that you are going to be more likely to attract highly skilled teachers if you have a good compensation plan. However, without proper community and administration support the best teachers in the world aren't going to have a big effect. I used to teach in a boarding school until budget cuts forced them to let me go. Many of our students came to us getting principly Ds and Fs. When they would graduate from our program those same students were principly earning As and Bs and were excited about school. The primary reason I attribute this to is the fact that as part of their daily schedule they had specific time set apart to do homework and the program staff had a log of all their assignments for each day and were avalible to help them. The students in our program learned how to be better students and that is what will make all the difference.
I'd like to point out that Kirth is describing the reality of teaching in South Carolina. Houston teachers start out at $42k with a degree in the field they're teaching in, a bit more with a masters.
I have no idea what the cost of living is in Houston. However, I will say that $42k would be a significant improvement over what AZ pays. I still couldn't afford to be a teacher, but it is an improvement.
All I know is this: Becoming a teacher is financially punitive. As a result, many (but not all) of the people who would be very good at it will never consider the profession. I don't think that's a good situation.
|
|
Virginia, not SC. And those are 1995 dollars, which, adjusted for inflation, would now be closer to $26,600.
When you look at that $45,000 for Houston area, the thing to factor in is the chance that your health care and retirement will get yanked out from under you (as many Houston area schools are now doing). If that occurs, the $45K starts to look a lot smaller.
My ex-wife is (for the moment) a teacher in Phoenix, AZ. She recently had her dental insurance benefits eliminated. Luckily, my children are on my plan, but seriously: Are we really going to tell someone they need a college degree to get a job that pays $33k and doesn't even provide dental benefits? And so she probably won't be back next year.
For my part, I really like kids. I really, truly believe that teaching critical thinking is the single best thing we can do to improve the future. Yet there is absolutely no way I'd ever consider taking a nearly 50% pay cut (and losing my dental benefits) to do it. I simply can't afford it, and my children can't afford it. To say nothing of Kirth, who I'm pretty sure is brighter than I am, and was a teacher until he couldn't afford to be one any more!
If everyone is comfortable with those facts, then I guess we're doing just fine.
In any other industry, employers know that if they want the best employees they have to pay the best. I can't wrap my head around the thinking that, with teachers, we should be able to get the best by reducing their salary and benefits. School districts should be competing to get the best teachers like any other industry, but for some reason that thinking is frowned upon, and we wind up with situations like you and Kirth have described.
|
|
All I know is this: Becoming a teacher is financially punitive. As a result, many (but not all) of the people who would be very good at it will never consider the profession. I don't think that's a good situation.
Not only that but the way teachers are liscenced makes it difficult for many people who would make good teachers to find jobs. For example, I am currently liscenced in the state of Utah, but if I want to teach in Maryland, for example, I have to be liscenced in Maryland. And since maryland has different requirements for liscensure than Utah does my current liscence might not transfer. One thing that has made me very unpopular among my conservative friends is that I not only support the Department of Education, but I support the creation of a national standard for liscensure. That way, if I get a teaching liscence in Utah I can teach in New York, without jumping through the hoops to get a new liscence for that state.
I'd like to point out that Kirth is describing the reality of teaching in South Carolina. Houston teachers start out at $42k with a degree in the field they're teaching in, a bit more with a masters.
That depends, but in general it's pretty spot on. In Houston's economy, $42K is a comfortable living. I taught for 13 years before changes in certification requirements led to me being terminated. I started in a parish school at $16K. Worked there for 8 years before I moved to a more affluent private school that doubled by salary. Then I worked in a public charter school that cut my salary about 10%. With luck and effort, I'll return to teaching next school year.
Regarding vouchers, there are voucher programs that have worked well. Washington, D.C. had one until the supposedly pro-education Democratic Congress killed it. Turns out union votes are worth more than poor minority kids.
Other voucher systems haven't worked so well. Those that don't work tend to die on the vine, so to speak.
One simple solution: Make X% of private school tuition tax deductible. X% of child care expenses work this way (last time I checked). This would be quite cost effective since it would not require a whole new layer being added to bureaucracy onion.
