Bring back shop class

[SteadyMercury]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

Apex Technical School

"We Can't Call You"

 

[Rshermr]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

Cool. If it meant anything, and IF it is true. Because I have a grandson taking welding at a technical school. But NEVER heard anything about these kind of salaries. Hope it is true, but when I look at the numbers from BLM, I get decidedly different numbers. On average, there are only three states where the average pay for welders is over $50K, those being N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and the District of Columbia. And the overall median wage is about $37K. And about 90% of welders make under $57K, So, not sure where these great numbers are coming from.
Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers

We are always hearing about the high pay of various job categories. There have been the auto industry, where all sorts of invalid high numbers were floated as fact. Nearly always by conservative interests trying to prove that workers were causing the economic problem of the day. And here, we have an article in Rupert_Murdoch's wall street journal (actually, the wsj blog page), by josh mandel, a Republican politician and office holder. The key may be the specialty involved with this company, which is pipe welding. This specialty is in high demand and pays better than normal, but not THAT much better. In the meantime, I am not bringing the subject up with my Grandson. And it is probably healthy to understand that most welding jobs will make you a middle class wage earner. If you are seeing $150K, you are probably living by yourself in north dakota welding drilling equipment at 50 below zero with a job that will only last a couple years or less.

 

[Mr. H.]

Industrial Arts. I took a class in college figuring it would be an easy A.

Man, was I wrong about that.

 

[norwegen]

Industrial Arts. I took a class in college figuring it would be an easy A.

Man, was I wrong about that.

My brother thought it would be an easy A, too. Then he sent a block of wood through the window while operating the band saw.

He was razzed for a week by the whole school.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I suspect part of the high salaries being quotes is related to hours and skill level. If they really are that short on workers they are probably throwing their guys lots of overtime, and it could be a shop where the skill level and product is at a higher level than things like construction welding which might dominate the avg numbers.

Either way it again brings up the oft-read stuff about shortage of skilled trades and the rote "must go to college for 4 years to be successful" that is drilled into the heads of young people, who might look at blue collar work as something for low pay and lower class people. It seems like a skilled welder, electrician, or machinist can make a good living and have a reasonable level of job security without just blindly walking the preordained 4 year degree path.

 

[martybegan]

I suspect part of the high salaries being quotes is related to hours and skill level. If they really are that short on workers they are probably throwing their guys lots of overtime, and it could be a shop where the skill level and product is at a higher level than things like construction welding which might dominate the avg numbers.

Either way it again brings up the oft-read stuff about shortage of skilled trades and the rote "must go to college for 4 years to be successful" that is drilled into the heads of young people, who might look at blue collar work as something for low pay and lower class people. It seems like a skilled welder, electrician, or machinist can make a good living and have a reasonable level of job security without just blindly walking the preordained 4 year degree path.

and the ones with some business acumen can start their own companies, and make even more money.

 

[jasonnfree]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

Cool. If it meant anything, and IF it is true. Because I have a grandson taking welding at a technical school. But NEVER heard anything about these kind of salaries. Hope it is true, but when I look at the numbers from BLM, I get decidedly different numbers. On average, there are only three states where the average pay for welders is over $50K, those being N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and the District of Columbia. And the overall median wage is about $37K. And about 90% of welders make under $57K, So, not sure where these great numbers are coming from.
Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers

We are always hearing about the high pay of various job categories. There have been the auto industry, where all sorts of invalid high numbers were floated as fact. Nearly always by conservative interests trying to prove that workers were causing the economic problem of the day. And here, we have an article in Rupert_Murdoch's wall street journal (actually, the wsj blog page), by josh mandel, a Republican politician and office holder. The key may be the specialty involved with this company, which is pipe welding. This specialty is in high demand and pays better than normal, but not THAT much better. In the meantime, I am not bringing the subject up with my Grandson. And it is probably healthy to understand that most welding jobs will make you a middle class wage earner. If you are seeing $150K, you are probably living by yourself in north dakota welding drilling equipment at 50 below zero with a job that will only last a couple years or less.

High wages probably go to the high pressure pipe welders, they did back in the sixties anyway. I do know that welders in ironworkers union do well also. I took welder training after military service but got glaucoma after working the trade for a couple years (glaucoma not caused by welding) so I had to quit welding. Good versatile trade and fairly quick return on cost of training and you can work anywhere.

