Is There A Free Market Answer To Education?

[Samson]

Not sure exactly who within the Public School State and Districts that "paper pushers" either of you are referring? Exactly what positions doyou mean?

Based on many conversations with current and retired teachers, high school, generally there are 'chairpersons' for every department.

Their salaries in NYC can be 130k to 150k and seem to do very little. They observe teachers, and many teachers find this to be the scariest part of their job!

But very very few observations lead to discipline or firing (almost never).

The 'chair' figures out scheduling and holds regular department meetings.

Much of the function can be described as 'paper pushing' and rarely has a demonstrable effect on teaching.

The time and money can be better spent.

My feeling is that teachers should teach, and administration should be a separate track, nor is it necessary to pay an administrator teacher salary!

The irony is that, in theory, the best teachers leave the classroom and become administrators.

Just where we don't need good teachers: in an office with a copy machine.

Well, as I said, the entire "Highschool" concept is bogus, bloated, and beguiled.

But, if we insist that they remain operational and in tact:

In Texas, "Chairpersons" or Department heads are paid what I consider a small stipend ($1000/yr). I was a "Group Leader" ($600/yr). Anyway, I know how you loath personal stories so I'll try not to digress, but these people do a wide range of tasks that are quite beneficial: Mentoring new teachers, organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc. Additionally these teachers have an extra planning period, but often teach the most challenging classes (they are most experienced)

We also had a "copy machine room technician" who would only run copies.

Ironically, I find the theory that "The Best Teachers Become Administrators," completely laughable.


HaHaHaHA!



See. I laugh.


Often, Coaches become Administrators.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not sure exactly who within the Public School State and Districts that "paper pushers" either of you are referring? Exactly what positions doyou mean?

Based on many conversations with current and retired teachers, high school, generally there are 'chairpersons' for every department.

Their salaries in NYC can be 130k to 150k and seem to do very little. They observe teachers, and many teachers find this to be the scariest part of their job!

But very very few observations lead to discipline or firing (almost never).

The 'chair' figures out scheduling and holds regular department meetings.

Much of the function can be described as 'paper pushing' and rarely has a demonstrable effect on teaching.

The time and money can be better spent.

My feeling is that teachers should teach, and administration should be a separate track, nor is it necessary to pay an administrator teacher salary!

The irony is that, in theory, the best teachers leave the classroom and become administrators.

Just where we don't need good teachers: in an office with a copy machine.

Well, as I said, the entire "Highschool" concept is bogus, bloated, and beguiled.

But, if we insist that they remain operational and in tact:

In Texas, "Chairpersons" or Department heads are paid what I consider a small stipend ($1000/yr). I was a "Group Leader" ($600/yr). Anyway, I know how you loath personal stories so I'll try not to digress, but these people do a wide range of tasks that are quite beneficial: Mentoring new teachers, organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc. Additionally these teachers have an extra planning period, but often teach the most challenging classes (they are most experienced)

We also had a "copy machine room technician" who would only run copies.

Ironically, I find the theory that "The Best Teachers Become Administrators," completely laughable.


HaHaHaHA!



See. I laugh.


Often, Coaches become Administrators.

"... I know how you loath personal stories so ..." I do not!

Often they give credence to and represent experience.

" Mentoring new teachers..." How about the teacher observe the teaching of a senior teacher, and if still found wanting, be required to take refresher courses at a college?
Just brainstorming.


In NYC some time back, the police department 'civilianized,' that is it hired individuals to answer phones, greet at the front desk, and various other 'paper pushing' jobs that don't require a gun permit. To save money, essentially.

Now, as to "organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."
These jobs do not require a trained educator. Nor should they take time away from the primary function of a teacher.

“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” The Department of Education alone provides more than 4,000 jobs that haven't the faintest connection with teaching." Ann Coulter

 

[Samson]

Based on many conversations with current and retired teachers, high school, generally there are 'chairpersons' for every department.

Their salaries in NYC can be 130k to 150k and seem to do very little. They observe teachers, and many teachers find this to be the scariest part of their job!

But very very few observations lead to discipline or firing (almost never).

The 'chair' figures out scheduling and holds regular department meetings.

Much of the function can be described as 'paper pushing' and rarely has a demonstrable effect on teaching.

The time and money can be better spent.

My feeling is that teachers should teach, and administration should be a separate track, nor is it necessary to pay an administrator teacher salary!

The irony is that, in theory, the best teachers leave the classroom and become administrators.

Just where we don't need good teachers: in an office with a copy machine.

Well, as I said, the entire "Highschool" concept is bogus, bloated, and beguiled.

