Is There A Free Market Answer To Education?

[The Rabbi]

I'd argue the exact opposite. Reducing local control would mean resources could be employed more effectively.

How is that supposed to work?

Because, currently, you have a bunch of tiny communities who can't effective serve certain populations. If you have a rural area, even where the high school has 500 students, you don't really have enough students for a vigorous IB program or a broad selection of AP classes.

Since most Americans don't live i tiny communities your answer doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Polk]

How is that supposed to work?

Because, currently, you have a bunch of tiny communities who can't effective serve certain populations. If you have a rural area, even where the high school has 500 students, you don't really have enough students for a vigorous IB program or a broad selection of AP classes.

Since most Americans don't live i tiny communities your answer doesn't really answer the question.

Sure it does. Because of the focus on localism, those communities get screwed. While they're not a majority of the population, they're a sizable chunk.

 

[Polk]

Of course, even control at the state level is problematic. NCLB measures how well kids do on tests, but the states get to write the tests. The result: some states write really easy tests to inflate their numbers. I read an article a few years ago which showed that while the same percentage of students in South Carolina and Massachusetts passed the state tests, when given an independently written test, the students in Massachusetts passed at the same rate, but the number of South Carolina students passing dropped by 50 percent.

 

[The Rabbi]

When you increase the pay of teacher to better reflect the current pay scale of people with degrees then you can attract better skilled people into the field.

How much do they pay those teachers at the private schools?

Teachers are public servants, and as Government employees, are paid very well (since you're interested, research the average pay of a 1st year Teacher vs the pay of a 2nd Lt. in the Army)

Also, since a teacher works only 9 of 12 months during the year, multiply the pay by 4/3 to annualize it.

Teachers aren't very well paid. The average teacher is paid $47602 a year. If you think that's higher (or even at the average) for all people with bachelor degrees, you're mistaken.

Let's compare a starting teacher to a second lieutenant. Starting pay for teachers is about $32,000 a year. A second lieutenant starts out making the same amount. The only difference is a second lieutenant gets a lot of extra compensation a teacher doesn't: extra pay for the purposes of purchasing food and housing, discounted products via base exchanges, tuition assistance/payment of student loans).

Teachers work more than nine months out of the year. You assume they only work when the students are in school, forgetting the pre and post year planning. Also, while they do have a month or two off during the summer, they also work longer hours during the year. Not only are they in the classroom seven hours a day, they're spending countless more grading papers, meeting with parents, writing lesson plans, etc.

I do not know many jobs available to college graduates with BA's in the humanities that pay mid-30k plus benefits, including the difficulty in getting fired owing to union protection of their jobs.
Teachers are probably over-paid in general. The proof is the generally lower salaries offered by private and parochial schools.

 

[Polk]

Teachers are public servants, and as Government employees, are paid very well (since you're interested, research the average pay of a 1st year Teacher vs the pay of a 2nd Lt. in the Army)

Also, since a teacher works only 9 of 12 months during the year, multiply the pay by 4/3 to annualize it.

Teachers aren't very well paid. The average teacher is paid $47602 a year. If you think that's higher (or even at the average) for all people with bachelor degrees, you're mistaken.

Let's compare a starting teacher to a second lieutenant. Starting pay for teachers is about $32,000 a year. A second lieutenant starts out making the same amount. The only difference is a second lieutenant gets a lot of extra compensation a teacher doesn't: extra pay for the purposes of purchasing food and housing, discounted products via base exchanges, tuition assistance/payment of student loans).

Teachers work more than nine months out of the year. You assume they only work when the students are in school, forgetting the pre and post year planning. Also, while they do have a month or two off during the summer, they also work longer hours during the year. Not only are they in the classroom seven hours a day, they're spending countless more grading papers, meeting with parents, writing lesson plans, etc.

I do not know many jobs available to college graduates with BA's in the humanities that pay mid-30k plus benefits, including the difficulty in getting fired owing to union protection of their jobs.
Teachers are probably over-paid in general. The proof is the generally lower salaries offered by private and parochial schools.

Difficulty in get fired comes once you get tenure. Starting teachers don't have those kinds of protections. Also, you're just focusing on starting pay. While their starting pay is comparable to other jobs for people with the same degree, it rapidly declines as their counterparts get larger and larger raises.

 

[Samson]

When you increase the pay of teacher to better reflect the current pay scale of people with degrees then you can attract better skilled people into the field.