<snip>Even increasing the funding to schools does not mean the money will get where it needs to be.</snip>
Absolutely right. Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer. In fact, I don't know the answer. But the best and brightest can't earn sufficient compensation to keep them in the field, and I think most people agree that's a problem.
|
|
In any other industry, employers know that if they want the best employees they have to pay the best. I can't wrap my head around the thinking that, with teachers, we should be able to get the best by reducing their salary and benefits. School districts should be competing to get the best teachers like any other industry, but for some reason that thinking is frowned upon, and we wind up with situations like you and Kirth have described.Virginia, not SC. And those are 1995 dollars, which, adjusted for inflation, would now be closer to $26,600.
When you look at that $45,000 for Houston area, the thing to factor in is the chance that your health care and retirement will get yanked out from under you (as many Houston area schools are now doing). If that occurs, the $45K starts to look a lot smaller.
My ex-wife is (for the moment) a teacher in Phoenix, AZ. She recently had her dental insurance benefits eliminated. Luckily, my children are on my plan, but seriously: Are we really going to tell someone they need a college degree to get a job that pays $33k and doesn't even provide dental benefits? And so she probably won't be back next year.
For my part, I really like kids. I really, truly believe that teaching critical thinking is the single best thing we can do to improve the future. Yet there is absolutely no way I'd ever consider taking a nearly 50% pay cut (and losing my dental benefits) to do it. I simply can't afford it, and my children can't afford it. To say nothing of Kirth, who I'm pretty sure is brighter than I am, and was a teacher until he couldn't afford to be one any more!
If everyone is comfortable with those facts, then I guess we're doing just fine.
The biggest problem is that teaching is not a competative industry, it is a government position generally speaking. For example, I can't say that if I don't like the benefits package at the school I'm currently teaching at, I will go work for the school across town or in the next town over because they are all part of the same bueracracy. I can't speak for Arizona, but I now growing up in California our teachers had insurance through the teacher's union as well as through the district. Perhaps more teachers should start looking into those options.
|
|
<snip>Even increasing the funding to schools does not mean the money will get where it needs to be.</snip>Absolutely right. Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer. In fact, I don't know the answer. But the best and brightest can't earn sufficient compensation to keep them in the field, and I think most people agree that's a problem.
Oh absolutly. The school I taught at payed slightly less the the local district, but they affered free medical and dental and vision at a serious discount. It meant that I actually took home more even though I got payed less.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
[quoe="Regarding vouchers, James"]
Who decides? Parents decide which school looks best to them.
Every child has a voucher worth the same as any other child. A school that accepts more students will get more money and hence have more capacity to teach more students.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.
Right now, the public schools in the Twin Cities have "open enrollment," which means almost exactly what you're proposing: that "parents decide which school looks best to them." If your child would normally attend Grant Wood High School, and you decide, for whatever reason, to send her to Riverdale High instead, you can do so.
Unless Riverdale is already at capacity, because the families who would normally be designated to attend Riverdale have first dibs there.
My question is: if Riverdale is a kick-butt school, and a lot of parents with vouchers want to send their kids there, who gets to decide which students get in to the limited positions?
It makes no sense to say "the parents decide." Do you mean all the parents get in a room and determine among themselves which of their children get to attend Riverdale? I don't think that's likely.
You suggest that every student gets a voucher for the same amount, blind to any special requirements that the student might have. If Riverdale gets a say, I can't imagine that they'd ever accept an autistic child, or a blind child, or any other students who require accomodations (dedicated student aides, adaptive technology) far in excess of any paltry voucher the student might bring.
If you could outline what a working voucher system looks like, I'd be indebted to you. But vouchers, as you propose upthread, would be a boon to elite students, and to private schools, at a cost to poor students and students with special requirements, and to public schools, which would have their funding cut while still being required to educate the costliest students.
--+--+--
Regarding the original post, my teacher friends in Michigan and Illinois say that it is common for high schools to "fire" the majority of their faculty each spring, and then offer a contract to most of those same teachers in mid-August.
The distircts say that the teachers ought to like the process, since it allows them to claim unemployment benefits for a couple months each summer. The stress on the teachers, not knowing if they'll have a position during the coming year, let alone being able to effectively prepare lesson plans during the summer, is considerable.
|
Studys have shown recently that it is the skill level of the teacher that influnces how well kids learn rather than the amount of money spent on schools. Washington D.C. used to have the higest per student spending in the country and at the same time had the highest drop out rate in the country as well. Five years ago Utah had the lowest per pupil spending in the country and yet had the fifth highest rate of high school graduation and the sixth highest rate of college graduation in the nation.