But, if we insist that they remain operational and in tact:

In Texas, "Chairpersons" or Department heads are paid what I consider a small stipend ($1000/yr). I was a "Group Leader" ($600/yr). Anyway, I know how you loath personal stories so I'll try not to digress, but these people do a wide range of tasks that are quite beneficial: Mentoring new teachers, organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc. Additionally these teachers have an extra planning period, but often teach the most challenging classes (they are most experienced)

We also had a "copy machine room technician" who would only run copies.

Ironically, I find the theory that "The Best Teachers Become Administrators," completely laughable.


HaHaHaHA!



See. I laugh.


Often, Coaches become Administrators.

"... I know how you loath personal stories so ..." I do not!

Often they give credence to and represent experience.

" Mentoring new teachers..." How about the teacher observe the teaching of a senior teacher, and if still found wanting, be required to take refresher courses at a college?
Just brainstorming.

Most teaching programs in colleges include a semester of doing nothing but what you have described (WITHOUT PAY, I may add), but still, a WASP 21 year old in an inner city school needs a mentor. I had to console many a nubile young girl whilst they cried on my shoulder because they were frustrated that kids did NOT want to learn how to add fractions: CAN YOU IMAGINE!!! lol

[In NYC some time back, the police department 'civilianized,' that is it hired individuals to answer phones, greet at the front desk, and various other 'paper pushing' jobs that don't require a gun permit. To save money, essentially.

This is done to some extent in public schools.

[Now, as to "organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."
These jobs do not require a trained educator. Nor should they take time away from the primary function of a teacher.

Yes, they actually do require a trained educator. But, lets say you're right: Who will do it? I thought we were trying to DECREASE paperpushers?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, as I said, the entire "Highschool" concept is bogus, bloated, and beguiled.

But, if we insist that they remain operational and in tact:

In Texas, "Chairpersons" or Department heads are paid what I consider a small stipend ($1000/yr). I was a "Group Leader" ($600/yr). Anyway, I know how you loath personal stories so I'll try not to digress, but these people do a wide range of tasks that are quite beneficial: Mentoring new teachers, organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc. Additionally these teachers have an extra planning period, but often teach the most challenging classes (they are most experienced)

We also had a "copy machine room technician" who would only run copies.

Ironically, I find the theory that "The Best Teachers Become Administrators," completely laughable.


HaHaHaHA!



See. I laugh.


Often, Coaches become Administrators.

"... I know how you loath personal stories so ..." I do not!

Often they give credence to and represent experience.



Most teaching programs in colleges include a semester of doing nothing but what you have described (WITHOUT PAY, I may add), but still, a WASP 21 year old in an inner city school needs a mentor. I had to console many a nubile young girl whilst they cried on my shoulder because they were frustrated that kids did NOT want to learn how to add fractions: CAN YOU IMAGINE!!! lol




This is done to some extent in public schools.

[Now, as to "organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."
These jobs do not require a trained educator. Nor should they take time away from the primary function of a teacher.

Yes, they actually do require a trained educator. But, lets say you're right: Who will do it? I thought we were trying to DECREASE paperpushers?

"... a semester of doing nothing but what you have described (WITHOUT PAY, I may add), ..."
Well, then we have identified a major problem, haven't we?

The universities have not devised a way to actually teach how to teach. I have thought about this and suggest:

1. every university with an 'ed' department be required to also have k-12 classes so as to allow teachers to observe a professor teaching and participate in teaching.
There would be no trouble in recruiting children for such a program.
Teachers not being up to the job in public schools could return for refreshers.

2. "I had to console many a nubile young girl ..."
Above and beyond!

3. " organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."Yes, they actually do require a trained educator."

To substantiate your (rediculous) claim, please provide the course numbers of univesity couses such as "organizing supplies," or "meeting with the principals to coordinate end-term parties," or whatever.

This is featherbedding in the school system. We need not have a 100K trained and experienced teacher performing the tasks that a high school dropout could do. There could be no bette validation of Ms. Coulters' claim "The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” The Department of Education alone provides more than 4,000 jobs that haven't the faintest connection with teaching. "

Possibly the high school dropouts are already doint the jobs:
MALDEN, Mass. (WPRI) - According to state education officials, nearly three-quarters of the people who took the state elementary school teacher’s licensing exam this year failed the new math section.
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is releasing the results Tuesday. They say that only 27 percent of the more than 600 candidates who took the test passed. The test was administered in March of this year.
The teacher’s licensing exam tested potential teachers on their knowledge of elementary school mathematics. This included geometry, statistics, and probability.
Aspiring school teachers fail in math

 

[midcan5]

Corporate schools already exist, they exist on the technical level where a particular skill is taught. They cost plenty, I have been to many, including seminars, in my career.