How much do they pay those teachers at the private schools?

Teachers are public servants, and as Government employees, are paid very well (since you're interested, research the average pay of a 1st year Teacher vs the pay of a 2nd Lt. in the Army)

Also, since a teacher works only 9 of 12 months during the year, multiply the pay by 4/3 to annualize it.

Teachers aren't very well paid. The average teacher is paid $47602 a year. If you think that's higher (or even at the average) for all people with bachelor degrees, you're mistaken.

Let's compare a starting teacher to a second lieutenant. Starting pay for teachers is about $32,000 a year. A second lieutenant starts out making the same amount. The only difference is a second lieutenant gets a lot of extra compensation a teacher doesn't: extra pay for the purposes of purchasing food and housing, discounted products via base exchanges, tuition assistance/payment of student loans).

Teachers work more than nine months out of the year. You assume they only work when the students are in school, forgetting the pre and post year planning. Also, while they do have a month or two off during the summer, they also work longer hours during the year. Not only are they in the classroom seven hours a day, they're spending countless more grading papers, meeting with parents, writing lesson plans, etc.

Ok the average teacher is paid about the same as 2ndLt. How much overtime does the 2ndLt work? How much is on post housing worth? Difference in Medical Plans? Clothing Costs? He buys toothpaste in the post commissary and saves 10% sales tax?

Let's begin splitting Hairs?

My point is, that for a GOVERNMENT JOB, the Starting pay for a teacher is not bad. And yes, since I've been a teacher, I know they work more than 8 hrs a day, and LOVE to whine about this. Guess what?, Every professional works more than 8 hours a day!! And they don't get a solid MONTH or two off work. They don't get TWO WEEKS during Christmas. They don't get a week for Thanksgiving; and they don't get ANOTHER week for spring break.

So, I'll easily conceed that they "only" get two months off, and that their annualized average salary is 47,600 X6/5.

 

[Truthmatters]

There are many places in this country where school is year round.

 

[The Rabbi]

Teachers aren't very well paid. The average teacher is paid $47602 a year. If you think that's higher (or even at the average) for all people with bachelor degrees, you're mistaken.

Let's compare a starting teacher to a second lieutenant. Starting pay for teachers is about $32,000 a year. A second lieutenant starts out making the same amount. The only difference is a second lieutenant gets a lot of extra compensation a teacher doesn't: extra pay for the purposes of purchasing food and housing, discounted products via base exchanges, tuition assistance/payment of student loans).

Teachers work more than nine months out of the year. You assume they only work when the students are in school, forgetting the pre and post year planning. Also, while they do have a month or two off during the summer, they also work longer hours during the year. Not only are they in the classroom seven hours a day, they're spending countless more grading papers, meeting with parents, writing lesson plans, etc.

I do not know many jobs available to college graduates with BA's in the humanities that pay mid-30k plus benefits, including the difficulty in getting fired owing to union protection of their jobs.
Teachers are probably over-paid in general. The proof is the generally lower salaries offered by private and parochial schools.

Difficulty in get fired comes once you get tenure. Starting teachers don't have those kinds of protections. Also, you're just focusing on starting pay. While their starting pay is comparable to other jobs for people with the same degree, it rapidly declines as their counterparts get larger and larger raises.

And as teachers get more credentials and move into administration their pay increases substantially as well. And there aren't too many places today offering defined benefit pension plans.

 

[Samson]

I do not know many jobs available to college graduates with BA's in the humanities that pay mid-30k plus benefits, including the difficulty in getting fired owing to union protection of their jobs.
Teachers are probably over-paid in general. The proof is the generally lower salaries offered by private and parochial schools.

Difficulty in get fired comes once you get tenure. Starting teachers don't have those kinds of protections. Also, you're just focusing on starting pay. While their starting pay is comparable to other jobs for people with the same degree, it rapidly declines as their counterparts get larger and larger raises.

And as teachers get more credentials and move into administration their pay increases substantially as well. And there aren't too many places today offering defined benefit pension plans.

To be honest, teacher beginning salary, and average salary isn't the issue of "Free Market Alternatives." The real difference between teaching salary, and Non-government salaries is the bump you get after you've gained experience.

After about 5 years, teacher's salaries pretty much level out. In "industry," salaried employees begin to command much higher salaries after working 5 years.