Maybe, maybe not. What you described here looks far more to be what is important to the family. And has little to do with the teachers. When I was a teacher, the families where the parents felt that education was important and were educated had children who did well. The families where the parents didn't feel that education was important and didn't have a degree and generally didn't care had children who were pretty much the same. Utah is pretty much Mormon Central where family is pretty much the most important thing in the world. I really don't think that has as much to do with teachers or money as you are implying.
What was being brought to the table earlier was that there are A LOT of very qualified, excellent teachers who would really LIKE to teach our children. But it is a lot of work, it isn't easy or glamorous, you end up getting criticized for everything -- all for a third of what you could make elsewhere for less cost (education/degrees). So the point is that if you want the better "skill level of the teacher" then you really need to be ready to pay them better. Otherwise you will be made to do with what's left over.
|
|
Studys have shown recently that it is the skill level of the teacher that influnces how well kids learn rather than the amount of money spent on schools.
For some reason this really bugged me. (I thought that I was done.)
I taught 8th grade Math for two years. I taught 160 children every day. I was expected to grade 160 papers of homework every day. And somehow, I was expected to dramatically "influence how well kids learn" on only one hour a day when these kids had spent the last 8 years learning how not to learn. All for around 20k a year.
And yet I must have been at least a little bit successful. I saw one of my students recently. He is in college getting his degree in Mathematics working to be a Middle School teacher.
I would love to go back to teaching. But not on 20k a year.
I think the schools receive enough money right now, the money just isn’t going to the right places. When I was in high school my teachers were underpaid, close to going on strike. School supplies were extremely limited, we had out dated books. However, we apparently had tons of money to pay for a new gymnasium and tech center. Even in high school I thought that was wasteful, but now that I’m in construction I can see it was more so than I ever realized. There is a high level of corruption in education construction. Manufacturing reps bribe the spec writers all the time to make sure their product is only one listed.
I can really only get into the specifics of roofing, as that is the industry I’m in. Most schools spec a company named Garland for their roofing, and schools are the only place you will see a Garland spec. Why? Because Garland roofing is 3 to 5 times more expensive than any other kind of comparable roofing system, and because the 30 year warranty they give isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. These Garland reps take the spec writers out to ‘friendly’ golf games where they make the ‘friendly wager’ of a mere $1,000 a hole, and then throw the game. At the end of the day the school spec writer has $18,000 of Garland money in his pocket, and is more than happy to be Garland’s b&+~&.
So, instead of the schools spending $160k for the roof of a new school they are paying half a million. That’s over 300k that could be going to books, or teacher’s pay, or roofing another whole school to cut down on over crowding. And that’s just the amount they waste on roofing, I can’t imagine how much they waste in the rest of a school’s construction.
|
|
My question is: if Riverdale is a kick-butt school, and a lot of parents with vouchers want to send their kids there, who gets to decide which students get in to the limited positions?
You suggest that every student gets a voucher for the same amount, blind to any special requirements that the student might have. If Riverdale gets a say, I can't imagine that they'd ever accept an autistic child, or a blind child, or any other students who require accomodations (dedicated student aides, adaptive technology) far in excess of any paltry voucher the student might bring.
If you could outline what a working voucher system looks like, I'd be indebted to you. But vouchers, as you propose upthread, would be a boon to elite students, and to private schools, at a cost to poor students and students with special requirements, and to public schools, which would have their funding cut while still being required to educate the costliest students.
I hope you were not being rhetorical or sarcastic... If so please ignore what follows.
There are 2 options. I would use them both. For public schools, students in the district get first crack at spots. Leftover spots are awarded by lottery, and then children with those spots are grandfathered as if they were in the district so they can stay with thier friends etc.
