After The Public Schools Collapse--What Then?

Sure, that's always the "simple" liberal solution. Now you have the sell the population on massive tax increases. Not so simple after all.
Out of balance and being over taxed is a major issue throughout. I see demanded benefits as a major issue. People on a whole need to be more responsible for securing their own medical choices and retirements. If government workers are simply paid what is spent they would make more and could determine where is best to put that money. That is how capitalism is supposed to work.
 
We're well into the "vote of no confidence" regarding America's schools. This has led to a raging teacher shortage, which is perpetuating the problem and will continue to do so into the future. FWIW, a family member of mine, a PhD in education for years and years--and a huge liberal--saw this coming more than ten years ago. I had no idea how prescient she was. I do now.

Short-sighted conservatives cheer this.

Okay. What takes its place? I'm not an advocate for gov't running the institutions, and am dead set on gov't not taking over healthcare, for example. But now that society has been accustomed to public education for so many generations--what now, when there are not enough adults to fill the classrooms and the few you can scrape together are under-educated and under-qualified?

(For a taste of this problem, see this article, where the "answer to the teacher shortage" is to let teacher's aides teach the classes. Mostly special ed children. Could One Answer To Teacher Shortage Be Right Under Our Nose?)

Fellow conservatives: come with solutions, not just rants on how awful the "indoctrination centers" are. We've heard it all. Put some original thought into this--or at least some thought.
The government schools in poor and minority areas collapsed long ago. It isn’t all that good in many other areas. Lack of discipline is one of the biggest problems.

Solutions? It certainly isn’t more money.

Okay, that's just whining.

Now they're going to collapse all over because we don't have teachers to fill the classrooms. So we will get under-educated, under-credentialed adults to do it, who will fold even faster than current teachers are folding. So the problems will continue apace.

Then what?

Solutions. What you got? Or was the idea just to cut down and destroy and then stand on the rubble waving the flag of victory?
Surely they have test that must be passed in order to be a teacher don't they? Just because they don't have a college degree does not mean someone doesn't have the ability to teach what they know. My brother two years older than I taught me everything he learned at school when we were younger. When I was in 7th grade and very bored a friend 11th grade asked in if I knew Algebra as I watched her doing her homework. She showed me what it was and it all seemed pretty simple so she had me do the same work she was doing. That was the beauty of one room schools where all ages attended from the same area. Bigger is not always better and to centralize any government agency is not always what is going to work the best. All communities have little differences and needs. Locally it doesn't cost near as much to rent as it does in Des Moines but the school administrator makes the same as someone in Des Moines. Smaller government schools and small privatization to start out may be the best answer. That same theory goes with privatization bigger is not always better as the quality tends to become lax once an organization gets to big.

It's not the test that really makes the difference--it's being in the schools, learning from teachers, student teaching, and being mentored. I mean yes, you should know your content area. But there is much, much more to being a teacher than simply knowing the material. Knowing how to TEACH the material--and how to teach in general--is an entirely different skill and, really, art form.
I agree some teachers can't teach no matter how knowledgeable they are. Others are great teachers. The student also hastowanna.
 
Graduating HS means nothing today. Many graduate yet can’t read or write above third grade levels.Graduating from a failed system, doesn’t prove anything.
`
You are right. One of the worst laws in education ever passed was the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It tied together test scores with arbitrary graduation rates. In order to receive and government assistance, which schools became dependent on, they had to graduate X amount of students per year. This in turn put heavy pressure on teachers to pass or graduate students who were just marginally literate, or they would lose the feds grant money.

Graduating from an urban high school means nothing these days.
`



You are quite wrong.
 
Sure, that's always the "simple" liberal solution. Now you have the sell the population on massive tax increases. Not so simple after all.

Naw, we just raise taxes on rich people... most people think the rich should pay more in taxes.

Three quarters of Americans favor higher taxes for wealthy -Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

See, that was easy.

It's not the test that really makes the difference--it's being in the schools, learning from teachers, student teaching, and being mentored. I mean yes, you should know your content area. But there is much, much more to being a teacher than simply knowing the material. Knowing how to TEACH the material--and how to teach in general--is an entirely different skill and, really, art form.

