Okay, see, this is why I don’t attend PTA meetings…

178 comments on “Okay, see, this is why I don’t attend PTA meetings…”

1. “They need to be taught how to write in ten relatively simple words what they are used to taking fifty polysyllabic ones such that their non-professional audience will get an approximate idea of what they are talking about which may not be precise down to the umpteenth decimal place their jargon would afford them, but good enough for the layman to get what they are driving at.”

   Your response contains a key concept that the “Plain English” proponents are missing: audience. I learned it pretty much in English 101 (or whatever they called in high school). If I’m writing a letter to Joe Q. Public in response to a question he’s asked, I’m not going to use a whole bunch of technical terms. Or if I do, I’m going to explain them.

   On the other hand, if I’m writing a fairly technical environmental assessment of a proposed Federal project (which I actually do on a daily basis), I’m going to use technical terms, and jargon, and terms of art, and everything else my professional discipline embraces, because I know my primary audience is going to understand all that stuff. There’s not enough emphasis made during the Plain English classes on audience, and the impression I get is that the Administration would prefer that all government writing be made in Plain English. And while that’s consistent with other policies embraced by the Administration, it’s ridiculous. Case in point….Plain English would have me use the word “silly” in place of “ridiculous,” since they mean essentially the same thing, and the second is what they call an “arrogant” word. However, while they mean essentially the same thing, there are subtle differences. Or imagine only being able to use the word rain, when you’re trying to describe a monsoon.

   While I absolutely agree that in certain situations, professional writing is inappropriate. I’ve been an advocate of legistative drafting reform (or put another way, “write them laws better”) for years. I even taught Plain English for lawyers at law school. But I’ve always felt that it would be better to approach it as teaching “Better English,” or as I’d prefer, “Gooder English,” because there’s no way around that “Plain” = dumbed down.

   Let me use one last analogy: Say there are 2 cakes on a table. One’s a multi-tiered, bridges and all, buttercream strawberry filled yellow/chocolate wedding cake. The other’s a plain sheet cake with plain vanilla frosting. They’re both cakes, right? So, your bride to be should be just as happy with the sheet cake as she would be with the huge wedding cake, right?

2. i wonder why it is suggested that there can be no way to assess a teacher’s capabilities when trying to determine their level of merit (for merit-based assessments).

   it is true that you can’t simply look at test scores to determine if a teacher is effective. nor can you just look at parent responses, or student responses. judging how effective a teacher has been IS a subjective judgement, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be made.

   when i, as a software engineer, come up for my review at the end of the year, my supervisor isn’t going to look at one item to determine if i merit a raise. for instance, he can’t look at the number of bugs i fixed – what if i worked on complicated bugs that required higher level of skill, but took more time? but the number of bugs i fixed will likely factor into the equation. he can’t simply look at the customer feedback – what if i had a particularly nasty customer? or the customer was being unreasonable? but customer feedback will likely factor into the equation. basically, when my supervisor is assessing whether or not i should get a raise, he will make a subjective judgement based upon a lot of factors.

   why can’t teachers be assessed the same way? give the principal (or a group of people? however you want to do it) a variety of information: test scores, student feedback, parent feedback, peer reviews, etc. after all, we all know there are good teachers and bad teachers, right? certainly that’s been my experience. how did i know? observation – it’s not hard to figure out. let the local officials determine the merit of the individual teachers. but this brings us back to the original point of running schools more like a business. why? under the current system, local principals would try to cheat, and give everyone in their school high marks. why? money. the more successful the school, the more money from the big money pool you get.

   so how do business principals come into play? because the schools right now are run like a government agency, not like a business. example: in many government agencies, there is a budget. if you get to the end of the fiscal year, and you come in under budget, that means that next year your budget will be lowered for the next year – you are essentially penalized for good performance/cost savings. so, often, agencies will spend money (taxpayers money, mind you) that they don’t need to spend in order to use up all their budget and ask for a budget increase the next year. with plenty of levels of beauracracy in there for good measure.

