A Proposal for Education Reform

[Oddball]

I would love to hear you give an example of teachers making the parents out to be the enemy,

The entire "the parents aren't involved" rubric....I just posted a 9th Circus decision that says the schools can do whatever the **** they want, no matter how involved the parents make themselves.

Face it, the state has zero respect for the wishes of the parents, insofar as how and what their kids are taught.....ZERO.

Then those parents should home school. I don't think the 9th Circuit outlawed that.

Parents are parents. Teachers are teachers. If the parents fail doing their part, it's a crying shame, but that role should NEVER have been adopted, even in part, by any educator in a regular public school. If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

But, IMO, A huge problem is when teachers started taking it upon themselves to parent rather than concentrating on subject matter and parents started trying to control teaching of subject matter. It's a freaking mess, now.

But the parents can't opt out of their taxes being expropriated from them and used to support an institution that has failed them at best, and has disrespected them at worst.

 

[Si modo]

If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

True, but shouldn't they also be free to go to another school...or start one of their own? Can't do that (unless you're rich) when government monopolizes the K-12 educational system.

If I know the home schooling laws well enough (certainly probable that I don't), they CAN start their own. For example, my neighbor has home schooled her kids (great kids, BTW). She has five of them. There was a network of other home-schooling parents in the 'hood who organized enough that the kids never were at the same home with the same parent-as-teacher in one week. Still technically home schooling.

And, there are the charter schools that are either independently started or started through a grant or a fund.

But, the problem that you bring up is a good one. You can't pick which public school your child attends. The county or district decides that for you based on physical boundaries of homes. That's cool, because those physical boundaries encapsulate the same property tax rate and no one is discriminated against or cheated. They all support that district in the same manner and at the same rate. Personally, if you want your kid to attend a different school within that district, then you should be able to do so. Around here, you usually can. You petition the district with your desire to do so and most often it is not denied. You'll just have to transport on your own.

But, as far as attending a public school in a different district, no. You don't contribute to that district, so why should you have any rights to attend those schools?

Then there is the case when you don't even like the schools in your district. Should you get a tax break to spend on a private school? Maybe. Or, should you forfeit your tax contribution to the district if you choose not to use the services? Maybe. Maybe it's in your interests to have those other kids in your district educated rather than boosting your car?

On that latter point, I'm still on the fence and open to hearing arguments.

 

[Oddball]

But, the problem that you bring up is a good one. You can't pick which public school your child attends. The county or district decides that for you based on physical boundaries of homes. That's cool, because those physical boundaries encapsulate the same property tax rate and no one is discriminated against or cheated. They all support that district in the same manner and at the same rate. Personally, if you want your kid to attend a different school within that district, then you should be able to do so. Around here, you usually can. You petition the district with your desire to do so and most often it is not denied. You'll just have to transport on your own.

Unless the district in question sucks on ice, then everyone is cheated equally.

 

[Si modo]

The entire "the parents aren't involved" rubric....I just posted a 9th Circus decision that says the schools can do whatever the **** they want, no matter how involved the parents make themselves.

Face it, the state has zero respect for the wishes of the parents, insofar as how and what their kids are taught.....ZERO.

Then those parents should home school. I don't think the 9th Circuit outlawed that.

Parents are parents. Teachers are teachers. If the parents fail doing their part, it's a crying shame, but that role should NEVER have been adopted, even in part, by any educator in a regular public school. If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

But, IMO, A huge problem is when teachers started taking it upon themselves to parent rather than concentrating on subject matter and parents started trying to control teaching of subject matter. It's a freaking mess, now.

But the parents can't opt out of their taxes being expropriated from them and used to support an institution that has failed them at best, and has disrespected them at worst.

I certainly find value to that point. But also, what about the interest of society to educate as many as we can? Better to have a kid at least with a HS ed working at some unskilled job than crackwhoring, for example.

I don't know, though, which is the best situation. On that fence on that one.

 

[Si modo]

But, the problem that you bring up is a good one. You can't pick which public school your child attends. The county or district decides that for you based on physical boundaries of homes. That's cool, because those physical boundaries encapsulate the same property tax rate and no one is discriminated against or cheated. They all support that district in the same manner and at the same rate. Personally, if you want your kid to attend a different school within that district, then you should be able to do so. Around here, you usually can. You petition the district with your desire to do so and most often it is not denied. You'll just have to transport on your own.

Unless the district in question sucks on ice, then everyone is cheated equally.