Okay, but you aren't going to get an "artist" for $38,000 a year... that's the problem.

Teacher Salaries in America

Now, I agree, there are a lot of things that were bad ideas. Common Core was kind of stupid, and too many teachers teach to the test. It is also way too hard to fire a bad teacher or a teacher who stopped caring about his job performance...

That said, the real problem is, if a starting teacher only makes 38K a year after earning a master's degree in education, that's all kinds of messed up.
 
Its very noticeable not one poster has asked for a smidgeon of effort on behalf of the kids. They have to simply show up no effort needed...got it.
 
Its very noticeable not one poster has asked for a smidgeon of effort on behalf of the kids. They have to simply show up no effort needed...got it.
`
There are some things in life that go without saying. The very fact this conversation is taking place is because of the concern for children. Many of these kids also need tutoring, another thing not mentioned directly but understood. No one touched on the topic of teachers "volunteering" to do school activities once school has ended. But it's understood.

Me? I have all sorts of ideas based on experience and learning about how public schools work. I do it because I really am concerned for the kids and see how important it is for this country to have educated children.....but that's understood.
`
 
Sure, that's always the "simple" liberal solution. Now you have the sell the population on massive tax increases. Not so simple after all.

Naw, we just raise taxes on rich people... most people think the rich should pay more in taxes.

Three quarters of Americans favor higher taxes for wealthy -Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

See, that was easy.

It's not the test that really makes the difference--it's being in the schools, learning from teachers, student teaching, and being mentored. I mean yes, you should know your content area. But there is much, much more to being a teacher than simply knowing the material. Knowing how to TEACH the material--and how to teach in general--is an entirely different skill and, really, art form.

Okay, but you aren't going to get an "artist" for $38,000 a year... that's the problem.

Teacher Salaries in America

Now, I agree, there are a lot of things that were bad ideas. Common Core was kind of stupid, and too many teachers teach to the test. It is also way too hard to fire a bad teacher or a teacher who stopped caring about his job performance...

That said, the real problem is, if a starting teacher only makes 38K a year after earning a master's degree in education, that's all kinds of messed up.

Please. "The rich" don't have enough money all together to pay for all the things you liberals need them to pay for.
 
Socialist dimwits want so badly to shoot themselves in the foot, but lack the ammunition.
 
Please. "The rich" don't have enough money all together to pay for all the things you liberals need them to pay for.

Sure they do... It's just a matter of extracting it.

Get this into your head, heart and soul:

Their money is not YOUR money to "extract". It does not belong to you. You have no right to "extract" it.

Good gravy, that is morally abhorrent.
 
Get this into your head, heart and soul:

Their money is not YOUR money to "extract". It does not belong to you. You have no right to "extract" it.

Good gravy, that is morally abhorrent.

Sure it is... that's what's called living in a civilized society... we get civilization, and people pay their fair share for it.

We used to extract a lot of money from the rich, and the country worked just fine.
 
We're well into the "vote of no confidence" regarding America's schools. This has led to a raging teacher shortage, which is perpetuating the problem and will continue to do so into the future. FWIW, a family member of mine, a PhD in education for years and years--and a huge liberal--saw this coming more than ten years ago. I had no idea how prescient she was. I do now.

Short-sighted conservatives cheer this.

Okay. What takes its place? I'm not an advocate for gov't running the institutions, and am dead set on gov't not taking over healthcare, for example. But now that society has been accustomed to public education for so many generations--what now, when there are not enough adults to fill the classrooms and the few you can scrape together are under-educated and under-qualified?

(For a taste of this problem, see this article, where the "answer to the teacher shortage" is to let teacher's aides teach the classes. Mostly special ed children. Could One Answer To Teacher Shortage Be Right Under Our Nose?)

Fellow conservatives: come with solutions, not just rants on how awful the "indoctrination centers" are. We've heard it all. Put some original thought into this--or at least some thought.

Disband the Federal Department of Education

Outlaw the Teachers union

Teacher's unions have nothing to do with the downfall of society impacting public schools.

Also, outlawing unions is unconstitutional. You do know about that freedom of association part, right?
 