If America ever destroys Public Education, she will start her own destruction as I think she is doing with these Christian schools and universities. Public education is about learning to be a good citizen, and to feel you are part of a larger society and have a responsibility to it.

Just as Madrassahs teach little of civic value, so too will the destruction of the core element of the American experience lead only to a more divisive society that shows itself today in our politics and media. Societies, Russia is an example, destroy themselves from within.

 

[Samson]

3. " organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."Yes, they actually do require a trained educator."

To substantiate your (rediculous) claim, please provide the course numbers of univesity couses such as "organizing supplies," or "meeting with the principals to coordinate end-term parties," or whatever.

This is featherbedding in the school system. We need not have a 100K trained and experienced teacher performing the tasks that a high school dropout could do. There could be no bette validation of Ms. Coulters' claim "The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” The Department of Education alone provides more than 4,000 jobs that haven't the faintest connection with teaching.

I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring, but from the context of the remark, it sounds like employees of the Department of Education whose jobs are nothing more than oversight of Federal Civil Rights Statues.

I really do not see the wisdom, or logic, of replacing a professional teacher who, for a small stipend, coordinates the activities of the other teachers in a department, being replaced with yet another enployee within the system for which you'd like to decrease paper pushers. Why replace a well qualified person who does a 10 hr/week job for $6/hr + the regular teaching job, with a highschool dropout who works only 20 hr/week for $6/hr?

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. " organizing supplies, coordinating lesson plans, psychoanalyising collegues, meeting with principals to coordinate the activities, budgets, books, standardized test proceedures, etc."Yes, they actually do require a trained educator."

To substantiate your (rediculous) claim, please provide the course numbers of univesity couses such as "organizing supplies," or "meeting with the principals to coordinate end-term parties," or whatever.

This is featherbedding in the school system. We need not have a 100K trained and experienced teacher performing the tasks that a high school dropout could do. There could be no bette validation of Ms. Coulters' claim "The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” The Department of Education alone provides more than 4,000 jobs that haven't the faintest connection with teaching.

I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring, but from the context of the remark, it sounds like employees of the Department of Education whose jobs are nothing more than oversight of Federal Civil Rights Statues.

I really do not see the wisdom, or logic, of replacing a professional teacher who, for a small stipend, coordinates the activities of the other teachers in a department, being replaced with yet another enployee within the system for which you'd like to decrease paper pushers. Why replace a well qualified person who does a 10 hr/week job for $6/hr + the regular teaching job, with a highschool dropout who works only 20 hr/week for $6/hr?

And here we see the importance of defining the terms of a debate.

"I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring..."

1. As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

The import of the quote is that far more teachers in private schools teach, than teachers in public schools perform as teachers.

Say that three times fast.


"...for a small stipend, coordinates the activities of the other teachers in a department, being replaced with yet another enployee within the system..."

1. Small stipend applies to your system, not the Big Apple. Here, a full time senior teacher accepts full salary, some $100,000 plus, to perform functions requiring varying degrees of proficiency, but far below the proficiency and acumen required to be an efficient and experienced teacher.

2. My suggestion is not to use 'another employee withing the system,' assuming you are referring to organizational functions, and secretarial duties, but to use competent high school grads, not those with doctorates and masters degrees.

3. Among the terms that I use as highest compliments are scholar, intellect and teacher. I don't believe that we should dilute said functions by allowing teachers to avoid teaching, frequently by 'making nice' with the administration.

4. Your system uses the stipend idea, it seems, to good effect. Here 'compensatory time' jobs are seen as a relief from a 'teaching burden.' I understand how hard the job is, and I understand human nature, but teaching should be perceived as a notch above. If it becomes too difficult as one gets older, provisions should be made...but I can't see how other venues in the school can supplant teaching.

This post is getting too long...
sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Corporate schools already exist, they exist on the technical level where a particular skill is taught. They cost plenty, I have been to many, including seminars, in my career.

If America ever destroys Public Education, she will start her own destruction as I think she is doing with these Christian schools and universities. Public education is about learning to be a good citizen, and to feel you are part of a larger society and have a responsibility to it.

Just as Madrassahs teach little of civic value, so too will the destruction of the core element of the American experience lead only to a more divisive society that shows itself today in our politics and media. Societies, Russia is an example, destroy themselves from within.

Progressive Education, and the 'social justice' crowd have already destroyed public education.

"[T]eachers must search far in ed-school syllabi to find a single reference to any of Hirsch’s work—yet required readings by radical education thinkers such as Paulo Freire, Jonathan Kozol, and ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers are common. From these texts, prospective teachers will learn that the purpose of schooling in America isn’t to create knowledgeable, civic-minded citizens, loyal to the nation’s democratic institutions, as Jefferson dreamed, but rather to undermine those institutions and turn children into champions of “social justice” as defined by today’s America-hating far Left."