 

[hortysir]

Our "leaders" would rather our young attend college for liberal arts degrees than actual trades.

Tradesmen are a dying breed and can name their price

 

[Rozman]

Nothing says hey hire me more then a Liberal Arts degree that thousands have.

 

[Moonglow]

There are a lot of tradesmen in our area......I was one of them...

 

[Moonglow]

One trade that makes a lot of dough and has a low overhead is sewer line snaking....

 

[hortysir]

One trade that makes a lot of dough and has a low overhead is sewer line snaking....

But, honestly, how many of our young are clamoring to apply (let alone learn/train) for these trades?

How many computer engineers do we really need that don't know how to change a flat tire?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The man who repairs our furnace and who sold us our new heat pump is getting up there.

Who will take his place? Who will know what he knows?

We need to bring back the apprentice system as well as encourage kids to attend trade schools. Good money with a secure future.

 

[MikeK]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

When I was growing up in Brooklyn (1940s/50s) there was a high school called Manual Trades which taught Auto Mechanics, Aircraft Mechanics, Plumbing, Electrical, Carpentry, Machining Metal Work (which probably included welding). Students with the highest grades graduated into an apprentice program. At some point in the 1960s Manual Trades was replaced by John Jay, a standard curriculum high school. I don't know why, but that transition happened around the time when America had stopped making things and when working at a blue collar job was perceived as a step down.

 

[Andylusion]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

Cool. If it meant anything, and IF it is true. Because I have a grandson taking welding at a technical school. But NEVER heard anything about these kind of salaries. Hope it is true, but when I look at the numbers from BLM, I get decidedly different numbers. On average, there are only three states where the average pay for welders is over $50K, those being N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and the District of Columbia. And the overall median wage is about $37K. And about 90% of welders make under $57K, So, not sure where these great numbers are coming from.
Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers

We are always hearing about the high pay of various job categories. There have been the auto industry, where all sorts of invalid high numbers were floated as fact. Nearly always by conservative interests trying to prove that workers were causing the economic problem of the day. And here, we have an article in Rupert_Murdoch's wall street journal (actually, the wsj blog page), by josh mandel, a Republican politician and office holder. The key may be the specialty involved with this company, which is pipe welding. This specialty is in high demand and pays better than normal, but not THAT much better. In the meantime, I am not bringing the subject up with my Grandson. And it is probably healthy to understand that most welding jobs will make you a middle class wage earner. If you are seeing $150K, you are probably living by yourself in north dakota welding drilling equipment at 50 below zero with a job that will only last a couple years or less.

First off, 'job security' doesn't exist. If you are looking for a profession that will have a guaranteed time frame of 40 years, BK is hiring whooper floppers every day.

Every decent job, has no job security. The only security is your own personal ability to go where the work is, and do it very well.

Beyond that, yes of course super high paying jobs are in less desirable places. This is basic economics 101. Supply and Demand equal price. Supply of willing labor, verses the demand for such labor, will determine the price.

If you want a super easy job, that's five seconds from home, inside a climate controlled building, with very little effort, stress, or pressure.... again... BK is hiring whooper floppers every day.

People with experience in specialty welding are of course going to get paid significantly more than those run of the mill, average fresh on the job welders.

Additionally, places that have a low demand for welding, are naturally going to pay lower prices. Obviously if you live in Pennsylvania, chances are the demand and pay for a welder is going to be low in the Amish horse and plow areas.

Just like you wouldn't expect a professional movie editor to make millions living in Wyoming or some strange place thousands of miles from the nearest movie company, or popular shooting spot.

There are places where the average wage of a lawyers is only $50,000

So what I'm saying is, yeah you are right. The 'average' wage for a welder is low. As with any profession of any type, if you want to make the big money, you have to go where the demand is high, you have to specialize in the high dollar abilities, and when the contract runs out, you get another.

 

[Rshermr]

From WSJ at Josh Mandel: Welders Make $150,000? Bring Back Shop Class - WSJ.com

A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.