Toooooooooo true and tooooooooo commonly the case.

I look at some of the per pupil budgets of some of the worst districts and wonder how in the hell they can be such **** ups with those budgets.

It boggles the mind. But, that's the racket I spoke of earlier, at work.

 

[Oddball]

I certainly find value to that point. But also, what about the interest of society to educate as many as we can? Better to have a kid at least with a HS ed working at some unskilled job than crackwhoring, for example.

I don't know, though, which is the best situation. On that fence on that one.

Yeah, and what if the kid in question goes through HS, gets their diploma and becomes a crack whore -or worse- anyways?

How is society better off with educated crooks?

 

[Si modo]

I certainly find value to that point. But also, what about the interest of society to educate as many as we can? Better to have a kid at least with a HS ed working at some unskilled job than crackwhoring, for example.

I don't know, though, which is the best situation. On that fence on that one.

Yeah, and what if the kid in question goes through HS, gets their diploma and becomes a crack whore -or worse- anyways?

How is society better off with educated crooks?

LOL. Good point. Can I try an Obamanism at this point?

They would have been worse criminals if not for the public school. Think of all those worse criminals that were prevented!

 

[chanel]

While the idea has some merit, similar programs like "Teach for America" have had mixed results. Teaching has a very high turnover rate. Some people just aren't cut out for it. Do we want 20 somethings staying in a profession they hate simply because they have enormous student debt?

It takes years to be a great teacher. "Young" and "motivated" are wonderful qualities, but skills are only learned on the job.

 

[eflatminor]

You're not going to be able to convince me that we should have an optional education system in the country.

Nobody said it should be optional, just not run by government bureaucrats. If a state wants to force children to receive an education, as many do, that's fine.

Are you arguing for a State-controlled education system instead of a Federal one?

Or are you arguing for an entirely free-market system?

Start by getting the Feds out of the business of education as there is no Constitutional grounds to do so. Then, let states experiment with various forms of a free market vs state controlled education. The change in results and costs will demonstrate which approach is superior.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

While the idea has some merit, similar programs like "Teach for America" have had mixed results. Teaching has a very high turnover rate. Some people just aren't cut out for it. Do we want 20 somethings staying in a profession they hate simply because they have enormous student debt?

It takes years to be a great teacher. "Young" and "motivated" are wonderful qualities, but skills are only learned on the job.

I agree, it's not a perfect solution.

I don't think that a huge number of people would become teachers just to erase their school debt - but there would have to be some sort of application process - a merit-based approach to the selections as well.

I just remember when I was in school - and how the younger teachers in general seemed to pull me in and capture my interest with their enthusiasm and energy better than the teachers who were just collecting a paycheck.

 

[kwc57]

Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.

At what point in history has a private, free-market education system ever worked?

Well.......it works right here for those who choose that path. Do you hear all that much about discipline issues, dropout rates or kids graduating who can't read from private schools?

 

[kwc57]

I certainly find value to that point. But also, what about the interest of society to educate as many as we can? Better to have a kid at least with a HS ed working at some unskilled job than crackwhoring, for example.

I don't know, though, which is the best situation. On that fence on that one.

Yeah, and what if the kid in question goes through HS, gets their diploma and becomes a crack whore -or worse- anyways?

How is society better off with educated crooks?

LOL. Good point. Can I try an Obamanism at this point?

They would have been worse criminals if not for the public school. Think of all those worse criminals that were prevented!

repped!

 

[old navy]

The union in the system in which I teach has very little influence. They failed in getting us pay raises for two years and this year the raise was 1 percent. The only thing they offer is legal representation in case a teacher gets accused of something by a student.

The big driver in policy is the parents. My two kids graduated from there when the system had a national reputation for excellence. Maybe it still does but a group of parents demanded that the grading system be changed to a 10 point system. Some complained that the standard of a grade of 93 or higher to get an A was too difficult for their kids. They also got rid of the tardy policy and other discipline directives stating that they were too tough on the kids.

The teachers are on a yearly contract and with the proper documentation can be fired. We are evaluated frequently by school administrators and by subject coordinators. We still have a great student body and facilities which attacts top notch teachers. We go through constant evaluation and process improvement.

To add to chanel's post, the inner city and other difficult schools already have young blood every year in the form of turnover. Many of the teachers are already getting tuition reimbursement through existing programs. The higher performing schools have much less turnover for obvious reasons.