"Schools needed to help create virtuous, civic-minded, and knowledgeable citizens—and the best way for them to do that was to teach the same grade-by-grade curriculum to each child. “The school would be the institution that would transform future citizens into loyal Americans,” Hirsch writes. “It would teach common knowledge, virtues, ideals, language, and commitments.” Most American leaders, well into the nineteenth century, believed passionately that schools’ main task was “the making of Americans,” Hirsch writes. He refers here not only to the millions of European immigrants arriving throughout the nineteenth century but also to native-born Americans from different regions and religions, who needed common schools as the means of acculturation into the “common language community” of a still-new country.

Lincoln’s famous Lyceum speech of 1838, Hirsch notes, was primarily about common schooling and shared knowledge as democratic touchstones. In the speech, Lincoln assigned schools the task of teaching the American credo of “solidarity, freedom, and civic peace above all other principles.” Let these principles, Lincoln said, “be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges—let it be written in Primmers [sic], spelling books and almanacs.” These beliefs were already reaching young Americans through Noah Webster’s grammars and dictionaries and William McGuffey’s readers.

. That children from poor and illiterate homes tend to remain poor and illiterate is an unacceptable failure of our schools, one which has occurred not because our teachers are inept but chiefly because they are compelled to teach a fragmented curriculum based on faulty educational theories.” Hirsch could see how the progressives’ education agenda was rooted in a deeply flawed understanding of child development that went back to Rousseau. Influenced by the Romantics, progressive-education doctrine held that children learn best “naturally” and that we should not drill “lifeless” facts into their developing minds. Such views, which became prevalent in American teacher training by the 1920s, Hirsch shows, represented a sharp break with the Founding Fathers, who believed that children needed to learn a coherent, shared body of knowledge for the new democracy to work. Thomas Jefferson even proposed a common curriculum, so that children’s “memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European, and American history.”
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy
A content-rich pedagogy makes better citizens and smarter kids.
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

 

[Samson]

And here we see the importance of defining the terms of a debate.

"I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring..."

1. As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

The import of the quote is that far more teachers in private schools teach, than teachers in public schools perform as teachers.

Say that three times fast.

Ok, Coulter says she thinks 50% of public schools [systems] employees are teaching. But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."

Why ignore this obvious difference? Rather than feeble efforts to weakly define "the terms of a debate," why not simply state who you these "paper pushers" are and exactly what they do? With so many (50%) to choose from, I'm astonished that not a single one's title has been given. Rather, a few silly, cherry-picked-for-vagueness-sake (and no doubt, dramatic effect) discriptions are offered. Why? Is it because its so difficult to admit that that cause for most of the 30%-wide difference is that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel?

"...for a small stipend, coordinates the activities of the other teachers in a department, being replaced with yet another enployee within the system..."

1. Small stipend applies to your system, not the Big Apple. Here, a full time senior teacher accepts full salary, some $100,000 plus, to perform functions requiring varying degrees of proficiency, but far below the proficiency and acumen required to be an efficient and experienced teacher.

I'll be the first to agree that living in NYC is expensive, and that a "small" stipend is relative to the economy in which the teacher works. However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks: Perhaps you would have someone hired to take roll in each class? What about checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?

2. My suggestion is not to use 'another employee withing the system,' assuming you are referring to organizational functions, and secretarial duties, but to use competent high school grads, not those with doctorates and masters degrees.

Yes, I understand what you are suggesting: Hiring MORE people. This seems to be in direct contravention of a free market system, which decreases costs by limiting the number of employees.

3. Among the terms that I use as highest compliments are scholar, intellect and teacher. I don't believe that we should dilute said functions by allowing teachers to avoid teaching, frequently by 'making nice' with the administration.

Not sure where you're comming from. If I had to guess, I'd say that you believe that the ONLY thing that a teacher does is prepare instruction materials, present instruction, and test to see if learning has taken place....rise, wash, repeat if necessary.

As I've described the many other duties given to classroom teachers, the ideal you have is most unrealistic. I would agree this is what an "Ideal" situation should be, but I'm not sure how hiring more people would be more competitive with a free market solution.

4. Your system uses the stipend idea, it seems, to good effect. Here 'compensatory time' jobs are seen as a relief from a 'teaching burden.' I understand how hard the job is, and I understand human nature, but teaching should be perceived as a notch above. If it becomes too difficult as one gets older, provisions should be made...but I can't see how other venues in the school can supplant teaching.

Actually, most, even all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden." Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And here we see the importance of defining the terms of a debate.

"I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring..."

