Clearing The Misunderstanding

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

 

[Andylusion]

The self esteem craze came from parents threatening teachers because they had the fall to give their kid an F because thats what the kid earned. Once a teacher gave a few failing grades the principal would be on the teacher because the phone was ringing. It wasn't the teachers begging for this it was pressure by the parents. The admin then did what the parents wanted.

That is true.... I agree with you.... however.....

The only reason that parents had the ability to pressure the school... is because it is run by the government, which the parents are paying taxes for.

This would never happen anywhere else. Say you had a restaurant, and you were making money hand over fist, and a customer came in and demanded you changed how the food was made, because it made little Timmy sad.

Would you do it? Of course not. You are not going to change your recipes because little Timmy is upset, when you have line of paying customers out the door, and changing your food could lose you all that money. "Thanks for your time, but this is how we do it. You are welcome to go elsewhere".

Right?

Same is true of education, in a free-market capitalist system. If you go to a private school, and go whine and cry bitterly to the private schools administration... at the very most they might investigate to verify Timmy got a fair grade, for the quality of work he turned in. But once that is verified, they don't care. You can keep your money, and take Timmy to another school.

Why is that? Because if you cut the quality of the education, and little Timmy gets an A+ on a test where he missed 50% of the questions, and he goes to college, and ends up failing out.... the reputation of your private school for quality education is destroyed.

And people do not pay, and take the time, to put their kids into a private school or charter school, if the quality of the education is not better. Your reputation for quality education is the only way you make a profit.

If you know that... you would never compromise on educational standards no matter what the parents say. Compromising would doom your business, and leave you in bankruptcy and closing.

This is why we on the right-wing support school choice, and private/charter schools. It brings back into the mindset, the absolute requirement for quality.

In public schools, it is the opposite. The motivation is to keep the parents happy so they don't complain to government. If that means sacrificing quality, to make parents happy, then so be it.

 

[initforme]

Andy I agree with much of your post. Being a school board member for a small rural town where the school is highly successful for many moons I sat thru meeting where a teacher that got good results was raked over the coals because he gave 'too many f's". However, his records showed those students failed to complete much of his coursework. He would state "they earned an F".
Nevertheless he was coerced to not come back and retired as he was eligible and decided it wasn't worth fighting anymore. My kids had him and learned much. They really respected him. He had demands. Some parents didn't like that. They won in the end. So from my experience I saw this occur more than once and experience always ranks above reading a book.

 

[mgh80]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

Well if that were true, then it should be by your logic, impossible for non-union schools to turn out better educated kids than union schools.

And we know that isn't the case.

Here's my issue with the unions generally speaking.

So here in Ohio, we have charters schools. And one day I was at work and eating lunch in the break room, and flipped to the government channel, and they were debating charter schools in the Ohio legislature.

The pro-charter people pointed out that nearly every single charter school was producing more students who were proficient at their grade level, than the public schools in the area they were located.

Meaning a Charter school in the ghetto was not out performing a public school in upper-class suburbs, no. But it was out performing the public school in the ghetto the charter school was in.

The evidence for this was with a few exceptions, largely consistent across the state. Charter school routinely out performed public schools, even with the same students from the same geographic area.

So then the Teachers Union showed up, and presented their case that charter schools should be closed. Charter schools were not "diverse" enough. Charter schools take money from the public schools.

The argument from the teacher's union, said nothing on academics, or educational outcomes, or anything about the welfare of the students.

Instead their entire argument for why we shouldn't have charter schools, was for the sake of diversity and taking money from public schools.

Now that should tell you something about the Unions. They are don't care about educational outcomes. You can say they do, but their actions, and the arguments they use to back their actions proves otherwise.

That doesn't mean they are bad for teachers. Of course teachers benefit from the Unions. I get that. My father was an official in the teacher's union. When there was a dispute between a teacher and the school administration, he was the guy they had moderate between them.

But the fact remains that having the Unions benefit the teachers at the expense of the students, is a bad trade. It just is. You should never oppose something, that results in better educated students.

-Of course it's possible it's just not as likely. However the more incentive you offer for a position the more people that apply for it and the more options the employer has to choose from. This is common sense and applies to all jobs-not just teaching.

-I don't teach in Ohio so I can't comment on it. I will tell you that in my district charter schools do about as well as public schools for the most part. Some outperform them, others underperform them. What's important to keep in mind is that charters are allowed to refuse admission to students whereas traditional public school must accept every potential student in their zone. Being able to hand pick your student body gives you an obvious advantage (take a look at many private schools for a great example of this). I'm not against charter schools but I've seen MANY students return to a traditional public school when their families realize that charter schools aren't the magic pill some act like they are.

Again I want to stress I am NOT against charter schools. Imagine you're hiring people at your job. Let's say you get to look over resumes and hand pick whom you want to hire. Now let's say you must hire every applicant you receive. Which is going to get you better results? The answer is obvious.

 

[mgh80]

Teacher unions are much like police unions and every other public union - they fight like hell to keep bad employees who should be fired on the job. Yeah sure, teachers don't kill kids, but they do rape them. Although you wonder how many young lives were forever damaged or even destroyed by a predatory teacher. And it ain't just sexual misconduct, it's the inadequate learning that somebody's kids aren't getting because the teacher doesn't give a fuck.