Basically this is because our system really needs young, energetic teachers to deal with the Bored Masses of Kids over 14 that are forced to be digested by a system that was never designed for them. Experienced teachers really have little value, mainly because there are so MANY college graduates willing to take their teaching positions.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not understanding your question...may be result of my public school education.

The impetus for my OP was the idea that perhaps there is an on-line school solution, or at least partial solution to the terrible job the public schools are doing.

I would like to see a pilot program along these lines:

1. Allow any parent who agrees to try the on-line version of public school. Allow free market competition among companies who would offer the programs.

2. Allow said parent a tax deduction equivalent to the cost of local schooling.
Charter schools are now funded at somewhat less than the traditional public schools. Perhaps same could be done here.

3. Regular testing of on-line school kids, the results of which would determine if the child could continue in this program.

My question wasn't clear - I blame my stupidity, my public school tried hard but I wasn't up to it. I found one of my school reports in my stuff. "[name] is a competent sportsman...." Damned with faint praise.

Anyway. What I meant was - do we know the causes of the apparent problem with education pre-university? The online idea is put forward (?) as a possible solution but what are the real causes of the problems? I know it's a complex question - if anyone knew I suppose they'd do something about it.

"...do we know the causes of the apparent problem with education pre-university...?

You do not want to get me started here!

In addition to the scam known as Progressive Education?

Let's just leave it at that, and add one more factor, as it has been brought up by other members: criminal behavior.

I would like to see the Penal Code apply to the public schools.

I would like to see vocational schooling reinstituted.

"But responding to criticism, common since the days of the civil rights movement, that directing minority students toward vocations rather than college was racially biased—because all minority students should be expected to do college work—reformers abolished those diploma distinctions and allowed such courses of study, which many minority students took advantage of, to wither away. "
A Coming Diploma Drought? by Marc Epstein, City Journal 15 December 2009

I've not had any contact with Progressive Education - my high school days were very much of the - forgive the pun - the old school. I know this is well off topic but I'd be interested to discuss how it got that way. For me if teaching and learning as a cooperative venture isn't guided by cognitive psychology then it's got no serious intellectual foundation.

 

[Samson]

I've not had any contact with Progressive Education - my high school days were very much of the - forgive the pun - the old school. I know this is well off topic but I'd be interested to discuss how it got that way. For me if teaching and learning as a cooperative venture isn't guided by cognitive psychology then it's got no serious intellectual foundation.

To me this comment rings truist with the word "cooperative."

There is nothing cooperative about the public school system: You either send your kids to school, or you are issued a truancy ticket, fined, and perhaps jailed.

 

[Truthmatters]

There are many options.

Home schooling, private schooling, on line school.

You just have to school them and will be in trouble only if you keep them from being taught.

 

[Samson]

There are many options.

Home schooling, private schooling, on line school.

You just have to school them and will be in trouble only if you keep them from being taught.

My point is one of the options should be "None of The Above" once the child turns 14.

 

[Diuretic]

I've not had any contact with Progressive Education - my high school days were very much of the - forgive the pun - the old school. I know this is well off topic but I'd be interested to discuss how it got that way. For me if teaching and learning as a cooperative venture isn't guided by cognitive psychology then it's got no serious intellectual foundation.

To me this comment rings truist with the word "cooperative."

There is nothing cooperative about the public school system: You either send your kids to school, or you are issued a truancy ticket, fined, and perhaps jailed.

I was thinking of the relationship between the teacher and the student.

I'm not fond of the de-schooling theories of Ilich and others, I think I understand what they mean and what they're trying to avoid and also achieve but I don't think they're practical. But having said that, yes, the state does put a requirement on parents to have their children educated. The question is why? Then the next question is, should it?

 

[Samson]

I've not had any contact with Progressive Education - my high school days were very much of the - forgive the pun - the old school. I know this is well off topic but I'd be interested to discuss how it got that way. For me if teaching and learning as a cooperative venture isn't guided by cognitive psychology then it's got no serious intellectual foundation.

To me this comment rings truist with the word "cooperative."

There is nothing cooperative about the public school system: You either send your kids to school, or you are issued a truancy ticket, fined, and perhaps jailed.

I was thinking of the relationship between the teacher and the student.

I'm not fond of the de-schooling theories of Ilich and others, I think I understand what they mean and what they're trying to avoid and also achieve but I don't think they're practical. But having said that, yes, the state does put a requirement on parents to have their children educated. The question is why? Then the next question is, should it?