   our schools are run much the same way – no real accountability for results, just looking at the budget numbers. if you ran schools like a business, you could have the teachers assessed by their immediate supervisor (i.e. the principal), the principal assessed by his supervisors (i.e. the superintendant, or school board), and the superintendant by their immediate supervisor (i.e. the state). it should be fairly easy to develop a budget based on number of students, adjusted for cost issues (i.e. inner city versus rural). the allotment of that money to all of the teachers is handled by the principal, who makes subjective judgements on who gets raises, etc. the success of the school overall is then up to the principal, who goes through the same subjective review (based upon multiple factors) by the superintendant, and so on.

   the problem that the union brings is when it goes from being a body to protect against abuses by the administration, to a body that has enough power to fully blanket all of their members with protection. the result is that it becomes very difficult to get rid of bad teachers, because they fall under the same blanket protection. it also becomes very difficult to assess and praise great teachers – because that blanket protection squashes attempts to rate teachers on merit (because it would then expose the bad teachers). this ends up being good overall for the teachers (at least for the ones who just want to get by), but is not necessarily in the best interests of the school or the students.

   look, i’d be all for providing more funding to the public schools, IF there were any indication that it would be better spent than the money i’m already paying. that’s where auditing comes into play. if you say we need an extra .5 cent sales tax to fund a particular program, with particular goals, and how the money will be spent, and i think the program has merit, i’d be more than happy to vote for it. but simply saying that we need more money for education, when for all i know the money will go into raises for administrators or a new football statium, then i’m going to vote it down. and if i think the program you’re implementing is a bad program, i’m going to vote it down. it doesn’t mean i don’t support education, or that i don’t support teachers. if you think teachers deserve a raise, that’s fine. show me why – for all i know i might be giving a raise to the worst teacher in the school.

   oh, and one of the reasons that doctors/lawyers/plumbers/etc. make so much more than teachers? they aren’t government employees. private school teachers (and professors at private schools) make quite a bit more than public school teachers – i think you’d be hard pressed to find someone at a lower level position (which, in the chain of command, teachers are) who make a lot of money in any governmental position…

   -b

3. Bravo, Peter. Jeez, I probably disagree with 90 percent of what you say (aside from the comic/sci-fi reviews, that is—as I like to say, I come for the peerless comic/sci-fi commentary, and stay for the liberal hogwash), but it’s nice to see that the idea of union accountability has taken hold with you in some small form.

   Now, if you’d only get cracking on that Condi in ’08 op-ed, we might make some serious headway here.

   -Dave O’Connell

4. Bravo, Peter. Jeez, I probably disagree with 90 percent of what you say (aside from the comic/sci-fi reviews, that is—as I like to say, I come for the peerless comic/sci-fi commentary, and stay for the liberal hogwash), but it’s nice to see that the idea of union accountability has taken hold with you in some small form.

   Now, if you’d only get cracking on that Condi in ’08 op-ed, we might make some serious headway here.

   -Dave O’Connell

5. Bravo, Peter. Jeez, I probably disagree with 90 percent of what you say (aside from the comic/sci-fi reviews, that is—as I like to say, I come for the peerless comic/sci-fi commentary, and stay for the liberal hogwash), but it’s nice to see that the idea of union accountability has taken hold with you in some small form.

   Now, if you’d only get cracking on that Condi in ’08 op-ed, we might make some serious headway here.

   -Dave O’Connell

6. What do you think of the social merits of high schools?

   Pretty important. I’ve noticed that although home-schooled kids are, on average, way ahead of the others in pure knowledge, they tend to be a bit socially retarded (this is not true for all of them).

   This was the most despicable outrageous comment on this whole thread!

   C’mon, this thread has been mostly free of personal attacks. Let’s keep it that way.

   And that’s the complacent type thinking that is leaving America left in the educational dust.

   It’s not being complacent, it’s working with reality. I don’t see any suggestion from you on how we will fill up a stadium of people cheering for the Quiz team. If you ever figure it out let me know–you should also share the secret with the producers of Jeopardy so they can best the Super Bowl’s ratings every week.

   So, to paraphrase, sports are a good way to make the physically fit, but dumb kids feel better about themselves

   Not all or even most of the kids in my school’s sports program would fit that description. Reality ain’t an Archie comic.

   private school teachers (and professors at private schools) make quite a bit more than public school teachers – i think you’d be hard pressed to find someone at a lower level position (which, in the chain of command, teachers are) who make a lot of money in any governmental position…

   I’m not sure that is true…most of the private school teachers I’ve talked too get even less than I do. The tradeoff is that they are also getting far better working conditions and far more motivated students.