Kind of a broad brush there, tasky....


The OP simply explained that unions are there to advance the wishes, and needs, of their members.

True. BUT, sometimes public unions advance the wishes and needs of their members beyond what is beneficial for the rest of us, specifically our school children. In some places there are situations where it is hard as hell to get rid of a bad teacher, just like it is to fire a bad cop. But too many times it doesn't happen and sooner or later the next victimization occurs. Why? Because the public union had too much sway over the decisions made in the case. Which doesn't mean in every case we have to fire somebody, it has to be for a righteous and verified reason based on more than he said she said. We shouldn't fire somebody based on an accusation, BUT when one accusation becomes 10 then it becomes a little bit different. Why were all 10 accusations dismissed? Were the prior accusations allowed into the deliberation? In some places, the union contract says no they aren't. And in some places prior accusations are deleted from a person's file after 6 months or whatever. Not cool.

Rock: " The unions provide for due process. Would you like it if I walked into where you work and fired you because I didn't like you? "

No, I wouldn't like it. Your situation is I think not uncommon, people are let go for fiscal reasons rather that a lack of merit. But there has to be a distinction between someone fired for cause and somebody fired without just cause. Or in your case not retained. But given a choice between the 2 situations, I'd rather not have a public union that can keep bad employees. You say the union couldn't do anything cuz you weren't tenured; maybe that's the fault of the union cuz the contract didn't give them the option to fight for an untenured teacher.

Rock: " most teachers' unions are barred from striking by law "

You sure about that? It sure seems like it's the other way around, but the ones that can strike sure do make a lot of noise about it. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three. That said, teachers do strike in states where it’s illegal - in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, it’s illegal for public school teachers to strike. But, teachers in these states went on strike anyway, and most of them got the pay raises they wanted. They could have all gotten fired, or even put in jail. But they had an advantage: strength in numbers. It's kinda hard to replace thousands of teachers.

Sounds like teachers in 47 states are not barred from striking.

Post #16

Elaborate a little bit, please? I'm a little slow today, actually I'm a little slow everyday. But I missed your point.

Look - public unions are generally people with a significant amount of institutional knowledge and skills, and in number that make them a force to reckon with whether they have the right to legally strike or not. We see in the cops that didn't show up for work that one night in Atlanta, blue flu right? If the teachers refuse to show up, our kids will get no schooling, so what difference really does it make if there is or isn't a union? Except that a union has a lot of political power in terms of political influence and donations (money). Which leads to quid pro quo and that ain't good for the rest of us. Which lead to higher salaries/benefits and too much job security for those who shouldn't have it.

Now - the unions themselves are not the only ones at fault here. There's also the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought or swayed by union power, and the voters who do not/did not vote said politicians out of office. And BTW, IMHO education should be entirely managed at the local and state level, the federal gov't should have absolutely nothing to do with education regs/loans, and subsidies. Outside perhaps of certain research grants.

a. The Constitution allows unions
b. Government can cancel public unions....but they won't
The entire purpose of public unions is to get their members to vote for said politicians.


Pay for votes with public money.

How is it public money if it comes from union dues?

The local/state/or federal government administers the payments of dues, and delivery of same to the unions. Said administration is at a cost to taxpayers.

In NYC, the law, the Taylor Law, cuts off 'check off,' that sending union dues from the paychecks of teachers to the union, in case of a strike.

The always works, because the union knows that individual teachers will not voluntarily send in their dues.

That is only in NY. That is NOT common practice.

What is not a common practice.......the municipality collecting the dues out of the teacher's paycheck, before it is paid???

You're claiming that, nationwide, teachers all dutifully send in their dues???




"The checkoff system is very attractive to a union since the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues."
Checkoff legal definition of Checkoff



"Government collection of union dues has been a hot-button issue in at least the past two legislative sessions and is bound to rear its head again, especially now that many more public employee unions have willingly transferred their members to a private dues collection method. "

Unions Reforming Their Own Dues Collection Method - Texas Scorecard

Union dues reform isn't law in Texas yet, but some unions have started implementing it themselves.

texasscorecard.com

In my state it's illegal for public unions to mandate for employees to be members. Most teachers are in the union-others are not.

There are still 19 states without right-to-work laws, which means that if you want to work in a given union controlled occupation, you are required to be part of the Union, and give your money to the Union.

Even in states that do have right-to-work laws, in many causes the school districts have union rules, that mean if 50% of the teachers, plus one... So just over 50%, vote for Union representation, that then Union negotiates exclusively for all teachers in the district whether they are in the union, or vote for or against union representation.

Compulsory Unionism in Education

One of the greatest things about America is that we are free to elect our own government representatives. Anyone who is considered an adult and a United States citizen is allowed to vote for the people who will make the laws of the land. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to...

nilrr.org

So even if you have a right-to-work without being forced to join the Union, the Union still has the power to dictate the contract that you must abide by.

None of this changes my claim whatsoever.

 

[mgh80]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

 

[task0778]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

Well if that were true, then it should be by your logic, impossible for non-union schools to turn out better educated kids than union schools.

And we know that isn't the case.

Here's my issue with the unions generally speaking.