Heh....de-schooling and good ol' Illich......the 1970's were pretty weird (IMHO), and not known for their practicallity: I cannot imagine Illich being taken seriously in any other window of hisorical context. His theory(s) would be interesting to discuss in the current context (rising predominance of central government control). Maybe I should begin a thread...

Anyway, I'm not fond of Illich's Hypothesis either, however, I think any parent that agrees with him should have the right to pursue that silliness (only after the child is 14).

Why have children educated: This question was only seriously asked until just after WWI. I think a World War increased the awareness of local, state, and national leaders to believe it was important for Americans to at least know where Europe was, how to read (and write) military orders, and how to aim artillary. But, more importantly, WWI revealed the weaknesses within American social fabric: We were not "melting together" in one pot, but more of a stew without any water (to extrapolate the analogy). In such a Heterogeneous society, the last thing that was needed was pre-WWI European class and ethnic distinctions. So, all states instituted compusory education as the "water" in the "American melting pot," a median that would allow for US all to get to know each other.

When I say "get to know each other," don't make the mistake of holding today's standards to those in post WWI America: Whites still didn't want to get to know blacks, Asians, or any other race that would, often quite happily, go to their own schools. Nor did Protestants want to know Catholics or Jews, who were usually already happily attending their own schools. The goal was to weaken the CULTURAL divisions between WASP's in the middle and lower economic classes (Upper class WASPS went to private schools).

But even middle class WASPS did not want their son's and daughters to MARRY into the lower classes. This, and for budgeting restraints, and because no one could imagine the monstrousity we have today, was why compulsory education ended at age 14.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A few thoughts:

We are on "probation" because of NCLB-the special ed students didn't make enough passing scores on the state standardized test last year. I have 3 students with IQ's of 53, 57 and 59, and the rest are in the 60's and 70's. They ALL have to take this test and are expected to pass. Uh huh. To some it would be like us taking the test in Latin. Why am I, and our school, being punished for this?


On Line Teaching/Learning/Testing:

Who is to monitor the child's knowledge, and making sure the parent isn't doing the work or helping little Molly or Billy along with the answers. You know there would be some parents doing just that, instead of letting them learn on their own. But it has potential, I'm sure it is great for the homeschooling set.


Parents/Teachers/Students

Hold Parents accountable, and don't put all the blame on the teachers.


Administration:

Too top heavy, get rid of a lot of the paper pushers that get paid way too much for doing much of nothing, and spend that money on the student/classroom/supplies/technology.

"Who is to monitor the child's knowledge, and making sure the parent isn't doing the work ..."
In NYC our homeschool kids must take standardized tests at regular intervals.


"I have 3 students with IQ's of 53, 57 and 59, and the rest are in the 60's and 70's. ..."
You must have the patients of a saint. Some kind of adjustment has to be made with these children.


"Too top heavy, get rid of a lot of the paper pushers that get paid way too much for doing much of nothing,..."
I think you have found a major bottleneck here.
My idea is to do away with the administration postition, and make it a 3-year rotating position within a department.
1. Teacher observation should be done away with, and students' standardized test scores should be the teachers 'observation rating.'
2. Teacher improvement is the job of the college that varified that the individal is qualified to teach.
3. Programming should be the function of civilian computer department, not professional teachers.

And most of all, eliminate progressive education and return to traditional tried-and-true methods:
' The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.

In the new millennium, Massachusetts students have surged upward on the biennial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—“the nation’s report card,” as education scholars call it. On the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles. On another reliable test, the Trends in International Math and Science Studies, the state’s fourth-graders last year ranked second globally in science and third in math, while the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. (States can volunteer, as Massachusetts did, to have their students compared with national averages.) The United States as a whole finished tenth.'

E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you increase the pay of teacher to better reflect the current pay scale of people with degrees then you can attract better skilled people into the field.

How much do they pay those teachers at the private schools?

Public school teachers, in my experience, make far more than those in private schools.

NYC top salary is over $100,000- for 180 days of teaching.

 

[Samson]

"Too top heavy, get rid of a lot of the paper pushers that get paid way too much for doing much of nothing,..."
I think you have found a major bottleneck here.
My idea is to do away with the administration postition, and make it a 3-year rotating position within a department.
1. Teacher observation should be done away with, and students' standardized test scores should be the teachers 'observation rating.'
2. Teacher improvement is the job of the college that varified that the individal is qualified to teach.
3. Programming should be the function of civilian computer department, not professional teachers.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

My question wasn't clear - I blame my stupidity, my public school tried hard but I wasn't up to it. I found one of my school reports in my stuff. "[name] is a competent sportsman...." Damned with faint praise.