   If a private school opened up in my town with better pay they would have NO trouble cherry-picking the best public school teachers from the throng that would be beating down their doors.

7. Just in response to The StarWolf–Instead of having they in technical or legal positions lighten their use of technical words that the layman could understand what they’re getting at, let’s start holding the layman responsible for understanding what the hëll’s going on around him, her or it. (Hey, you never know anymore…) That, really, is the biggest part of this whole problem, playing down to the lowest factor rather than showing those how to get into the higher. Now, some people aren’t as capable linguistically or mathematically as some others, but the current system does nothing but drive that point home to them, so they stop trying in other areas. It’s like your archetype brainiac student not trying hard in gym class bedcause those around him tell him/her that they can’t do it. Those treatments are ingested and become ingrained and people stop trying and their brains begin to atrophy all because they are “shown” their particular niche and are forced to fill it.

8. I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion of religious schooling, and its merits and drawbacks. Anyone have any personal experiences in this area?

   And while I very much disagree with the notion that teaching does not require a terrible amount of skill, I find the notion of paying teachers exorbitant salaries, i.e. the Sorkin solution, equally preposterous. Aren’t some professions supposed to be about more than just money? Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time? Just a thought.

   -Dave O’Connell

9. I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion of religious schooling, and its merits and drawbacks. Anyone have any personal experiences in this area?

   And while I very much disagree with the notion that teaching does not require a terrible amount of skill, I find the notion of paying teachers exorbitant salaries, i.e. the Sorkin solution, equally preposterous. Aren’t some professions supposed to be about more than just money? Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time? Just a thought.

   -Dave O’Connell

10. I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion of religious schooling, and its merits and drawbacks. Anyone have any personal experiences in this area?

    And while I very much disagree with the notion that teaching does not require a terrible amount of skill, I find the notion of paying teachers exorbitant salaries, i.e. the Sorkin solution, equally preposterous. Aren’t some professions supposed to be about more than just money? Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time? Just a thought.

    -Dave O’Connell

11. Re: Sports in schools. Here’s the thing. Physical activity of some kind IS important for kids, especially younger ones. It helps with their physical development, and also works to keep them healthy. Heck, you can say that for adults, too (I’m pushing for an office recess time, along with a 20 minute after lunch nap).

    But when you start getting into organized, competitive sports, you’re really starting to get beyond excercise for health’s sake, and into something else entirely. Are there important lessons you can learn in competitive sports? Absolutely. But the thing is, they aren’y mandatory. We require everyone to get basic, math, reading, writing, science, and history lessons, and to a certain degree, we require (or at least we did in my high school) some basic phy ed. class. But then you look at football, track, baseball, basketball, etc. These are extracurricular, AFTER SCHOOL activities. It’s not like your kid is taking a school offered art class.

    The point being, there’s a market for sports. Everyone can see that. So why use tax-payer money to fund what is essentially the entry-level position for the professional sports althlete, especially when private leagues are forming all over the place?

12. Yeah, test scores are not necessarily a good indicator of how well a teacher is teaching or a student is learning.

    If one went by most of my grades in grammar and high school, one would think I had the world’s worst teachers and/or that I was a total nincompoop.

    Yet, if one went by my test scores, one would think the exact opposite, since, overall, I routinely scored in the upper five percentile nationwide.

    The fact is, I was quite a handful back in the 1960s, and there is no doubt in my mind that if I was zipping through the school system today, I’d probably have a continuous Ritalin drip stuck in my arm, attached to an industrial-sized, backpack tank. More ominously, I would also have never have had the opportunity to naturally develop, through trial-and-error, into the person I eventually grew into — and that’s why I am troubled by the widespread use of drugs today to make it easier for teachers to control “problem” students in classrooms.