So here in Ohio, we have charters schools. And one day I was at work and eating lunch in the break room, and flipped to the government channel, and they were debating charter schools in the Ohio legislature.

The pro-charter people pointed out that nearly every single charter school was producing more students who were proficient at their grade level, than the public schools in the area they were located.

Meaning a Charter school in the ghetto was not out performing a public school in upper-class suburbs, no. But it was out performing the public school in the ghetto the charter school was in.

The evidence for this was with a few exceptions, largely consistent across the state. Charter school routinely out performed public schools, even with the same students from the same geographic area.

So then the Teachers Union showed up, and presented their case that charter schools should be closed. Charter schools were not "diverse" enough. Charter schools take money from the public schools.

The argument from the teacher's union, said nothing on academics, or educational outcomes, or anything about the welfare of the students.

Instead their entire argument for why we shouldn't have charter schools, was for the sake of diversity and taking money from public schools.

Now that should tell you something about the Unions. They are don't care about educational outcomes. You can say they do, but their actions, and the arguments they use to back their actions proves otherwise.

That doesn't mean they are bad for teachers. Of course teachers benefit from the Unions. I get that. My father was an official in the teacher's union. When there was a dispute between a teacher and the school administration, he was the guy they had moderate between them.

But the fact remains that having the Unions benefit the teachers at the expense of the students, is a bad trade. It just is. You should never oppose something, that results in better educated students.

-Of course it's possible it's just not as likely. However the more incentive you offer for a position the more people that apply for it and the more options the employer has to choose from. This is common sense and applies to all jobs-not just teaching.

-I don't teach in Ohio so I can't comment on it. I will tell you that in my district charter schools do about as well as public schools for the most part. Some outperform them, others underperform them. What's important to keep in mind is that charters are allowed to refuse admission to students whereas traditional public school must accept every potential student in their zone. Being able to hand pick your student body gives you an obvious advantage (take a look at many private schools for a great example of this). I'm not against charter schools but I've seen MANY students return to a traditional public school when their families realize that charter schools aren't the magic pill some act like they are.

Again I want to stress I am NOT against charter schools. Imagine you're hiring people at your job. Let's say you get to look over resumes and hand pick whom you want to hire. Now let's say you must hire every applicant you receive. Which is going to get you better results? The answer is obvious.

First I want to thank the posters who made this a decent thread to read and participate in and kept it civil and on topic.

Re charter schools, I think it's the parents who want their kid to succeed that try to get their kid into a better school. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but they're more involved than the parents that don't seem to care as much and those are the parents of students who underachieve more often. Kid need guidance and leadership, when you read stories of successful people who came out of the ghetto, it's always because somebody cared enough to get on them to finish school and do their homework. That's called love, and it's also called teaching discipline and responsibility, which is something losers don't have. I'm not so sure the quality of the school matters or whether it's public or not, I think it's more about what happens at home.

 

[Andylusion]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

Well if that were true, then it should be by your logic, impossible for non-union schools to turn out better educated kids than union schools.

And we know that isn't the case.

Here's my issue with the unions generally speaking.

So here in Ohio, we have charters schools. And one day I was at work and eating lunch in the break room, and flipped to the government channel, and they were debating charter schools in the Ohio legislature.

The pro-charter people pointed out that nearly every single charter school was producing more students who were proficient at their grade level, than the public schools in the area they were located.

Meaning a Charter school in the ghetto was not out performing a public school in upper-class suburbs, no. But it was out performing the public school in the ghetto the charter school was in.

The evidence for this was with a few exceptions, largely consistent across the state. Charter school routinely out performed public schools, even with the same students from the same geographic area.

So then the Teachers Union showed up, and presented their case that charter schools should be closed. Charter schools were not "diverse" enough. Charter schools take money from the public schools.

The argument from the teacher's union, said nothing on academics, or educational outcomes, or anything about the welfare of the students.

Instead their entire argument for why we shouldn't have charter schools, was for the sake of diversity and taking money from public schools.

Now that should tell you something about the Unions. They are don't care about educational outcomes. You can say they do, but their actions, and the arguments they use to back their actions proves otherwise.

That doesn't mean they are bad for teachers. Of course teachers benefit from the Unions. I get that. My father was an official in the teacher's union. When there was a dispute between a teacher and the school administration, he was the guy they had moderate between them.

But the fact remains that having the Unions benefit the teachers at the expense of the students, is a bad trade. It just is. You should never oppose something, that results in better educated students.

-Of course it's possible it's just not as likely. However the more incentive you offer for a position the more people that apply for it and the more options the employer has to choose from. This is common sense and applies to all jobs-not just teaching.

-I don't teach in Ohio so I can't comment on it. I will tell you that in my district charter schools do about as well as public schools for the most part. Some outperform them, others underperform them. What's important to keep in mind is that charters are allowed to refuse admission to students whereas traditional public school must accept every potential student in their zone. Being able to hand pick your student body gives you an obvious advantage (take a look at many private schools for a great example of this). I'm not against charter schools but I've seen MANY students return to a traditional public school when their families realize that charter schools aren't the magic pill some act like they are.

Again I want to stress I am NOT against charter schools. Imagine you're hiring people at your job. Let's say you get to look over resumes and hand pick whom you want to hire. Now let's say you must hire every applicant you receive. Which is going to get you better results? The answer is obvious.