When I was growing up in Brooklyn (1940s/50s) there was a high school called Manual Trades which taught Auto Mechanics, Aircraft Mechanics, Plumbing, Electrical, Carpentry, Machining Metal Work (which probably included welding). Students with the highest grades graduated into an apprentice program. At some point in the 1960s Manual Trades was replaced by John Jay, a standard curriculum high school. I don't know why, but that transition happened around the time when America had stopped making things and when working at a blue collar job was perceived as a step down.

Not my specialty. But on the other hand, I am old. So I do remember the days when apprenticeships were VERY common. It was when we made stuff here, pre china, and the other cheep manufacturing countries, and the resultant outsourcing. Somehow, the idea has come to be to replace US trained manufacturing with foreign manufacturing and foreign workers.

You have to have the gov involved in the training/schooling process, or it will not get done. Companies are not willing to pay for the future any more. And, they do not want to pay in the for m of taxes to cover gov programs.
So, what's the answer? Let the successful countries pay for education programs, the good old USA will plow their profits into their pockets? Makes the US look good short term, but losers in the long term, in my opinion.

 

[Andylusion]

So I do remember the days when apprenticeships were VERY common. It was when we made stuff here, pre china, and the other cheep manufacturing countries, and the resultant outsourcing. Somehow, the idea has come to be to replace US trained manufacturing with foreign manufacturing and foreign workers.

You have to have the gov involved in the training/schooling process, or it will not get done. Companies are not willing to pay for the future any more. And, they do not want to pay in the for m of taxes to cover gov programs.
So, what's the answer? Let the successful countries pay for education programs, the good old USA will plow their profits into their pockets? Makes the US look good short term, but losers in the long term, in my opinion.

First off, I get tired of this insane implication that "we need to pay more into education".

The US pays TONS into education. We plow more into the profits of the Teachers Unions, and teachers pockets, than nearly any other country in the world. The problem is not education.

Further, other countries are not paying for education programs more than we are. If you want the US to pay as much as other countries, we need to cut spending.

I'm not mad at you, but I am tired of this "we need to be like other countries and spend more on education!" Bull CRAP... If we were like other countries, we'd spend a hell of a lot less.

The problem is two fold... One, we have a teachers Union, and a socialized education system that promotes bad teaching.

Two, we have moronically and idiotically taught our kids "you are just so awesome little billy!". When kids think they are awesome, when they really suck, they don't see a need to study. Why do I have to learn math better, if I'm already amazing?!

Many of the very countries that people often point to foaming at the mouth as being better education system, have markedly less education, but higher quality education, and better students.

If you don't make the grade in Finland, you can't even get into high school. Shocking, they end up with better students using that system, and as a result, spend far less trying to educated students not interested in learning.

Second, I also get a little irritated when there is this blanket statement that companies won't pay for the future.

Nearly every major company has training programs. Many others have college reimbursement programs. Walmart, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, hundreds of companies offer training and education for various things.

I aggravates me that while people bicker about how companies are somehow not willing to 'pay for the future', and yet at the same time tend to scream and yell at the very companies that are paying for the future.

Thirdly, what you say about apprenticeship programs is true, but why?

While I just said there are many companies willing to invest into training, the fact is like you said.... the relative number if drastically lower. Only super big companies that have millions to spend on training do so. Most do not.... why?

There's a reason. It's a real simple reason too. It's called 'economics'.

Apprenticeships in trade skills differ greatly from the other types of on the job training. If you are in logistic training, and you miss a shipment, that doesn't cost the company all that much money. Equally, if you accidentally under scheduled for one shift in management training, it doesn't do that much harm.

On the opposite hand, learning a trade skill by it's very nature, is often a trial and error learning system. You put some new guy, who perhaps has never used a welder before in his life, and have him attack a product, there's a good chance you are going to end up with junk to throw away.

Equally you have some guy at an auto mechanic shop, chances are he's going to break stuff.

Essentially an apprenticeship program, is basically the company paying someone to come in and break things, until he learns how to not break things.

At the exact same time, you have to have one of your experienced productive employees, stop being productive and making money, and pay him to hold the new guys hand.

When you look at it this way, one would assume no company would ever have apprenticeships. The offset to all of that is.... cost. You pay the dude very very little, because he's very unproductive.

The problem today is, we have driven up cost. Thus employers can no longer offset the cost of paying an unproductive employee a lower wage.