13. For anyone that’s seen the movie Godzilla: Tokyo SOS, you’ll know what I mean when I say the role of the typically plucky/annoying kid in some Godzilla movies was so pumped full of Ritalin he could barely move his cheeks enough to crack a smile. And while I said that jokingly, it’s sad that it is such a joke now. Maybe it’s not a rampant a problem as we migth be led to believe, but it does seem like Americans in general are for to casual in their use of prescription drugs, and tragically include their children. Which is just crazy to me, given the increasing number of studies that show that we have almost no clue how long-term drug use affects an adult, let alone a developing child. I know this gets off the education topic some, but based on attitudes I’ve seen in the soon-to-be-parents group, our society is about 50-50 between advancing into an enlightened future where parents take an active role in being a parent and fully engage in the massive responsibility that it is, or sliding into a state where we just accept whatever the drug of the day is and pump it into our kids without a care for what it might be doing to them.

14. “Pretty important. I’ve noticed that although home-schooled kids are, on average, way ahead of the others in pure knowledge, they tend to be a bit socially retarded (this is not true for all of them).”

    Nor is it true generally. It’s a stereotype without much basis in reality. All the research, including a longitudinal study carried out by the University of Michigan on the socialization of homeschooled students, indicates that the homeschooled students are generally at least as well adjusted socially as their public schooled peers. In my personal experience, they are almost exclusively better adjusted socially. Once in a while I’ll come across a homeschooled student who seems challenged in this area, but by and large, they are socially light years ahead of their schooled peers. And I live in a neighboorhood that, surprisingly, has an almost 50-50 split of homeschooled and traditionally schooled kids. The differences are fairly blatant.

    Unless, of course, your definition of “socially retarded” includes being polite, well-mannered, respectful, able to relate to people of all ages, able to carry forth intelligent conversations at length on a variety of topics, able to express a contrary opinion (even to that of an adult) and to defend that opinion respectfully, and the ability to engage an adult in conversation while meeting their eyes and talking to them. (That last was one thing that has always impressed me about homeschooled kids. Without exception, they look me in the eyes, listen to me, and talk to me during conversations. Schooled kids, almost without exception, never look me in the eyes during conversations, preferring to look away or stare at the ground.)

15. As with anything, too much of something is usually bad. I don’t doubt that too many kids are being given drugs that they don’t need–a few hours staked to a fire ant hill would probably accomplish the same thing at far less cost–but I’ve also seen kids who were LITERALLY bouncing off the walls, unable to focus or concentrate for more than 10 mintes, suddenly transform into B level students once the doctors worked out their dosage.

    So I don’t know. One thing I wonder about–if you read older novels or study the “good old days” you see that madness was a frequent event. It was one of those things that one feared. Now I’ve got a lot to worry about but it never occurs to me to be concerned about going stark raving bonkers. Maybe age related dementia but not the pure craziness that filled up the asylums of old. So my question is–have our advances in medicine and psychaitry truly reduced the incidence of insanity? And wouldn’t that be a good thing? Might some of these kids we see medicated in school today have been condemned to village idiot staus a few generations ago?

    I’m not saying that too many kids aren’t being over prescribed but let’s not throw outthe baby with the bath water.

16. Bill, I’m sure there are instances where medication is not only mandated, but clearly has a positive impact on the patient. But I wonder how many of those kids that bounce off walls and can’t seem to sit still have been raised on a high-sugar diet?

    I guess I’m showing my bias as to why I go to a DO and not an MD. I’d rather look at the whole set of circumstance, rather then hear a set of symptoms and prescribe treatment based on very little actual knowledge of the patient. Look at the number of drugs every year that we discover some unhealthy or even fatal side effect. There really is no free lunch, and with any treatment, you need to balance the risks against the benefits. If you can get a rowdy kid under control through diet instead of drugs, you should. You should also not let this view get in the way of using drugs when they are called for. But it seems to me that the growing American trend is to drug first and ask consequences later.

    As to home-schooled kids occasion having ill-developed social skills, I’d say you could go to plenty of public and private schools and find socially maladjusted kids. And probably a greater proportion of them than among the home-schooled crowd.

17. Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time?

    There might be a middle ground…I’m not sure the teachers want to be paid the same as baseball players. (Oh, I’m sure they’d like it, but they’re not delusional.)

    But in a capitalisitic society, if you have a choice between being a math teacher, making $25,000 a year, or go into Corporate IT and make $50,000 a year, the schools are going to struggle to compete for quality teachers.

18. Ok, someone called me on my comment that we needed less stringent standards for teachers, and instead called for MORE requirements to be a teacher.