Of course it's possible it's just not as likely. However the more incentive you offer for a position the more people that apply for it and the more options the employer has to choose from. This is common sense and applies to all jobs-not just teaching.
Imagine you're hiring people at your job. Let's say you get to look over resumes and hand pick whom you want to hire. Now let's say you must hire every applicant you receive. Which is going to get you better results? The answer is obvious..

Yes, I agree, except we can see clearly its not working.

Why are private and charter schools, having better results, if they don't have unions? In fact, why do the charter and private schools in your own post doing equally as well, without unions?

So something is missing from your equation, no matter how logical it sounds.

Some outperform them, others underperform them. What's important to keep in mind is that charters are allowed to refuse admission to students whereas traditional public school must accept every potential student in their zone. Being able to hand pick your student body gives you an obvious advantage (take a look at many private schools for a great example of this).

So three problems with that.

1. When you say some under perform, and others over perform... compared to what exactly?

Is there only one public school in the entire area, and you are comparing all the charter and private schools, to one public school? Because I'm guessing those charter and private schools are not all in one place, which changes the make up of the school.

Are you comparing them to the average of public schools in your area? Because there are public schools that suck, and public schools that are average, and public schools that are above average.

Typically what I've seen, is that if you compare a charter or private school, to the nearest public school, they consistently out perform the public school closest to where they are.

2. Many of the charter schools that consistently out perform public schools, not only do they not pick and choose the student body, but they actually have a lottery. For example, Success Academy in NYC, they have 1192 students trying to get into those schools. They way they pick, is by lottery.

So they are not picking and choosing who gets to come in. And yet they are still out performing the public schools.

3. Yes, charter schools are not required to take bad children. If your kid shows up and refuses study, or causes problems, they kick that student out.

Meanwhile public schools are required to teach them.

You are acting like that is a negative of charter schools. No, that is the positive. That is exactly one of the reasons charter schools do better than public schools, and exactly why everyone should have vouchers and school choice.

If public schools did the same, they would be better schools. That policy, that "no child left behind" mentality, is the problem.

You do realize that no other country in the world does this? No other country I am aware of, does this.

If you go to Japan, and enroll your child, and they cause a problem, they just flat out kick your kid out of school. Your kid doesn't make the grade, they just send him home. They don't waste their time with that crap.

Finland, Sweden, Denmark, I don't know of any other country where they simply must take every child.

Your kid doesn't make the grade, they don't play games, they send them home.

In fact, in most of those countries, you have to take high school entrance exams. If you do not pass the exam to get INTO high school, then you don't go.

And this is exactly why their students do better. You want to not be the laughing stock of the school? You better study. You want to go to High school with your friends? You better study. You don't pass, you can wave goodbye to all your friends.

You think that motivates students to put down the cell phone and video games, and learn their stuff? Yes it does. Which is exactly why they do better.

And it keeps them out of trouble too. You get into one too many fights, or dare to strike a teacher, you are just flat out gone. There is none of this parents coming in, and chit chatting... no no no wave goodbye to your friends, because you won't be seeing them again.

I'm not against charter schools but I've seen MANY students return to a traditional public school when their families realize that charter schools aren't the magic pill some act like they are.

And that is my point. Give people choice. Let them have the choice. Stop the unions from preventing parents from making the choice. Force public schools to compete with private schools and charter schools on educational grounds.

If you really are doing the better job at the public schools, then you have nothing to worry about. The parents will figure all this out, and bring their kids back.

But I guarantee that if you openly allowed that, there would be some school systems that would be near bankrupt, because they suck so badly.

Public schools are just horrendous for the most part.

 

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

 

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

We're talking about kids.

There is no self selection. The kids are not choosing for themselves.

So you are assuming that every parent who chooses for the child, to go to the school, that all those kids are just by chance smarter and more academically successful than other students, because their parents picked for them to go to a charter school? I don't think so.

If we're talking about college, where the students are picking the school, then that makes sense. But I don't think that applies very well to this situation.

Do you have evidence of this? I'll be happy to consider whatever you offer.

 

[mgh80]

I was never a teacher. As stated I served on the school board for many years. 58 grand is a kick in the guts. Lower class. Teachers here in Wisconsin get a new contract every year and any teacher can simply not be given a contract with no reason why. Any bad teachers can be let go. Again, 58 grand? Pffft. Ouch.

The median household income for Wisconsin was $59,305 in 2017, the latest figures available.

You're telling me a tenured teacher in Wisconsin can be let go for no reason? Doesn't say much for their union, I'm pretty sure that such is not the case in most states. In a lot of places the teacher's union will fight like hell to keep a bad teacher in the classroom or at least employed. And I'm pretty sure in most places a tenured teacher has a job for as long as they want it. To get fired they'd have to do something really, really bad.

I'm teacher who'll never be tenured (nobody in my district is anymore). Doesn't bother me really as my scores have always been really strong so I'm not worried about it.

However unions aren't the devil to education like some people might think. They focus on making working as a teacher more appealing. The more appealing it is, the more people who apply. The more people who apply the more choices schools get. The more choices schools get the better teachers they end up getting. Better teachers being hired turn out better results for students. This isn't rocket science.