1. As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

The import of the quote is that far more teachers in private schools teach, than teachers in public schools perform as teachers.

Say that three times fast.

Ok, Coulter says she thinks 50% of public schools [systems] employees are teaching. But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."

Why ignore this obvious difference? Rather than feeble efforts to weakly define "the terms of a debate," why not simply state who you these "paper pushers" are and exactly what they do? With so many (50%) to choose from, I'm astonished that not a single one's title has been given. Rather, a few silly, cherry-picked-for-vagueness-sake (and no doubt, dramatic effect) discriptions are offered. Why? Is it because its so difficult to admit that that cause for most of the 30%-wide difference is that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel?

"...for a small stipend, coordinates the activities of the other teachers in a department, being replaced with yet another enployee within the system..."

1. Small stipend applies to your system, not the Big Apple. Here, a full time senior teacher accepts full salary, some $100,000 plus, to perform functions requiring varying degrees of proficiency, but far below the proficiency and acumen required to be an efficient and experienced teacher.

I'll be the first to agree that living in NYC is expensive, and that a "small" stipend is relative to the economy in which the teacher works. However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks: Perhaps you would have someone hired to take roll in each class? What about checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?



Yes, I understand what you are suggesting: Hiring MORE people. This seems to be in direct contravention of a free market system, which decreases costs by limiting the number of employees.

3. Among the terms that I use as highest compliments are scholar, intellect and teacher. I don't believe that we should dilute said functions by allowing teachers to avoid teaching, frequently by 'making nice' with the administration.

Not sure where you're comming from. If I had to guess, I'd say that you believe that the ONLY thing that a teacher does is prepare instruction materials, present instruction, and test to see if learning has taken place....rise, wash, repeat if necessary.

As I've described the many other duties given to classroom teachers, the ideal you have is most unrealistic. I would agree this is what an "Ideal" situation should be, but I'm not sure how hiring more people would be more competitive with a free market solution.

4. Your system uses the stipend idea, it seems, to good effect. Here 'compensatory time' jobs are seen as a relief from a 'teaching burden.' I understand how hard the job is, and I understand human nature, but teaching should be perceived as a notch above. If it becomes too difficult as one gets older, provisions should be made...but I can't see how other venues in the school can supplant teaching.

Actually, most, even all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden." Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter.

1. " But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."
On the contrary, and try to read more carefully. Twice I have supplied the quote which includes 'coordinating, facilitating, and empowering."
Add to that the tasks that you seem to feel are important aspects of 'teaching' such as "checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?" And hall patrol, disciplinary dean, book room, programming, observing teachers, etc.

1a. Imagine, if we in America were to attach the same level of importance to the child's 'self-esteem' as do the nations that do better than we do at educating...we might actually replace it with knowledge!


2. "that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel[/I]?
Ah, here we see the weakness in your understanding of the problem.
No, teachers, and public schools have one function. Education. And in the shambles that we call public education today, we should double down on this function.

Farm out, privatize, put up for bidding such functions as transportation, lunch rooms, psychology and guidance, etc.

Teachers should teach.

I'm surprised that due to your limited understanding of the function, you don't claim that schools should have printing departments to provide the textbooks. Or a place for teachers to be assigned to produce umbrellas, in case it rains.

3. "However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks.'
I don't want to hear about other tasks until our students and schools are the envy of every other country in the world.
Then we can add your fantasies to schooling.

3a. I have seen food courts at malls that deal with the same age groups as in our schools, seem to have no trouble, and make a profit. I often wonder if encouraging this type of operation in school buildings would be an option. Privatization.
What, you want to tell kids what to eat? Prepare them to take orders from Big Brother.
But during lunchtime, note how crowded the local fast food places are.

4. "Hiring MORE people."
Another huge flaw in your thinking.
You seem unable to comprehend that based on the situation, some folks are more valuable than others.
Teachers are more important to education than the bus drives who bring the children to school. Therefore, they should be paid more. They should have a pension plan that rewards them for their valuable service. And healthcare.
Hiring 'more people' for lunchroom duty would, under these terms, be a money saving plan.

5. " all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden."
On what basis do you make this absurd claim?
You've interviewed, how many?

I have heard from teachers that the aim of many teachers is to get out of the classroom, to the peace and quiet of the bookroom, or the programming department.
Understandable, as in many schools they face constant abuse in the classroom, with no help from the administration.
No teacher should have to accept abuse in their classroom.


6. "Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter."
I expected a higher level of articulation, as in an explanation of why "volunteer for lunchroom duty" would be enlightening, and how the suggestion fits into this discussion. If it does.

And, can one glean from "as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter" that you have read Ms. Coulters' best selling books? That you have some basis for this backhanded comment?

Or are you, shall we say, talking out of your hat?