    I take it you are not a professional that has considered teaching? I am. I am an engineer, with a masters in electronic engineering, and a bachelors in Psychology. A few years ago, I considered going into teaching, maybe high school science or math. What I found convinced me that this wasn’t going to happen.

    In order to teach in California, you need a certification. This isn’t just a take a test and you are certified certification. This is a one year ‘graduate’ level set of preparation classes, most of it in phony bolony courses in “multi-culturalism” and ‘standards’ – basically, how to meet all the different government requirements that are added each year. The legislators and state board of education have to justify their existance, and look like they are doing something, so one of their exercises is to ‘tighten’ standards, i.e. create more requirements that have nothing to do with teaching, but everything to making some interest group provide support and campaign money.

    What we need is simply a couple of classes in basic classroom procedure, practicums in teaching methodology, and let the teachers teach. Instead, we get a lot of micro-management, make sure you have the correct political attitudes, and who cares if you actually know anything about your subject…

    Charlie

19. “Anyone have any personal experiences in this area?”

    Yeah, religious schools are the best. Why? First, the almighty fear of nuns. You ever see “The Blues Brothers?” Remember the Penguin? Not made up. Nuns can be terrifying teachers. Second, the clergy tend to be very, very, very well educated. I never met so many people who knew the classics like nuns and priests. Third,
    it is very expensive, so the teachers are very well paid. as for the religious education, it wasn’t as big a deal. I went to a Catholic school for a while, and all we had was Mass once a week, and occasionally one of the priests came in for a Q&A. Also, when parents pay a nice chunk of change for school, they are much more likely to be involved. (I am mentally contrasting Parent-teacher night at the Catholic school and at the Public school.)

    “Unless, of course, your definition of “socially retarded” includes being polite, well-mannered, respectful, able to relate to people of all ages…”

    Speaking as someone who was also homeschooled, I can say that, while we do tend to be more mature, we also tend to have trouble getting along with our peers for the same reasons.

    “Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time?”

    Yeah, but it would be great if they could clean up too. Also, then you would have less of an issue with a merit based system. If teachers were making lots of money, then there would be less worries about teachers being judged on merit, because they no longer have to worry about pay.

    When you get right down too it, aren’t all those pro sports people supposed to be doing it “for love of the game?” Lets cut their salaries, and see how long that lasts.

    “I’m not saying that too many kids aren’t being over prescribed but let’s not throw outthe baby with the bath water.”

    I have met kids who were so far off all the walls (in high school, no less!) that they needed some Ritalin. I have also had friends who had some slight problem put on drugs that are now giving them far worse problems. I think that recess would cure a lot of problems. What the hëll happened to recess anyway? you have it till about 6th grade, then, BAM!! No more recess. Man that sucked.

20. One thing I like to point out about the teaching pay scale, however much I respect them, is we have to take into account that in most school districts they do have about 3 months off every year. If you prorate the average teacher’s salary out to a true annual salary, it looks (a little) better compared to other jobs. The teachers on this thread will correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t many school districts pay teachers, even if only marginally, for other duties, like for teaching summer school, coaching, or sponsoring some of the more involved extracurricular clubs?

    Should teachers make more? Probably, but I think it is also a calling, and truthfully, if teaching became a high paying job, you’d get many, many more people going into teaching who were looking for a paycheck and not a passion. It’d be like the explosion of MBA’s in the late 1990’s; tons and tons of people running around with these expensive degrees looking for a job in a glutted market, not because they loved the field and the work, but because that’s where the money was supposed to be. I thought about going into teaching, but the combination of my lack of patience (I know, you would have never thought) and, frankly, my desire to retire sometime before I died without being a pensioner, didn’t make it the right choice for me. And, truthfully, I’m certain if I had gone into teaching, I’d probably be looking for my umpteenth teaching gig after telling a parent that having their child in class meant that somewhere, I was depriving a village of its idiot.

21. “Speaking as someone who was also homeschooled, I can say that, while we do tend to be more mature, we also tend to have trouble getting along with our peers for the same reasons.”

    Which is hardly a negative. At least, not for homeschooling.