Well if that were true, then it should be by your logic, impossible for non-union schools to turn out better educated kids than union schools.

And we know that isn't the case.

Here's my issue with the unions generally speaking.

So here in Ohio, we have charters schools. And one day I was at work and eating lunch in the break room, and flipped to the government channel, and they were debating charter schools in the Ohio legislature.

The pro-charter people pointed out that nearly every single charter school was producing more students who were proficient at their grade level, than the public schools in the area they were located.

Meaning a Charter school in the ghetto was not out performing a public school in upper-class suburbs, no. But it was out performing the public school in the ghetto the charter school was in.

The evidence for this was with a few exceptions, largely consistent across the state. Charter school routinely out performed public schools, even with the same students from the same geographic area.

So then the Teachers Union showed up, and presented their case that charter schools should be closed. Charter schools were not "diverse" enough. Charter schools take money from the public schools.

The argument from the teacher's union, said nothing on academics, or educational outcomes, or anything about the welfare of the students.

Instead their entire argument for why we shouldn't have charter schools, was for the sake of diversity and taking money from public schools.

Now that should tell you something about the Unions. They are don't care about educational outcomes. You can say they do, but their actions, and the arguments they use to back their actions proves otherwise.

That doesn't mean they are bad for teachers. Of course teachers benefit from the Unions. I get that. My father was an official in the teacher's union. When there was a dispute between a teacher and the school administration, he was the guy they had moderate between them.

But the fact remains that having the Unions benefit the teachers at the expense of the students, is a bad trade. It just is. You should never oppose something, that results in better educated students.

-Of course it's possible it's just not as likely. However the more incentive you offer for a position the more people that apply for it and the more options the employer has to choose from. This is common sense and applies to all jobs-not just teaching.

-I don't teach in Ohio so I can't comment on it. I will tell you that in my district charter schools do about as well as public schools for the most part. Some outperform them, others underperform them. What's important to keep in mind is that charters are allowed to refuse admission to students whereas traditional public school must accept every potential student in their zone. Being able to hand pick your student body gives you an obvious advantage (take a look at many private schools for a great example of this). I'm not against charter schools but I've seen MANY students return to a traditional public school when their families realize that charter schools aren't the magic pill some act like they are.

Again I want to stress I am NOT against charter schools. Imagine you're hiring people at your job. Let's say you get to look over resumes and hand pick whom you want to hire. Now let's say you must hire every applicant you receive. Which is going to get you better results? The answer is obvious.

First I want to thank the posters who made this a decent thread to read and participate in and kept it civil and on topic.

Re charter schools, I think it's the parents who want their kid to succeed that try to get their kid into a better school. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but they're more involved than the parents that don't seem to care as much and those are the parents of students who underachieve more often. Kid need guidance and leadership, when you read stories of successful people who came out of the ghetto, it's always because somebody cared enough to get on them to finish school and do their homework. That's called love, and it's also called teaching discipline and responsibility, which is something losers don't have. I'm not so sure the quality of the school matters or whether it's public or not, I think it's more about what happens at home.

First of all thank you for a civil discussion on education. I love when the issues are discussed and people can learn form one another-even if they come from different perspectives. Cheers.

Also, I happen to largely agree with this post of yours. My favorite student (it's hard not to play favorites) came from the ghetto. He grew up around gangs, drugs, crime, gun shots, etc. He kept his head down, and kept his eye on his exit. He worked his ass off and was able to be moved to my current school (middle class area)-I forget now how he did it but there are ways to do so. He was the hardest working student I've ever had. Wasn't the most naturally brightest (average intelligence) but boy did he bust his ass in the classroom and on the track. One of the most polite and respectful students I ever had too. Earned a scholarship for college running track and now has a good paying job. I admire and respect the hell out of him (he's probably around 25ish now). Such a great role model for people in a similar situation that what he used to be in.

 

[mgh80]

Yes, I agree, except we can see clearly its not working.

Why are private and charter schools, having better results, if they don't have unions? In fact, why do the charter and private schools in your own post doing equally as well, without unions?

So something is missing from your equation, no matter how logical it sounds.

Again private and (some) charter schools have better results than some public schools because they have the ability to deny students-public schools don't. I've taught in classes full of gang members before (mostly Latin Kings)-you think they're going to be accepted to a private school?

Who do you think is going to care more about their education a kid from a family that values education enough to pay for private school, kids who meet the requirements for charter...or the kids who are in school to sell molly and break into houses on the weekend? At the first school I worked out we used to get arrest reports in our mailbox from students in our classes who were arrested. I'd have 2-3 a week. Come on now...

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, I agree, except we can see clearly its not working.

Why are private and charter schools, having better results, if they don't have unions? In fact, why do the charter and private schools in your own post doing equally as well, without unions?

So something is missing from your equation, no matter how logical it sounds.

Again private and (some) charter schools have better results than some public schools because they have the ability to deny students-public schools don't. I've taught in classes full of gang members before (mostly Latin Kings)-you think they're going to be accepted to a private school?

Who do you think is going to care more about their education a kid from a family that values education enough to pay for private school, kids who meet the requirements for charter...or the kids who are in school to sell molly and break into houses on the weekend? At the first school I worked out we used to get arrest reports in our mailbox from students in our classes who were arrested. I'd have 2-3 a week. Come on now...