In private schools... well they are private so why not let them decide, but if we have to mandate it, why not make those spots based on grades, much as college is now. Some private schools with too many applicants already do this.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Studys have shown recently that it is the skill level of the teacher that influnces how well kids learn rather than the amount of money spent on schools. Washington D.C. used to have the higest per student spending in the country and at the same time had the highest drop out rate in the country as well. Five years ago Utah had the lowest per pupil spending in the country and yet had the fifth highest rate of high school graduation and the sixth highest rate of college graduation in the nation. Even increasing the funding to schools does not mean the money will get where it needs to be. About three years ago Nevada had a scandle where they had doubled the education funding in the state. However, the per pupil spending actually decreased as school districts used that extra money to hire more janitors and bus drivers and to give the administrators big raised.
That's not to say that funding schools is not important. the facts are that you are going to be more likely to attract highly skilled teachers if you have a good compensation plan. However, without proper community and administration support the best teachers in the world aren't going to have a big effect. I used to teach in a boarding school until budget cuts forced them to let me go. Many of our students came to us getting principly Ds and Fs. When they would graduate from our program those same students were principly earning As and Bs and were excited about school. The primary reason I attribute this to is the fact that as part of their daily schedule they had specific time set apart to do homework and the program staff had a log of all their assignments for each day and were avalible to help them. The students in our program learned how to be better students and that is what will make all the difference.
These accounts echo so many stories I've heard about here in California. Well stated.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There are 2 options. I would use them both. For public schools, students in the district get first crack at spots. Leftover spots are awarded by lottery, and then children with those spots are grandfathered as if they were in the district so they can stay with thier friends etc.
Thank you, Sigil. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the Twin Cities' school districts' current policy. (Again, they're "open enrollment", and this is what it means.) I don't see how a Voucher system would improve matters.
(And the schools are still too crowded. Lots of parents would like to send their kids to other schools, such as the host of charter schools that have sprung up. But there's simply not a lot of room for free-floating kids who want to move to a new school.)
In private schools... well they are private so why not let them decide, but if we have to mandate it, why not make those spots based on grades, much as college is now. Some private schools with too many applicants already do this.
Private schools usually don't award spots based solely on grades. Catholic schools weigh a student's religion (and certainly their tolerance for daily mandated religion classes). The school in Mendota Heights where I taught was all-male. A student's outside interests make a difference, as do any relatives who are current students or alumni. If you placed restrictions on how private schools could accept students, I imagine there would be mighty protests.
In private schools... well they are private so why not let them decide, but if we have to mandate it, why not make those spots based on grades, much as college is now. Some private schools with too many applicants already do this.
When I worked in private schools, the first thing we looked at weren't grades but conduct. If your child was moving to a new school because of conduct issues in the old school, we generally didn't want your kid. Grades were less of a concern because our small class sizes and curriculum almost always helped students with poor grades improve on that front.
|
|
Studys have shown recently that it is the skill level of the teacher that influnces how well kids learn rather than the amount of money spent on schools.For some reason this really bugged me. (I thought that I was done.)
I taught 8th grade Math for two years. I taught 160 children every day. I was expected to grade 160 papers of homework every day. And somehow, I was expected to dramatically "influence how well kids learn" on only one hour a day when these kids had spent the last 8 years learning how not to learn. All for around 20k a year.
And yet I must have been at least a little bit successful. I saw one of my students recently. He is in college getting his degree in Mathematics working to be a Middle School teacher.
I would love to go back to teaching. But not on 20k a year.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. The study simpley looked at student performance when they had teachers who's area of expertise was in social studies, for example, as opposed to a teacher that had, again for example, a PE degree but was teaching social studies.
|
|
Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. The study simpley looked at student performance when they had teachers who's area of expertise was in social studies, for example, as opposed to a teacher that had, again for example, a PE degree but was teaching social studies.
That was also part of the reason I left teaching. They wanted to move me from teaching 8th grade math (I have a math degree) to teaching 6th grade math. The person who was going to be teaching 8th grade the following year? He had an art degree.
The issue of vouchers is the education messageboard equivalent of the Edition Wars on this forum…
Except the Edition Wars were, are and will continue to be inane. I may not agree with vouchers, but at least they are a proposed solution to something most of us agree needs fixing.
I apologize for the necro. People on this board continue to take their shots.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
CourtFool,
Agreed.
Oh and the inevitable next step. For what it's worth, having had lunchroom duty, I really don't consider mandatory "sitting with students at lunch" to be an opportunity. I can't imagine high school students would be thrilled to have a teacher sitting at their lunch table, monitoring the conversation, and I can't imagine that teachers would be looking forward to inserting themselves where they're not welcome.