Let's summarize.
"Public Education" has become a catch-all for multiple functions and philosophies, but based on the results of many forms of standardized testing, but, unfortunately, does not educate the public.
Sadly, you choose to defend this Marti Gras of Machinations.

 

[Samson]

And here we see the importance of defining the terms of a debate.

"I'm not sure about whom Coulter is referring..."

1. As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

The import of the quote is that far more teachers in private schools teach, than teachers in public schools perform as teachers.

Say that three times fast.

Ok, Coulter says she thinks 50% of public schools [systems] employees are teaching. But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."

Why ignore this obvious difference? Rather than feeble efforts to weakly define "the terms of a debate," why not simply state who you these "paper pushers" are and exactly what they do? With so many (50%) to choose from, I'm astonished that not a single one's title has been given. Rather, a few silly, cherry-picked-for-vagueness-sake (and no doubt, dramatic effect) discriptions are offered. Why? Is it because its so difficult to admit that that cause for most of the 30%-wide difference is that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel?




I'll be the first to agree that living in NYC is expensive, and that a "small" stipend is relative to the economy in which the teacher works. However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks: Perhaps you would have someone hired to take roll in each class? What about checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?



Yes, I understand what you are suggesting: Hiring MORE people. This seems to be in direct contravention of a free market system, which decreases costs by limiting the number of employees.



Not sure where you're comming from. If I had to guess, I'd say that you believe that the ONLY thing that a teacher does is prepare instruction materials, present instruction, and test to see if learning has taken place....rise, wash, repeat if necessary.

As I've described the many other duties given to classroom teachers, the ideal you have is most unrealistic. I would agree this is what an "Ideal" situation should be, but I'm not sure how hiring more people would be more competitive with a free market solution.

4. Your system uses the stipend idea, it seems, to good effect. Here 'compensatory time' jobs are seen as a relief from a 'teaching burden.' I understand how hard the job is, and I understand human nature, but teaching should be perceived as a notch above. If it becomes too difficult as one gets older, provisions should be made...but I can't see how other venues in the school can supplant teaching.

Actually, most, even all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden." Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter.

1. " But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."
On the contrary, and try to read more carefully. Twice I have supplied the quote which includes 'coordinating, facilitating, and empowering."
Add to that the tasks that you seem to feel are important aspects of 'teaching' such as "checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?" And hall patrol, disciplinary dean, book room, programming, observing teachers, etc.

1a. Imagine, if we in America were to attach the same level of importance to the child's 'self-esteem' as do the nations that do better than we do at educating...we might actually replace it with knowledge!


2. "that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel[/I]?
Ah, here we see the weakness in your understanding of the problem.
No, teachers, and public schools have one function. Education. And in the shambles that we call public education today, we should double down on this function.

Farm out, privatize, put up for bidding such functions as transportation, lunch rooms, psychology and guidance, etc.

Teachers should teach.

I'm surprised that due to your limited understanding of the function, you don't claim that schools should have printing departments to provide the textbooks. Or a place for teachers to be assigned to produce umbrellas, in case it rains.

3. "However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks.'
I don't want to hear about other tasks until our students and schools are the envy of every other country in the world.
Then we can add your fantasies to schooling.

3a. I have seen food courts at malls that deal with the same age groups as in our schools, seem to have no trouble, and make a profit. I often wonder if encouraging this type of operation in school buildings would be an option. Privatization.
What, you want to tell kids what to eat? Prepare them to take orders from Big Brother.
But during lunchtime, note how crowded the local fast food places are.

4. "Hiring MORE people."
Another huge flaw in your thinking.
You seem unable to comprehend that based on the situation, some folks are more valuable than others.
Teachers are more important to education than the bus drives who bring the children to school. Therefore, they should be paid more. They should have a pension plan that rewards them for their valuable service. And healthcare.
Hiring 'more people' for lunchroom duty would, under these terms, be a money saving plan.

5. " all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden."
On what basis do you make this absurd claim?
You've interviewed, how many?

I have heard from teachers that the aim of many teachers is to get out of the classroom, to the peace and quiet of the bookroom, or the programming department.
Understandable, as in many schools they face constant abuse in the classroom, with no help from the administration.
No teacher should have to accept abuse in their classroom.


6. "Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter."
I expected a higher level of articulation, as in an explanation of why "volunteer for lunchroom duty" would be enlightening, and how the suggestion fits into this discussion. If it does.

And, can one glean from "as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter" that you have read Ms. Coulters' best selling books? That you have some basis for this backhanded comment?

Or are you, shall we say, talking out of your hat?