And just as I said before, that's *MY* point. All schools should be able to deny bad students, and thus improve educational outcomes.

If you are saying this reason above, is why X school does better, and why public schools do not, then we need to apply that system to public schools.... or we need to end public schools.

If you are saying the reasons they can't teach in public schools, is because of bad students they can't get rid of, and public schools can't end that policy.... then we need to end public schools.

The point of a school is to educate. If they can't educate because of a bad policy, then we need to either end the policy, or end the school.

What is the point of having 7 public schools in Baltimore, where 0% of students come out able to do math?

At the first school I worked out we used to get arrest reports in our mailbox from students in our classes who were arrested. I'd have 2-3 a week. Come on now...

And again, that is my point. You are making my point.

That would never happen in Japan. That would never happen in Finland. That would never happen in most of the world.

Because most of the world does not have such idiotic policies like "no child left behind". Heck no, they leave your butt behind.

They just kick your criminal butt out of school, and that's it for you. Good luck flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Because that's where such a person is going to end up anyway. Should we waste millions on millions of tax dollars, for people who is going to just end up criminals anyway?

In Finland, the moment a student shows up with disciplinary problems, they walk your butt to the door. You can go to a special boot-camp like school for trouble makers, or you simply don't go to school.

And this by the way, this is exactly why they have fewer problem children in Japan, and Finland and so on.

Your students know that if they go to jail, when they get out, they go right back to school. They know this. So they don't worry about being kicked out of school, when they get caught breaking into someone's car.

In Japan and others, the school gets notice that the police have you, they just remove your name from the enrollment list, and that's the end of that.

You think that makes students think twice about getting into trouble? Of course!

Again, everything you are saying, is exactly why charter and private schools do better. You are making my case for charter and private schools.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

We're talking about kids.

There is no self selection. The kids are not choosing for themselves.

So you are assuming that every parent who chooses for the child, to go to the school, that all those kids are just by chance smarter and more academically successful than other students, because their parents picked for them to go to a charter school? I don't think so.

If we're talking about college, where the students are picking the school, then that makes sense. But I don't think that applies very well to this situation.

Do you have evidence of this? I'll be happy to consider whatever you offer.

This is about charter schools where self selection bias could not be better exemplified. You just don't know what it means.

 

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

We're talking about kids.

There is no self selection. The kids are not choosing for themselves.

So you are assuming that every parent who chooses for the child, to go to the school, that all those kids are just by chance smarter and more academically successful than other students, because their parents picked for them to go to a charter school? I don't think so.

If we're talking about college, where the students are picking the school, then that makes sense. But I don't think that applies very well to this situation.

Do you have evidence of this? I'll be happy to consider whatever you offer.

This is about charter schools where self selection bias could not be better exemplified. You just don't know what it means.

But they are saying that at Success Academy, that they have literally a thousands kids applying for each spot in the school. And they have a lottery for who gets in.

So all those self-selected people, are going back to the public schools. That's thousands of kids that didn't get in.

I suppose the only way to prove conclusively, would be to compare the grades of those who didn't get in, to those that did.

I'd be interested to see that data.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

We're talking about kids.

There is no self selection. The kids are not choosing for themselves.

So you are assuming that every parent who chooses for the child, to go to the school, that all those kids are just by chance smarter and more academically successful than other students, because their parents picked for them to go to a charter school? I don't think so.

If we're talking about college, where the students are picking the school, then that makes sense. But I don't think that applies very well to this situation.

Do you have evidence of this? I'll be happy to consider whatever you offer.

This is about charter schools where self selection bias could not be better exemplified. You just don't know what it means.

But they are saying that at Success Academy, that they have literally a thousands kids applying for each spot in the school. And they have a lottery for who gets in.

So all those self-selected people, are going back to the public schools. That's thousands of kids that didn't get in.

I suppose the only way to prove conclusively, would be to compare the grades of those who didn't get in, to those that did.

I'd be interested to see that data.

So why do you think that is not self selection bias?

No. Those scores are irrelevant though they likely are higher than average due to parental involvement.

 

[Andylusion]

I've heard this quote before, and the dispute over its attribution, but it is worth considering.

The quote is attributed to the Guardian Saint of the largest teacher's union, NY's UFT....


"This week [2011], in an Atlantic article, former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein dropped an incendiary Albert Shanker quote that you’ve probably heard before:

When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.

The Shanker folks dispute his saying that, but, putting that aside, it really advances the question as to the nature of the teacher's union.
The question at issue is not whether teachers have the interests of their charges at heart......many do, some don't.....just as every other position held by human beings.

The question is the nature of unions.
I contend that the Shanker quote is essentially correct, and it is the reason for teacher's or any other union.
Auto worker's unions aren't created to increase reliability or utility of automobiles.....they are there to benefit, monetarily and comfortability-wise, the workers.


If your politicians tell you they gave the teacher's union collectivization and 'check-off' rights.....(the collection of union dues, to be passed on to the union)....they are simply lying.
They did so to accrue the votes of union members.
Wise up.