22. Charlie: Actually, I looked long and hard at teaching, as I started college as a mechanical engineering major and decided during my second year internship that I wanted something else. I went with a Bachelor’s of Arts in History, and initially Teaching Certification. But in Illinois non-education majors are required to take education certification as a minor with 30+ credit hours of classes. Aside from the reasons mentioned above, becoming a teacher would have nullified all of the credits from my engineering major (I was able, with a couple of specific history classes, to turn my Japanese language credit into an East Asian Studies minor). But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the classes are necessary. My sister got her Bachelor’s in English with Education certification, but after going through the program and the required student teaching time, she decided it wasn’t for her and focused on the English part of her education. Would she have known that had she not had all those courses? What if she’d been able to rush through and gotten into a classroom, only to find that she was miserable? If even for a year, would you want your kid to learn from someone who hated their job?

    I don’t know you personally, so it could be that you’re very qualified to teach classroom after classroom of students through your unique experiences and personality, etc. But not everyone is, even though they may think they are. And I’d rather err on the side of caution, with strict requirements that require a certain amount of dedication to act as a vetting process when we put someone in front of our youth, to make sure they really want to be there.

23. Tim, first of all, I think I made it clear that my impressions of home-schooled kids were based strictly on my own experiences. Obviously, those are different from your own. For example, after 8 years of teaching, I doubt that I have even had 20 kids who were home-schooled (and with the block schedule I have had a grand total of around 1000-1200 students who have endured me as their teacher). You, on the other hand, live in a place where HALF the kids are home-schooled! Clearly, we are talking about 2 different worlds.

    The home-schoolers I have seen (or more accurately, that I know about–I’ll only know a kids has been home-schooled if they tell me) generally had it done for religious/political reasons. If half the kids in your neighborhood are being home-schooled I suspect it would be because the public schools are not up to par. So we may be dealing with a radically different population. If some of the home-school kids I have seen have trouble relating to their peers it may be far more likely due to their being brought up in a very religiously restrictive environment.

    I think it might be difficult to do good studies on home-schooling due to the radical differences in the REASONS why a particular child is home-schooled–do the parents want to have their kids educated in a safe environment where there are no distractions from learning or are they afraid that their kids will be learning about Evolution surrounded by minorities? Because, I imagine that you will get very different results from those two extremes.

    And I have nothing, nothing against home-schooling. If I could afford it, I’d have home-schooled my own kids. If any of you can pull it off, give it a go. Teaching is rewarding and the education of one’s own children should be one of a person’s greatest concerns so it stands to reason that home-schooling your kids is a great idea, if feasible.

24. One of the great difficulties in discussing public (K-12) education in the US is that it’s extremely hard to make accurate generalizations. Direct governance of public schools happens at the local (district/city/county) level, but funding of public schools comes from a wide range of sources increasingly dominated by state and federal monies (so that in more and more communities, the community doesn’t really see the true cost of their school system reflected in their tax burden). While local districts run individual schools, a great many of the standards, programs, and tools they use are imposed at the state and federal levels as well. And the form that local school oversight takes differs widely, too — some school districts have full-time paid boards, some have elected citizen boards whose members aren’t paid at all, and the degree to which the roles of the board (setting policy) and the administration (day to day management) are separated can vary as well.

    Which is why any “one size fits all” policy solution to the perceived problems with K-12 education in this country strikes me as untenable — to the extent that “the system” is broken, it’s broken in dozens of different ways in hundreds of different places. [I note that when I use “perceived problems” above, I don’t mean to suggest that there are no problems in US public schools. I do mean to suggest that the problems in any given district may or may not be the same ones asserted to be plaguing schools generally, or the same ones present in schools in some other district elsewhere in the nation.)

    There is an additional wrinkle that has mostly not been touched on, either in the above discussion or the general national debates — the student population today is not only far larger than it was in the “good old days” (for the sake of argument, let’s say pre-WW2), it’s also far more culturally, economically, and academically diverse. An education infrastructure that did a decent job of serving a primarily European, reasonably homogenous population base is now being asked to serve a population in which Asian, non-European Hispanic, Islamic, and other non-Western students, many from desperately poor households, form an increasingly significant percentage.

    Which is yet another reason why more money — though it’s often very much needed — is not and cannot be the One True Answer to improving public K-12 schools in the US. I am a firm believer in the proposition that public schools must be improved — as someone notes above, they’re one of the few remaining institutions capable of creating and nurturing a sense of community in localized populations, and we badly need to reinforce that community consciousness. But I think that the clearest path toward improvement is for federal and state bureaucracy to get out of the way and allow local schools greater flexibility in addressing the specific challenges facing their communities.