Let's summarize.
"Public Education" has become a catch-all for multiple functions and philosophies, but based on the results of many forms of standardized testing, but, unfortunately, does not educate the public.
Sadly, you choose to defend this Marti Gras of Machinations.

And, just as sadly, you attack a system that admittedly is deeply flawed using the most ignorant of arguements. I'm really not saying this to bait you, or troll, or piss you off, because I appreciate your passion for the subject.

And, can one glean from "as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter" that you have read Ms. Coulters' best selling books? That you have some basis for this backhanded comment?

The basis of my comment is the quotation from Coulter that you posted:

As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

And your insistance that

Ah, here we see the weakness in your understanding of the problem.
No, teachers, and public schools have one function. Education. And in the shambles that we call public education today, we should double down on this function.

Farm out, privatize, put up for bidding such functions as transportation, lunch rooms, psychology and guidance, etc.

Teachers should teach.

I'm all for privatizing whatever can be done less expesively through privatization, especially when there are no laws against it.

But when you make the astonishingly absurd assumption that there is a difference bewteen teaching and "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” You and Coulter reveal that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, unless you think that first grade teachers go to college for 4 years to become degreed, and certified, because they didn't know how to Read Jane and Spot, and that they should NOT be EMPOWERING 6 year olds to read on their own?

 

[uscitizen]

Every parent should pay the full cost of their childs education. why should they expect others to pay to educate their child?

 

[Truthmatters]

because the children are our future and an uneducated worker pool is bad for our economic viability

 

[Samson]

Every parent should pay the full cost of their childs education. why should they expect others to pay to educate their child?

Did your parents pay for your education?

because the children are our future and an uneducated worker pool is bad for our economic viability

I've come to hope to GAWD that most children are NOT our future.

 

[uscitizen]

because the children are our future and an uneducated worker pool is bad for our economic viability

actually it is better for our economic viability.
Uneducated workers work cheaper allowing us to compete with cheap labor around the world.


I am not saying it is good for the people of the usa just good for the economics.

 

[Truthmatters]

having to hire outside of the country to obtain skilled workers is NOT good for our economy

 

[uscitizen]

having to hire outside of the country to obtain skilled workers is NOT good for our economy

Sure it is in increases productivity and profit and stock prices.

Look at what happens to any corps stock prices and profits when the lay off US workers and move production offshore.

 

[Samson]

because the children are our future and an uneducated worker pool is bad for our economic viability

actually it is better for our economic viability.
Uneducated workers work cheaper allowing us to compete with cheap labor around the world.

They don't have McDonalds on the Planet of The Lizards?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ok, Coulter says she thinks 50% of public schools [systems] employees are teaching. But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."

Why ignore this obvious difference? Rather than feeble efforts to weakly define "the terms of a debate," why not simply state who you these "paper pushers" are and exactly what they do? With so many (50%) to choose from, I'm astonished that not a single one's title has been given. Rather, a few silly, cherry-picked-for-vagueness-sake (and no doubt, dramatic effect) discriptions are offered. Why? Is it because its so difficult to admit that that cause for most of the 30%-wide difference is that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel?




I'll be the first to agree that living in NYC is expensive, and that a "small" stipend is relative to the economy in which the teacher works. However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks: Perhaps you would have someone hired to take roll in each class? What about checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?



Yes, I understand what you are suggesting: Hiring MORE people. This seems to be in direct contravention of a free market system, which decreases costs by limiting the number of employees.



Not sure where you're comming from. If I had to guess, I'd say that you believe that the ONLY thing that a teacher does is prepare instruction materials, present instruction, and test to see if learning has taken place....rise, wash, repeat if necessary.

As I've described the many other duties given to classroom teachers, the ideal you have is most unrealistic. I would agree this is what an "Ideal" situation should be, but I'm not sure how hiring more people would be more competitive with a free market solution.



Actually, most, even all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden." Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter.

1. " But neither you or her have identified the exact functions of the huge 30% difference between Public and Private school "paper-pushers."
On the contrary, and try to read more carefully. Twice I have supplied the quote which includes 'coordinating, facilitating, and empowering."
Add to that the tasks that you seem to feel are important aspects of 'teaching' such as "checking dress code violations? How about bussing lunchroom tables to offer good modelling? And let's not forget my All Time Favorite: Bus Duty The Day Before Winter Break?" And hall patrol, disciplinary dean, book room, programming, observing teachers, etc.

1a. Imagine, if we in America were to attach the same level of importance to the child's 'self-esteem' as do the nations that do better than we do at educating...we might actually replace it with knowledge!


2. "that public school systems must operate transportation departments that require large numbers of non-teaching personnel[/I]?
Ah, here we see the weakness in your understanding of the problem.
No, teachers, and public schools have one function. Education. And in the shambles that we call public education today, we should double down on this function.