Do no imagine this post as one aimed against unions of any sort.....I follow the Constitution which includes the right to unionize:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In conclusion, I don't attribute extra special humanity to any group, or their individuals.
Simply follow Reagan's advice: trust, but verify.
Understand the nature of unions.

I don't understand how anyone that is not connected to the Unions, could ever be against school choice.

How can a person that has no political or monetary dog in the fight, honestly be against people having choice?

If your school is so much better than any alternative, then logically no one would move their kids to the alternative.

In which case.... what are you against?

I've never understood that.

Logistically everybody would have to go to the few schools that it's just not possible to allow every student the choice to attend to specific school they want. My district has choice but there needs to be a reason (such as a school is offering an elective you want to take that yours doesn't). I'm ok with choice for specified reasons such as that or other reasons. But it's just not possible to accommodate everybody.

Also schools can only perform at the level of their student bodies. So test scores went up when I went from one school to another. That's just because of the students of each school-the gains my students had were similar. Give me a classroom of all-star players and a classroom of minor leaguers and you're going to get different results in terms of raw numbers.

Of course it is possible to accommodate everyone. Of course it is.

By that logic, no free market system should be able to accommodate everyone.

If you own a restaurant, and the restaurant is absolutely packed wall to wall, with lines out the door, from open to close... what do you do as a business owner?

Well you use the profits you are getting from those customers, to open another store. Right? This is why chain stores even exist.

This is why the Capitalist system results in improvements throughout the entire economy. Garbage stores close, and good stores open. If you go to a store that sucks, and everyone hates it, then you stop going and it closes. Instead they go to the good store.

Thus good stores open more locations, and serve more and more customers. Bad stores close, and disappear.

That's why countries that have market based economies are universally better than those that don't.

That same basic system, that results in accommodating more and more people, would... and I say does.... work in education.

Success Academy started off as one school in Harlem, and now has 47 schools across New York.

KIP DC, has now opened 18 schools in Washington DC.

The for-profit incentive creates the very system that allows them to accommodate more and more students.

Of course if you ban private and charter schools, then you are right. Students have to be locked into a failing system, because the public system which is governed by politics, simply won't accommodate them. When you trap people in the system, you can't allow them to move from one school to another, or you would everyone in one school, and none in the other. In a static socialized government funded system, that doesn't work.

But any time you have a free-market system, the money flows to the productive businesses, which then expand to accommodate more customers, to increase profits. Profit results in more public accommodate. Always has.

My school has roughly 2,800 students (I'm going to use last year's numbers since obviously the numbers and entire situation will be different this upcoming year). We use every classroom, have several "floating" teachers to accommodate the lack of classrooms, and our classes are overcrowded. My state's voters years ago passed a class size amendment to cap core classes (I teach a core class) at 25 students. This was the will of voters. However they use the mean when analyzing and not the median or a hard cap. This includes self-contained ESE classrooms of 3-4 kids.

My personal classroom comfortably seats up to 25 students. I can cram in 29-30 if I need to. Out of my 6 classes last year just two were below 30. My largest was 34. I had to have students sharing desks, and in one class sitting at my desk to accommodate everybody.

There isn't physically enough room to accommodate everybody at my school if you made it wide open school choice.

You can have the best teachers, admin, curricula on the planet but if the student body in front of you is more concerned with the gangs in their neighborhood, outside influences, has no help academically at home, etc. you're not being dealt the same hand as somebody who teaches at a middle class or upper class area. If you and I play Hold'em and I'm dealt a pair of Aces and you're dealt a 2-7 off suit is it possible that you win? Of course it is. It is probable? Not at all.

Again, we can look at Success Academy in NYC. Same students, chosen by lottery. Same neighborhoods. Same parents.

Vastly better educational outcomes. How is that possible? Same kids.... same parents.... same neighborhood.... better education.

Explain that.

In fact, there are some charter schools that are operating inside the same buildings as public schools. I don't understand how that workers honestly, but even those charter schools have better over all educational results.

Explain?

It's call "self selection bias". Because they choose to attend the school, chances are they will perform better.

We're talking about kids.

There is no self selection. The kids are not choosing for themselves.

So you are assuming that every parent who chooses for the child, to go to the school, that all those kids are just by chance smarter and more academically successful than other students, because their parents picked for them to go to a charter school? I don't think so.

If we're talking about college, where the students are picking the school, then that makes sense. But I don't think that applies very well to this situation.

Do you have evidence of this? I'll be happy to consider whatever you offer.

This is about charter schools where self selection bias could not be better exemplified. You just don't know what it means.

But they are saying that at Success Academy, that they have literally a thousands kids applying for each spot in the school. And they have a lottery for who gets in.

So all those self-selected people, are going back to the public schools. That's thousands of kids that didn't get in.

I suppose the only way to prove conclusively, would be to compare the grades of those who didn't get in, to those that did.

I'd be interested to see that data.

So why do you think that is not self selection bias?

No. Those scores are irrelevant though they likely are higher than average due to parental involvement.

So even then. That makes the case for ending public schools, and supporting charter and private schools.

At least in my opinion it does.

Because why are the parents magically more involved? Why are the parents not involved when dealing with public schools?

And should we waste millions of dollars trying to educate lazy students, who are uninterested in learning, because their parents don't care?