Anyway. What I meant was - do we know the causes of the apparent problem with education pre-university? The online idea is put forward (?) as a possible solution but what are the real causes of the problems? I know it's a complex question - if anyone knew I suppose they'd do something about it.

"...do we know the causes of the apparent problem with education pre-university...?

You do not want to get me started here!

In addition to the scam known as Progressive Education?

Let's just leave it at that, and add one more factor, as it has been brought up by other members: criminal behavior.

I would like to see the Penal Code apply to the public schools.

I would like to see vocational schooling reinstituted.

"But responding to criticism, common since the days of the civil rights movement, that directing minority students toward vocations rather than college was racially biased—because all minority students should be expected to do college work—reformers abolished those diploma distinctions and allowed such courses of study, which many minority students took advantage of, to wither away. "
A Coming Diploma Drought? by Marc Epstein, City Journal 15 December 2009

I've not had any contact with Progressive Education - my high school days were very much of the - forgive the pun - the old school. I know this is well off topic but I'd be interested to discuss how it got that way. For me if teaching and learning as a cooperative venture isn't guided by cognitive psychology then it's got no serious intellectual foundation.

"... discuss how it got that way."
Please start a thread on this topic!

I'd like to commend this article about E.D. Hirsch, jr, which answers much on the topic.

"By the time Hirsch turned his attention to education reform in the mid-1980s, Romanticism’s triumph was complete. Most public schools, for instance, taught reading through the “whole language” method, which encourages children to guess the meaning of words through context clues rather than to master the English phonetic code. In many schools, a teacher could no longer line up children’s desks in rows facing him; indeed, he found himself banished entirely from the front of the classroom, becoming a “guide on the side” instead of a “sage on the stage.” [In] elementary school, students in the early grades had no desks at all but instead sat in circles on a rug, hoping to re-create the “natural” environment that education progressives believed would facilitate learning. In the 1970s and 1980s, progressive education also absorbed the trendy new doctrines of multiculturalism, postmodernism (with its dogma that objective facts don’t exist), and social-justice teaching.

Hirsch showed how destructive these instructional approaches were. The idea that schools could starve children of factual knowledge, yet somehow encourage them to be “critical thinkers” and teach them to “learn how to learn,” defied common sense. But Hirsch also summoned irrefutable evidence from the hard sciences to eviscerate progressive-ed doctrines. Hirsch had spent the better part of the decade since Cultural Literacy mastering the findings of neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and psycholinguistics on which teaching methods best promote student learning. In The Making of Americans, Hirsch again shows how consensus science proves that “a higher-order academic skill such as reading comprehension requires prior knowledge of domain-specific content.” The scientific consensus showed that schools could not raise student achievement by letting students construct their own knowledge. The pedagogy that mainstream scientific research supported, Hirsch showed, was direct instruction by knowledgeable teachers who knew how to transmit their knowledge to students—the very opposite of what the progressives promoted."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009


For extra credit, or advanced study:
"The cultural upheavals of the era spurred deep changes in institutions that traditionally transmitted the work ethic—especially the schools. University education departments began to tell future grammar school teachers that they should replace the traditional teacher-centered curriculum, aimed at producing educated citizens who embraced a common American ethic, with a new, child-centered approach that treats every pupil’s “personal development” as different and special. During the 1960s, when intellectuals and college students dismissed traditional American values as oppressive barriers to fulfillment, grammar schools generally jettisoned the traditional curriculum. “Education professors eagerly joined New Left professors to promote the idea that any top-down imposition of any curriculum would be a right-wing plot designed to perpetuate the dominant white, male, bourgeois power structure,” writes education reformer E. D. Hirsch, Jr., in his forthcoming The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools."
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Too top heavy, get rid of a lot of the paper pushers that get paid way too much for doing much of nothing,..."
I think you have found a major bottleneck here.
My idea is to do away with the administration postition, and make it a 3-year rotating position within a department.
1. Teacher observation should be done away with, and students' standardized test scores should be the teachers 'observation rating.'
2. Teacher improvement is the job of the college that varified that the individal is qualified to teach.
3. Programming should be the function of civilian computer department, not professional teachers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The time and money can be better spent.

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

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

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