Farm out, privatize, put up for bidding such functions as transportation, lunch rooms, psychology and guidance, etc.

Teachers should teach.

I'm surprised that due to your limited understanding of the function, you don't claim that schools should have printing departments to provide the textbooks. Or a place for teachers to be assigned to produce umbrellas, in case it rains.

3. "However all teachers perform a wide range of tasks.'
I don't want to hear about other tasks until our students and schools are the envy of every other country in the world.
Then we can add your fantasies to schooling.

3a. I have seen food courts at malls that deal with the same age groups as in our schools, seem to have no trouble, and make a profit. I often wonder if encouraging this type of operation in school buildings would be an option. Privatization.
What, you want to tell kids what to eat? Prepare them to take orders from Big Brother.
But during lunchtime, note how crowded the local fast food places are.

4. "Hiring MORE people."
Another huge flaw in your thinking.
You seem unable to comprehend that based on the situation, some folks are more valuable than others.
Teachers are more important to education than the bus drives who bring the children to school. Therefore, they should be paid more. They should have a pension plan that rewards them for their valuable service. And healthcare.
Hiring 'more people' for lunchroom duty would, under these terms, be a money saving plan.

5. " all, of the non-instructional jobs assigned to teachers are those for which they receive no compensation, and are usually not viewed as anything like "relief from a teaching burden."
On what basis do you make this absurd claim?
You've interviewed, how many?

I have heard from teachers that the aim of many teachers is to get out of the classroom, to the peace and quiet of the bookroom, or the programming department.
Understandable, as in many schools they face constant abuse in the classroom, with no help from the administration.
No teacher should have to accept abuse in their classroom.


6. "Perhaps you should volunteer for lunchroom duty at one of the local middle schools. I'm sure it would be as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter."
I expected a higher level of articulation, as in an explanation of why "volunteer for lunchroom duty" would be enlightening, and how the suggestion fits into this discussion. If it does.

And, can one glean from "as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter" that you have read Ms. Coulters' best selling books? That you have some basis for this backhanded comment?

Or are you, shall we say, talking out of your hat?


Let's summarize.
"Public Education" has become a catch-all for multiple functions and philosophies, but based on the results of many forms of standardized testing, but, unfortunately, does not educate the public.
Sadly, you choose to defend this Marti Gras of Machinations.

And, just as sadly, you attack a system that admittedly is deeply flawed using the most ignorant of arguements. I'm really not saying this to bait you, or troll, or piss you off, because I appreciate your passion for the subject.

And, can one glean from "as enlightening, or, if possible, more so than reading Coulter" that you have read Ms. Coulters' best selling books? That you have some basis for this backhanded comment?

The basis of my comment is the quotation from Coulter that you posted:

As noted in an earlier post, Ms. Coulter "“Apparently, nothing irritates public schoolteachers more than being asked to teach. While 80 percent of the employees of private schools are teachers, only half the employees of public schools are. The rest are "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.”

And your insistance that

Ah, here we see the weakness in your understanding of the problem.
No, teachers, and public schools have one function. Education. And in the shambles that we call public education today, we should double down on this function.

Farm out, privatize, put up for bidding such functions as transportation, lunch rooms, psychology and guidance, etc.

Teachers should teach.

I'm all for privatizing whatever can be done less expesively through privatization, especially when there are no laws against it.

But when you make the astonishingly absurd assumption that there is a difference bewteen teaching and "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" something or other.” You and Coulter reveal that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, unless you think that first grade teachers go to college for 4 years to become degreed, and certified, because they didn't know how to Read Jane and Spot, and that they should NOT be EMPOWERING 6 year olds to read on their own?

Just to prove that you actually know what you are talking about, please provide definitions of "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering."

I am a bit worried, since you have revealed that your comment about Ms. Coulter is based on ...nothing.

I notice that beyond "coordinating," "facilitating" or "empowering" you seem to have accepted that all of the other baloney functions that you noted earlier are outside of teaching.

Nor did you attempt to dispute the the United States of America has far from the best educational system in the world, as indicated in "I don't want to hear about other tasks until our students and schools are the envy of every other country in the world."

Instead, we find the flaccid 'a system that admittedly is deeply flawed,' yet seemingly defend and find excuses for said flaws.

I feel like Thoreau expressing to Emerson, I'm sure you are familiar with the story: When Emerson saw him in jail for refusing to pay taxes, and asked "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau responded. " Ralph, what are you doing out there?"

I feel that you should also be railing against this bogus system of 'public education,' providing your own suggestions for reform, as you have more experience in the system than I.

 

[Truthmatters]

Every attempt to improve the education system in the US is screamed at by the right as throwing money at the problem.