I agree with Si modo about the Education major. I teach in the CTE department but with my master's could qualify to teach government. There is a need for teachers with more practical experience. One idea would be to require a degree in the subject taught and a master's in Education or in-service training leading to certification.

 

[eflatminor]

I just remember when I was in school - and how the younger teachers in general seemed to pull me in and capture my interest with their enthusiasm and energy better than the teachers who were just collecting a paycheck.

That is an inevitable byproduct of a centrally planned market. When those younger teachers realize that it's next to impossible to fire them, that their own income is not influenced by their performance but by how long they hang around, and lastly, that they have NO competition to worry about, collecting a paycheck becomes all it's about.

Contrast this with a free market employee who, based on his abilities and effort, feels he may further his station in life. He also knows if he performs poorly, he will be fired and further, if the entire operation doesn't thrive, the competitor down the street will take his customers. THAT is how you improve results and keep prices competitive.

You can't fix this problem by simply promising young teachers more.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.

At what point in history has a private, free-market education system ever worked?

Well.......it works right here for those who choose that path. Do you hear all that much about discipline issues, dropout rates or kids graduating who can't read from private schools?

It works right for those who can afford that path.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The union in the system in which I teach has very little influence. They failed in getting us pay raises for two years and this year the raise was 1 percent. The only thing they offer is legal representation in case a teacher gets accused of something by a student.

The big driver in policy is the parents. My two kids graduated from there when the system had a national reputation for excellence. Maybe it still does but a group of parents demanded that the grading system be changed to a 10 point system. Some complained that the standard of a grade of 93 or higher to get an A was too difficult for their kids. They also got rid of the tardy policy and other discipline directives stating that they were too tough on the kids.

The teachers are on a yearly contract and with the proper documentation can be fired. We are evaluated frequently by school administrators and by subject coordinators. We still have a great student body and facilities which attacts top notch teachers. We go through constant evaluation and process improvement.

To add to chanel's post, the inner city and other difficult schools already have young blood every year in the form of turnover. Many of the teachers are already getting tuition reimbursement through existing programs. The higher performing schools have much less turnover for obvious reasons.

I agree with Si modo about the Education major. I teach in the CTE department but with my master's could qualify to teach government. There is a need for teachers with more practical experience. One idea would be to require a degree in the subject taught and a master's in Education or in-service training leading to certification.

I agree with that completely.

 

[kwc57]

At what point in history has a private, free-market education system ever worked?

Well.......it works right here for those who choose that path. Do you hear all that much about discipline issues, dropout rates or kids graduating who can't read from private schools?

It works right for those who can afford that path.

If liberals would quit fighting vouchers, anyone could afford it.

Look, with enough resolve, local school systems could adopt a lot of things that would improve schools. Close campuses use uniforms, enforce rules, policies and standards, use discipline and make it stick, actually teach subjects that are designed to prepare kids for college or career, etc. All of the touchy feely crap that has come down in the past 30 years obviously isn't working and the idea of throwing larger and larger amounts of money isn't working either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well.......it works right here for those who choose that path. Do you hear all that much about discipline issues, dropout rates or kids graduating who can't read from private schools?

It works right for those who can afford that path.

If liberals would quit fighting vouchers, anyone could afford it.

Look, with enough resolve, local school systems could adopt a lot of things that would improve schools. Close campuses use uniforms, enforce rules, policies and standards, use discipline and make it stick, actually teach subjects that are designed to prepare kids for college or career, etc. All of the touchy feely crap that has come down in the past 30 years obviously isn't working and the idea of throwing larger and larger amounts of money isn't working either.

A universal voucher system would be unsustainable.

Private schools have an advantage over public schools - they can chose who they let in. A universal voucher system would either force private schools to take everyone, or still leave a significant portion of the population without an option for school.

Aside from that, I agree with some of your suggestions.

 

[Oddball]

You're ignoring the reality of the situation.

The public school system isn't going anywhere. I understand that you don't agree with it. In some ways, neither do I. But it's not going anywhere.

The only realistic way to reform the system is to change it from within, not tear it down to nothing and rebuild.

Translation: If you don't like it, you can lump it.

Pretty much. That's how the world works.

No, that's how monopolies work....Inferior products at grossly inflated costs and the customer is always wrong.

BTW, I thought libs hated monopolies.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Translation: If you don't like it, you can lump it.

Pretty much. That's how the world works.

No, that's how monopolies work....Low quality, grossly inflated costs, and the customer is always wrong.

BTW, I thought libs hated monopolies.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

That doesn't change the reality of the situation.