I found this out when I worked for a dealership. I worked at Columbus Cadillac back in 2001. The Dealership opened a partnership with Columbus State Community College, which happened to be across the street from them.

Columbus Cadillac closed all of their apprenticeship positions, and instead directed new mechanics to CSCC for training, and then they would hire them.

I knew the manager well, and one day asked him to explain it all.

He told me all of this. Back in the 80s, the company had three full time apprenticeship positions, two to train mechanics, and one body shop guy.

In the early 90s, they dropped down to one Apprenticeship. And in the late 90s, they eliminated it as well.

The reason again, was simple. Cost. Back in the 70s and 80s, the cost to have an apprentice was only $3 an hour. In the 90s, it went up to $4.25, and in the late 90s, $5.25. Additionally, the unemployment compensation cost also went up. As you can well imagine, some apprentices didn't make the cut, and the company isn't going to funnel endless money into the bottomless pit of a guy who simply can't do the job. But when you cut him loose, unemployment compensation penalizes you for him not being able to do that job.

Add on top of that employer side taxes which increased from the 70s to the 90s, and that also drives up the cost of these unproductive, and possibly destructive apprentices.

The left in this country, in an effort to "help the little guy" has absolutely ruined the 'little guys' ability to get apprenticeship jobs.

All of these 'living wage' and 'social programs' that the left promoted as helping the lower-income people, have ruined them. That's the reason behind the loss of traditional apprenticeship programs.

 

[Rshermr]

So I do remember the days when apprenticeships were VERY common. It was when we made stuff here, pre china, and the other cheep manufacturing countries, and the resultant outsourcing. Somehow, the idea has come to be to replace US trained manufacturing with foreign manufacturing and foreign workers.

You have to have the gov involved in the training/schooling process, or it will not get done. Companies are not willing to pay for the future any more. And, they do not want to pay in the for m of taxes to cover gov programs.
So, what's the answer? Let the successful countries pay for education programs, the good old USA will plow their profits into their pockets? Makes the US look good short term, but losers in the long term, in my opinion.

First off, I get tired of this insane implication that "we need to pay more into education".

The US pays TONS into education. We plow more into the profits of the Teachers Unions, and teachers pockets, than nearly any other country in the world. The problem is not education.

Further, other countries are not paying for education programs more than we are. If you want the US to pay as much as other countries, we need to cut spending.

I'm not mad at you, but I am tired of this "we need to be like other countries and spend more on education!" Bull CRAP... If we were like other countries, we'd spend a hell of a lot less.

The problem is two fold... One, we have a teachers Union, and a socialized education system that promotes bad teaching.

Two, we have moronically and idiotically taught our kids "you are just so awesome little billy!". When kids think they are awesome, when they really suck, they don't see a need to study. Why do I have to learn math better, if I'm already amazing?!

Many of the very countries that people often point to foaming at the mouth as being better education system, have markedly less education, but higher quality education, and better students.

If you don't make the grade in Finland, you can't even get into high school. Shocking, they end up with better students using that system, and as a result, spend far less trying to educated students not interested in learning.

Second, I also get a little irritated when there is this blanket statement that companies won't pay for the future.

Nearly every major company has training programs. Many others have college reimbursement programs. Walmart, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, hundreds of companies offer training and education for various things.

I aggravates me that while people bicker about how companies are somehow not willing to 'pay for the future', and yet at the same time tend to scream and yell at the very companies that are paying for the future.

Thirdly, what you say about apprenticeship programs is true, but why?

While I just said there are many companies willing to invest into training, the fact is like you said.... the relative number if drastically lower. Only super big companies that have millions to spend on training do so. Most do not.... why?

There's a reason. It's a real simple reason too. It's called 'economics'.

Apprenticeships in trade skills differ greatly from the other types of on the job training. If you are in logistic training, and you miss a shipment, that doesn't cost the company all that much money. Equally, if you accidentally under scheduled for one shift in management training, it doesn't do that much harm.

On the opposite hand, learning a trade skill by it's very nature, is often a trial and error learning system. You put some new guy, who perhaps has never used a welder before in his life, and have him attack a product, there's a good chance you are going to end up with junk to throw away.

Equally you have some guy at an auto mechanic shop, chances are he's going to break stuff.