I would suggest that the reason parents are more involved in education when their kids are in charter and private schools, is because there is money involved in many cases, and because the schools require that involvement.

So whatever system forces parents to be more involved, is the system we should adopt.

Why are we spending money on students that don't care to learn, because their parents don't care?

Kick those students out.

Because every single student that is a boat anchor in school, is boat anchor that drags down other students with it.

Again the vast majority of school systems around the world, understand this intuitively. This is why if you don't make the grade in Japan, they kick you out.

I knew this from high school. When you were in a class with lazy unmotivated students, it was hard for you to focus on your own studies.

Quick story, this is a real story. I went to an upper middle class high school. Everyone around where I lived, were all doctors and lawyers and stuff. We had a girl in one of my classes, that was a whore. Not trying to be insulting, but that's what she was.

She would come in with mini-skirt, and then lay on the floor. As in, actually lay down on the floor, with her legs out. So guys could almost see up her skirt. A few times, she would grab the crotch of some of the guys she was seated next to.

And you might ask, where were the teachers. They were there. She got written up all the time, have detention, have Saturday school, and she would mess with the guys during those too.

Now, let me ask you... how many students were focused on their learning, while she was acting up like that in class? How many? I know at the very least 3 were not, her, me, and the guys she was messing with. I never sat next to her, and she never messed with me obviously, and I was not one a girl would be interested in anyway.

But I guarantee you that I wasn't learning much, when she was screwing around. I doubt anyone else was either.

Now in any other school system, at least any other worth while school system in the world, she would be expelled. In any private or charter school, she would be expelled.

In public schools... nothing happened. My solution to that is, more school choice. Allow parents to pick where their kids go. Have high school entrance exams, where students who don't make the cut, don't go to high school. She was a D- student at best, and I would be very much willing to wager good money, the teachers were passing her, just to get rid of her. She wasn't learning jack. Just wasting tax money, and at the same time, making all the students around her fail too.

What is your solution to this? And why has that solution not been used thus far?

 

[initforme]

So are kids who don't pass entrance exams destined for a life making a crap wage of 25 or even 30 dollars an hour for life? That's telling them the dream is gone. Can they take the exam more than once? Will students be told what concepts, not questions, but what concepts are on the test so they can prepare? What are the other options for those who fail the entrance exam?

 

[mgh80]

Yes, I agree, except we can see clearly its not working.

Why are private and charter schools, having better results, if they don't have unions? In fact, why do the charter and private schools in your own post doing equally as well, without unions?

So something is missing from your equation, no matter how logical it sounds.

Again private and (some) charter schools have better results than some public schools because they have the ability to deny students-public schools don't. I've taught in classes full of gang members before (mostly Latin Kings)-you think they're going to be accepted to a private school?

Who do you think is going to care more about their education a kid from a family that values education enough to pay for private school, kids who meet the requirements for charter...or the kids who are in school to sell molly and break into houses on the weekend? At the first school I worked out we used to get arrest reports in our mailbox from students in our classes who were arrested. I'd have 2-3 a week. Come on now...

And just as I said before, that's *MY* point. All schools should be able to deny bad students, and thus improve educational outcomes.

If you are saying this reason above, is why X school does better, and why public schools do not, then we need to apply that system to public schools.... or we need to end public schools.

If you are saying the reasons they can't teach in public schools, is because of bad students they can't get rid of, and public schools can't end that policy.... then we need to end public schools.

The point of a school is to educate. If they can't educate because of a bad policy, then we need to either end the policy, or end the school.

What is the point of having 7 public schools in Baltimore, where 0% of students come out able to do math?

At the first school I worked out we used to get arrest reports in our mailbox from students in our classes who were arrested. I'd have 2-3 a week. Come on now...

And again, that is my point. You are making my point.

That would never happen in Japan. That would never happen in Finland. That would never happen in most of the world.

Because most of the world does not have such idiotic policies like "no child left behind". Heck no, they leave your butt behind.

They just kick your criminal butt out of school, and that's it for you. Good luck flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Because that's where such a person is going to end up anyway. Should we waste millions on millions of tax dollars, for people who is going to just end up criminals anyway?

In Finland, the moment a student shows up with disciplinary problems, they walk your butt to the door. You can go to a special boot-camp like school for trouble makers, or you simply don't go to school.

And this by the way, this is exactly why they have fewer problem children in Japan, and Finland and so on.

Your students know that if they go to jail, when they get out, they go right back to school. They know this. So they don't worry about being kicked out of school, when they get caught breaking into someone's car.

In Japan and others, the school gets notice that the police have you, they just remove your name from the enrollment list, and that's the end of that.

You think that makes students think twice about getting into trouble? Of course!

Again, everything you are saying, is exactly why charter and private schools do better. You are making my case for charter and private schools.

It is currently illegal for public schools in the US to deny entry for students living in their zone.

Personally I agree we need to end a lot of the policies that are becoming less and less strict for students. It's really getting out of hand what students can/can't do and get away with it is ridiculous. I'm not arguing about getting rid of bums in the schools-I agree with you. They have so many barriers in their way (our principal has tried to rid most of them but the school board wont allow it).

My point though is comparing private and/or charter schools that don't need to put up with that to schools that currently do is comparing apples to oranges.