How about the school district eating lunch with the students without putting it on the city's tab?
Oh, and apparently the teachers are all good enough that you want them to spend even more time with the students but you are firing them all. You can not say the teacher's performance is subpar. This just smells more and more like a political issue to me.
I feel for the kids.
|
|
Oh, and apparently the teachers are all good enough that you want them to spend even more time with the students but you are firing them all. You can not say the teacher's performance is subpar. This just smells more and more like a political issue to me.
I feel for the kids.
I live in RI. As a local I might be able to help you with this...
First, we keep focusing on the teachers. They did get fired. But also fired was the "support staff". Often times this is a source of bloat that keeps the money from reaching the kids. In fact, in this case, over 20% of the people fired were not teachers.
This is a simple matter. This is a historically bad school. It is not achieving it's function, which is to educate kids. The US Education Secratary, has made it so that states are supposed to be finding the lowest 5% of schools. Those schools that are chronic under-performers are to be given 4 options to remedy the situation.
The Federal directive offers these options:
1. Close the school. Not really an option. Central Falls still needs a high school.
2. Get a charter school to take it over. No charter school could be identified that wanted anything to do with a school that failed to graduate more than 50% of it's students.
3. So called "transformation" which lengthens the school day and provides some of the other measures that have been talked about. This model was rejected by the unions. They did not feel that the teachers extra compensation was sufficient for the extra work being asked of them.
What you may not know is that Rhode Island has some of the highest unemployment in the nation. It also has one of the largest per capita deficits. The reason for all of this is beside the point, but suffice to say, most people here, if they are working are glad for it. When my boss asks me to stay late I do. I do not get anything for it. I am happy to be working. The guy who sits beside me was just let go 2 weeks ago. In the last month my department has shrunk by another 5%, and that is after the 30% or more that were let go from the company at the end of last year. I am still working. And for way less than the 80k+ that the average person at Central Falls High was making.
The only thing left to do was to go to number 4.
4. "Turnaround", which has everyone fired and no more than 50% hired back. No one wanted this but in the end, it was the only option left.
Some other points that must be made...
Why is labor so upset about this, when they never seemed upset about the dismal performance of that school, which has been this way for many many years? They say it is about the kids, but yet, the only time it is about the kids is when jobs are cut. It seems a little fake.
Also, please keep in mind that though Rhode Island has taken this step, it is only the first to do so. Every state will have to comply with this sooner or later.
When comparing this to your local situation please keep in mind that the ways that this might be different are as follows. Education is VERY well funded here. Teachers unions are very strong here.
If you have specific questions, I am happy to try and answer.
|
|
Thank you, Sigil. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the Twin Cities' school districts' current policy. (Again, they're "open enrollment", and this is what it means.) I don't see how a Voucher system would improve matters.
(And the schools are still too crowded. Lots of parents would like to send their kids to other schools, such as the host of charter schools that have sprung up. But there's simply not a lot of room for free-floating kids who want to move to a new school.)
Private schools usually don't award spots based solely on grades. Catholic schools weigh a student's religion (and certainly their tolerance for daily mandated religion classes). The school in Mendota Heights where I taught was all-male. A student's outside interests make a difference, as do any relatives who are current students or alumni. If you placed restrictions on how private schools could accept students, I imagine there would be mighty protests.
If that is how the Twin Cities operates it would be fascinating to use some statistical data, and a regressive model and see if it is a good experiment or a bad one.
I did that years ago for a school paper, comparing the effects of prostitution in the US, where it is legal, to where it is not. And found some very interesting things. That is a topic for another thread.
And I totally agree, lets let private schools choose students however they wish.
I live in RI. As a local I might be able to help you with this...
Thank you for your insight.
Often times this is a source of bloat…
So fire the bloat. Firing everyone and then hiring some back sends very mixed messages.
They did not feel that the teachers extra compensation was sufficient for the extra work being asked of them.
I concede I do not know the specifics of what was offered and what was rejected. Without anything else to go on, I am going to be sympathetic to chronically underpaid teachers (and by extension here, the teacher's union). Maybe it is uneducated, but I simply do not have the time to know everything about everything.