Essentially an apprenticeship program, is basically the company paying someone to come in and break things, until he learns how to not break things.

At the exact same time, you have to have one of your experienced productive employees, stop being productive and making money, and pay him to hold the new guys hand.

When you look at it this way, one would assume no company would ever have apprenticeships. The offset to all of that is.... cost. You pay the dude very very little, because he's very unproductive.

The problem today is, we have driven up cost. Thus employers can no longer offset the cost of paying an unproductive employee a lower wage.

I found this out when I worked for a dealership. I worked at Columbus Cadillac back in 2001. The Dealership opened a partnership with Columbus State Community College, which happened to be across the street from them.

Columbus Cadillac closed all of their apprenticeship positions, and instead directed new mechanics to CSCC for training, and then they would hire them.

I knew the manager well, and one day asked him to explain it all.

He told me all of this. Back in the 80s, the company had three full time apprenticeship positions, two to train mechanics, and one body shop guy.

In the early 90s, they dropped down to one Apprenticeship. And in the late 90s, they eliminated it as well.

The reason again, was simple. Cost. Back in the 70s and 80s, the cost to have an apprentice was only $3 an hour. In the 90s, it went up to $4.25, and in the late 90s, $5.25. Additionally, the unemployment compensation cost also went up. As you can well imagine, some apprentices didn't make the cut, and the company isn't going to funnel endless money into the bottomless pit of a guy who simply can't do the job. But when you cut him loose, unemployment compensation penalizes you for him not being able to do that job.

Add on top of that employer side taxes which increased from the 70s to the 90s, and that also drives up the cost of these unproductive, and possibly destructive apprentices.

The left in this country, in an effort to "help the little guy" has absolutely ruined the 'little guys' ability to get apprenticeship jobs.

All of these 'living wage' and 'social programs' that the left promoted as helping the lower-income people, have ruined them. That's the reason behind the loss of traditional apprenticeship programs.

Androw,

First off, I get tired of this insane implication that "we need to pay more into education".

The US pays TONS into education. We plow more into the profits of the Teachers Unions, and teachers pockets, than nearly any other country in the world. The problem is not education.

Further, other countries are not paying for education programs more than we are. If you want the US to pay as much as other countries, we need to cut spending.

Well, that is pure BS, me boy. Though it is true in the congo. You are talking about Finland below, which is a country with among the best education systems. They, and others with GOOD education results all pay more per student than the US does. Look at Finland. They have a completely government paid educatiion system, from pre elementary school to post high school education. And it INCLUDES vocational training.

I'm not mad at you, but I am tired of this "we need to be like other countries and spend more on education!" Bull CRAP... If we were like other countries, we'd spend a hell of a lot less.

I do not care in the least if you are mad at me or not. You are, however, wrong about the cost of education in this country if you are comparing it to other countries with good education systems.

The problem is two fold... One, we have a teachers Union, and a socialized education system that promotes bad teaching.

Each and every country with better education outcomes than those of the US have much more extensive socialized education systems than does the US. If you are looking for private education systems, you will find nearly none. And those that exist are a joke.

Two, we have moronically and idiotically taught our kids "you are just so awesome little billy!". When kids think they are awesome, when they really suck, they don't see a need to study. Why do I have to learn math better, if I'm already amazing?!

That would be your opinion. Do you have some reason that I should be impressed with your education???

Many of the very countries that people often point to foaming at the mouth as being better education system, have markedly less education, but higher quality education, and better students.

That, again, would be your opinion. some of what I agree with. So what???

If you don't make the grade in Finland, you can't even get into high school. Shocking, they end up with better students using that system, and as a result, spend far less trying to educated students not interested in learning.

They get options. If they do not go on to high school, they get a vocational education. Paid for by the gov. Sounds good to me.

 

[Andylusion]

You are talking about Finland below, which is a country with among the best education systems. They, and others with GOOD education results all pay more per student than the US does. Look at Finland. They have a completely government paid educatiion system, from pre elementary school to post high school education. And it INCLUDES vocational training.

ENOUGH. What is with you people that you can't just acknowledge basic facts?

U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows - CBS News

The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year, with parents and private foundations picking up more of the costs, an international survey released Tuesday found.

Despite the spending, U.S. students still trail their rivals on international tests.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.