Where is there a teacher shortage?

Teacher's unions have a great deal to do with problems in our public schools. Mainly, they have made it impossible to remove a bad teacher, but they have also introduced a harmful union-management antagonism where it is entirely inappropriate. For example, the Union will go to bat with guns blazing (pardon the mixed metaphor) for any accused teacher, regardless of how deserved the disciplinary action might be.

There is nothing "unconstitutional" about prohibiting collective bargaining the in the public sector, however, in states where it now exists it would be impossible, politically, to roll back the clock. OTOH, it would be entirely constitutional to remove the right to strike, which would go a long way toward restoring sanity.

My personal belief is that in states where collective bargaining is part of the culture (like Pennsylvania, where I live), it would be best to have a SINGLE Collective Bargaining Unit for the entire state, with four or five different compensation zones, depending on the local COL. The best teachers could then be incentivized to teach in neighborhoods where they are needed most. Imagine eliminating 500 or so Superintendents, with all their staff. The savings to the taxpayers could be monumental.
 
Where is there a teacher shortage?

Teacher's unions have a great deal to do with problems in our public schools. Mainly, they have made it impossible to remove a bad teacher, but they have also introduced a harmful union-management antagonism where it is entirely inappropriate. For example, the Union will go to bat with guns blazing (pardon the mixed metaphor) for any accused teacher, regardless of how deserved the disciplinary action might be.

There is nothing "unconstitutional" about prohibiting collective bargaining the in the public sector, however, in states where it now exists it would be impossible, politically, to roll back the clock. OTOH, it would be entirely constitutional to remove the right to strike, which would go a long way toward restoring sanity.

My personal belief is that in states where collective bargaining is part of the culture (like Pennsylvania, where I live), it would be best to have a SINGLE Collective Bargaining Unit for the entire state, with four or five different compensation zones, depending on the local COL. The best teachers could then be incentivized to teach in neighborhoods where they are needed most. Imagine eliminating 500 or so Superintendents, with all their staff. The savings to the taxpayers could be monumental.

Wow! What you get right is typical of a master of the obvious, and you offer no solutions. Unfortunately, most of your post is dead wrong.

Why do you think unions should not represent their members? That is their job!

If unions are the problem, why do states that do not have unions perform on the same level or worse than those who do?

There are very few places in the United States where teachers have the right to strike. They get all of the press because they are located in cities with liberal dominated governments. I worked in 8 different schools districts in two states and for the federal government and never had the right to strike. Collective bargaining consist of the teacher's union saying, "Can we please have some more?, and the school districts replying, "You will take what we give you and be thankful we didn't cut your salaries!"

Many school districts openly discriminate against experienced teachers by letting them go before they reach tenure despite being the best they have simply to save money in their budgets. I was released by my last two districts and not hired by a third because I made a little over $50K per year. Why pay me that when they can get a teacher straight out of college for slightly more than half that amount? I left one district 3 years ago and a close friend stayed behind. In three years, they have had 4 teachers attempt to take my position, and they all quit or were let go. Every single one was just out of college.

This year, the state decided to mess with our retirement system. Support for the teachers was good in the public, but the state legislature rammed through changes that were eventually ruled illegal by the courts. I did not take any chances when I got an opportunity to retire, I pulled my retirement out lump sum and lost thousands upon thousands of dollars in potential earnings now than have the state steal it in the future.

The fact is you have no clue as to collective bargaining by teachers across this country. You read the media-hyped stories and paint every district with the same broad brush. Unfortunately, that makes you, like most people outside the field of education, clueless as to the reality of the situation.

Several districts are inclined to pay teachers to work in some of those schools "where they are needed most". Unfortunately, most teachers are intelligent enough to know that the stress, physical danger, and long commutes are not worth the level of incentives they offer.

I left the teaching profession in April 2018, and I loved the teaching, but hated every other aspect of my job. Horrible students, feckless administrators, and overbearing parents. It was no longer worth the struggle to get up in the morning, put up with all of that crap and then listen to know-it-alls on this message board and others in the media spouting crap they repeat from talking points written by people who haven't been in a school in decades.
 

Forum List

Back
Top