…to say, most people here, if they are working are glad for it.
Scarcity of jobs should not give employers free reign to do as they please. I realize in the real world it does, but it does not make it any more 'right'.
And for way less than the 80k+ that the average person at Central Falls High was making.
Did I miss this in the article or do you have a reference? Also, do you have a cost of living reference as well so I can put into context?
Why is labor so upset about this… They say it is about the kids…
I am inclined to believe both sides are equally guilty here. I would like to think the teachers do actually care, but they may be being manipulated by the union.
I do not believe this is a simple situation. And for that very reason, I think this 'simple' solution is doomed to fail. So students need more time with teachers and teachers want compensation for that time. What sort of 'time' would be most beneficial for the students? Can we fund just that time? What schools are exceeding? What are they doing to help them exceed?
I do not claim to have the answers. I just fail to see the logic in this 'solution'. It seems to be the go-to answer for the people it least affects and who, are often the reason for the problem to begin with.
|
WRONG. Vouchers don't help the so called "Rich". It is a known fact that public schools in poor areas have the worst reputations. They recieve the least financial support in most cases, and the least favorable infrastructure. Poor families suffer because they don't HAVE A CHOICE. They have to use the public school, even if it's no good, because they can't afford any other option. The fact is, we used to have the best schools in the world. They have sunk terribly...
When vouchers were proposed in my state, the maximum yearly size of voucher was $3000. I dare you to find a private school that costs that much per year. The Catholic schools, regularly the cheapest, usually cost about double that per year. Vouchers are not supported by the truly impoverished, people that supporters say would "benefit" from the system. Your proposal to the solution of schools in poor areas is essentially, "let's give them less money, and remove the wealthiest 10% of the school population and put them in a private school, which will now be partly funded by the government." I just can't agree with a policy like that.
|
|
I live in RI. As a local I might be able to help you with this...Thank you for your insight.
Happy to help. :) Just, if a national news story breaks in your neighborhood, please give me the inside scoop okay?
Often times this is a source of bloat…So fire the bloat. Firing everyone and then hiring some back sends very mixed messages.
I agree... cut the bloat. Sadly, that was not one of the legal options. I also agree that the message sounds rather mixed.
I hope I have not sounded like I am on one side or another. I try not to be partisan, but I do have a frustration that in a state with so much economic hardship everyone seems to be looking out for how they can get more. This is not a teachers thing. This a a historic selfish attitude on the part of public employees here that seems oblivious to the conditions that the rest of us are working under. Full pensions that they start recieving as early as age 45. Generous health benefits that I would love to have. Lots of holidays. And yet often they are complaining if officials simply want to hold the line and not extend pay and benefits.
They did not feel that the teachers extra compensation was sufficient for the extra work being asked of them.I concede I do not know the specifics of what was offered and what was rejected. Without anything else to go on, I am going to be sympathetic to chronically underpaid teachers (and by extension here, the teacher's union). Maybe it is uneducated, but I simply do not have the time to know everything about everything.
No worries... I just caution you not to infer too much about your local situation with what is happening here.
…to say, most people here, if they are working are glad for it.Scarcity of jobs should not give employers free reign to do as they please. I realize in the real world it does, but it does not make it any more 'right'.
See, I think I am looking at this differently. When times were better we had frequent pizza parties, and were given occasional Friday afternoons off in the summer. We had "team building" which was a company paid for afternoon of bowling. We had a lavish Christmas party. We had alot of perks. I never felt bad about accepting these things when things were going well. I would be a hypocrite if I objected when my employer needs something now that times are tighter.
I guess this is what I mean in general. This is a cycle. Things will get better, they always do, but for some groups to act like it is still the boom time when locally it is anything but is just not right.
And for way less than the 80k+ that the average person at Central Falls High was making.Did I miss this in the article or do you have a reference? Also, do you have a cost of living reference as well so I can put into context?
Here is a reference that has me off by a few thousand dollars. It also has a community comparison. If you need more than this, please ask.
Why is labor so upset about this… They say it is about the kids…I am inclined to believe both sides are equally guilty here. I would like to think the teachers do actually care, but they may be being manipulated by the union.