The findings, part of a 440-page tome of statistics, put the United States' spending on its young people in context.

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.

ENOUGH!!! The US spends more on education than any other 1st world country.... PERIOD. You got that 'me boy'?

Each and every country with better education outcomes than those of the US have much more extensive socialized education systems than does the US. If you are looking for private education systems, you will find nearly none. And those that exist are a joke.

Education 2011: spending, class sizes, teachers pay and statistics compared by country | News | theguardian.com

Fun Facts....

Teacher pay in the UK, both starting, and the top of the pay scale, is lower than in the US.

Public spending as a percent of all public spending:
USA 13.8%
EU21 11.7%
UK 11.1%

High school graduation rates:
USA 76%
EU21 85%
UK 92%

English tuition-fee regime gets thumbs up on mobility | General | Times Higher Education

Yeah, education is never privately funded other than those terrible 3rd world countries like.... Japan.... South Korea.... Australia... even the UK.

They get options. If they do not go on to high school, they get a vocational education. Paid for by the gov. Sounds good to me.

So let's talk about Finland.

First, kids don't even start school until age 7.
Second, teachers only spend 4 hours a day in the class room.
Third, teachers have a starting salary of only $29K, almost a full $5,000 less than a US teacher makes.

This idea we just need to dump more into education... still wrong. We've tried it your way, with head start, and pre-head-start, and all this pre-pre-start, crap. It doesn't work.

Further, this showering more money into teachers, also doesn't work. Again, as I have proven, and will prove yet again.....

With the exception of Switzerland, the United States spends the most in the world on education, an average of $91,700 per student in the nine years between the ages of six and 15.
But the results do not correlate: For instance, we spend one-third more per student than Finland, which consistently ranks near the top in science, reading and math.

America Spends More on Education, Gets Worse Outcomes

In this one, it didn't include education spending over 15. We are number two, behind only Switzerland, and yet while spending 33% more than Finland, we end up with far less education than Finland.

We spend more than anyone else overall. Yet education in our country is terrible. Money is not the problem.

Lastly, some fundamentals of their system.
The truth about Finland's education miracle » Spectator Blogs

While Finland specifically doesn't have 'privately funded' schools, they do have 'free schools'. The school is still paid a flat fee per student, but is otherwise completely independent from the government run public schools.

Furthermore, in Finnish sixth form, which is not compulsory, choice is extensive. One in eight pupils attend free schools; in Helsinki, it’s one in three.

A significant portion of students attend free-school, independent of the government run schools.

Further....

Crucially, admission to all schools is determined by, firstly, pupils’ choices and, secondly, their grades in compulsory school – without any concern for where pupils live. This makes all sixth form schools in Finland more similar to grammar schools than comprehensive schools. Research suggests that this system improves achievement in lower grades, because pupils work harder to gain admission to top schools and programmes. In other words, the extremely competitive system that exists in sixth form also increases achievement in compulsory education.

So there you have it: Finland does school competition, which partly explains its success in PISA. Studies show unequivocally that school choice lifts countries on both PISA and TIMSS league tables. It increases the fairness of outcomes. It decreases costs. The corollary is clear: Finland would do even better if it were to instil more choice in its education system – in sharp contrast to choice critics’ arguments

In other words, all schools, including public and free-schools, are all in competition. It's the voucher system, that the left has attacked over and over.

Even Religious Free-Schools, are competing on equal terms. There is no preference to public gov-schools.

And guess what happens when the school loses all it's students? It closes. Even the gov-schools, if they can't get people to enroll, close.

Sounds like Free-market Capitalism, now doesn't it? Competing with services on the market. Shockingly... it works.

There was another article I found, but I accidentally lost it. At the end of the article a teacher was being interviewed, and said they had noticed parents were pulling their students out of their school, and as a result they were trying new teaching methods to attract more students.

Why does the teacher know, or even care, that enrollment is down? Do you know any US teachers fretting over low enrollment? The answer is simple... they have to have students, or they lose their job. So now they are trying new systems and methods to help learning.

Well crap! That sounds like an evil Corporation trying new products or services to get customers! You mean free-market competition works even in education?? SHOCKING! I am now shocked.... SHOCKED I say. Are you shocked me boy?