I do not believe this is a simple situation. And for that very reason, I think this 'simple' solution is doomed to fail. So students need more time with teachers and teachers want compensation for that time. What sort of 'time' would be most beneficial for the students? Can we fund just that time? What schools are exceeding? What are they doing to help them exceed?
I do not claim to have the answers. I just fail to see the logic in this 'solution'. It seems to be the go-to answer for the people it least affects...
I was not clear... When I said labor, I meant the labor union officials. I do believe that the teachers care. I think there is likely something a bit broken in you if you are a teacher who does not care about the kids.
My point is this... Where was the union for the last 20+ years as this school failed and floundered and did not achieve success by any measure? They were making sure that the teachers and support staff had pensions and large salaries and lots of perks. We kept being told that we needed to pay more to get the sorts of results that we all want. And now there is literally nothing more to give and Federal mandate says these things must happen. It is not nice, but it is what it is. I am not even advocating this mandate. I do not see how any of these changes will fix what is going wrong here, but when you are producing generations of illiterate students something has to change.
Until someone comes up with a better idea, this is what we are going to have to go with.
WRONG. Vouchers don't help the so called "Rich". It is a known fact that public schools in poor areas have the worst reputations. They recieve the least financial support in most cases, and the least favorable infrastructure. Poor families suffer because they don't HAVE A CHOICE. They have to use the public school, even if it's no good, because they can't afford any other option. The fact is, we used to have the best schools in the world. They have sunk terribly...When vouchers were proposed in my state, the maximum yearly size of voucher was $3000. I dare you to find a private school that costs that much per year. The Catholic schools, regularly the cheapest, usually cost about double that per year. Vouchers are not supported by the truly impoverished, people that supporters say would "benefit" from the system. Your proposal to the solution of schools in poor areas is essentially, "let's give them less money, and remove the wealthiest 10% of the school population and put them in a private school, which will now be partly funded by the government." I just can't agree with a policy like that.
Add to that the people who's parents don't care about messing with that and just ship them to the nearest school leaving the troublemakers right where they were, making the "bad" schools all the worse because there are no more good students to sway the statistics.
When vouchers were proposed in my state, the maximum yearly size of voucher was $3000. I dare you to find a private school that costs that much per year.
There are several in my city. Catholic school tuitions generally don't jump big time until you hit high school.
Vouchers are not supported by the truly impoverished, people that supporters say would "benefit" from the system.
Poor folks wouldn't benefit from $3000 applicable toward tuition? Or is that since $3000 isn't enough for a free ride, better the poor not get anything at all?
That aside, the "truly impoverished" generally qualify for tuition assistance at Catholic schools. IME, other private schools work the same way. Sure, funds are limited, but that's true anywhere.
My point is this... Where was the union for the last 20+ years as this school failed and floundered and did not achieve success by any measure? They were making sure that the teachers and support staff had pensions and large salaries and lots of perks. We kept being told that we needed to pay more to get the sorts of results that we all want. And now there is literally nothing more to give and Federal mandate says these things must happen. It is not nice, but it is what it is. I am not even advocating this mandate. I do not see how any of these changes will fix what is going wrong here, but when you are producing generations of illiterate students something has to change.
Until someone comes up with a better idea, this is what we are going to have to go with.
Wait, this was a high school right? If the kids can't do basic math or are functionally illiterate by the time they graduate 8th grade, how are 4 years of high school supposed to magically turn the students around now?
Why aren't the elementary and middle schools that were "teaching" and passing the students to the next grade every year responsible?
|
|
My point is this... Where was the union for the last 20+ years as this school failed and floundered and did not achieve success by any measure? They were making sure that the teachers and support staff had pensions and large salaries and lots of perks. We kept being told that we needed to pay more to get the sorts of results that we all want. And now there is literally nothing more to give and Federal mandate says these things must happen. It is not nice, but it is what it is. I am not even advocating this mandate. I do not see how any of these changes will fix what is going wrong here, but when you are producing generations of illiterate students something has to change.
Until someone comes up with a better idea, this is what we are going to have to go with.
Wait, this was a high school right? If the kids can't do basic math or are functionally illiterate by the time they graduate 8th grade, how are 4 years of high school supposed to magically turn the students around now?
Why aren't the elementary and middle schools that were "teaching" and passing the students to the next grade every year responsible?
Excellent point, and I am afraid I have no answer to that question.