25. This was the most despicable outrageous comment on this whole thread!

    So in this union worker’s eyes, helping the schools and the children are not the most important thing for teachers, making sure that the unions get every cent they can from the union dues that are the biggest reason that teachers don’t make very much money is the most important thing.

    Caring for the actual schools and students is a sign of weakness??? Unions really are evil!!!

    Nice how you can twist words. I never once said a thing about salaries or anything that effects my own salary. When I talk about givebacks, I am talking about things like health benefits, pensions, tuition reimbursement funds, money for professiona development training, etc.

    In New Jersey, we have an abysmal teacher retention rate. Now let’s start cutting the benefits that they already get. Where does that leave these students? Without teachers.

    And it must be nice to be so idealistic. Sure, in a perfect world, people would flock to teaching because they want to help people. But at the end of the day, it’s just as important for them to be able to provide for their families, have decent health benefits, and opportunities for professional growth.

26. Yeah, religious schools are the best. … Third, it is very expensive, so the teachers are very well paid.

    I just looked at what our local Catholic community calls their “Red Book” — detailing the details of all the local schools, including tuition. Secondary tuition ranges from $2500/year to $13,000/year depending upon location. The two schools at $2500 are in rural areas, but there are several around $5000 in urban/suburban areas. I’m not sure if you consider that very expensive, or not. I have no idea how much the teachers get paid.

27. Some reality checks from 17 years’ teaching experience, 10 in a tough inner city district and 7 in a rural district:

    1. Unions don’t protect incompetent teachers. In practice, they protect competent teachers who’ve pìššëd somebody off by doing their jobs. Incompetent teachers seldom stick their necks out far enough to be noticed; they are sheltered by principals, parents and nepotism on the board.

    2, Tenure does not mean you can’t fire me; it means you have to follow due process and can’t arbitrarily get rid of me. If the schools were really interested in getting rid of incompetent teachers, they could do so.

    3. Judge teachers by their popularity with students and parents? The “most popular” teachers tend to be the ones with no backbone, who flatter and pimp and inflate those grades so the kid won’t be benched for the big game. Evaluations by the principal are no better– principals want teachers who haven’t caused them any trouble.

    4. Unions are powerful? Get a clue and stop repeating neo-conservative cliches.

    5. Local school boards should not be allowed anywhere near a curriculum. See Kansas.

    6. I would be all in favor of merit pay IF you could promise me I was being evaluated by an impartial third party with no relation to the principal, the superintendent, the school board or the parents. A state or federal inspector using generally agreed upon standards would be nice, like the fellows who regulate banks and make sure their books balanced.

    7. NCLB is a joke in the trenches; not one child will be better educated because of it. NCLB only added to the paperwork requirements for each school. It did not increase the number of science teachers, lab supplies, library books or whiteboards. “Compliance” with No Child Left Behind means filling in the forms correctly with plausible looking statistics for the hungry bureaucracy. “Compliance” does NOT mean your students have finally memorized the times tables.

    8. I can speak to where the trillions of dollars are going: lots of technology. Educators are enamored of machines that go “ping”! Library funds for purchasing books are often raided; when you start calling the school library a “media center”, you can define its needs any way you want.

    9. One thing the teaching profession could do: call for the abolishing of university “teacher education” programs. Education classes are proverbial in their uselessness, even among practicing teachers. 1: Require student teachers to get a real degree in some field of knowledge, test them for basic competence in the subject. 2: Appear before a licensing board with a presentation that proves you have the ability to present your subject, to build on prior knowledge and to prepare your students for the next level. 3: Introduce student teachers on bureaucracy, record-keeping, classroom management and the “paperwork” required today. What is that, three classes plus an internship somewhere? It’s the education majors that embarass the rest of us. That being said, there IS still a plce for academic research on education, just as there is on every human discipline– just stop wasting my money by asking me to take an “education” class instead of classes pertinent to the subject I teach.

    10) Declare a cultural jihad on pop culture references to “nerds, geeks, eggheads, liberals, know-it-alls, we know what kids REALLY want”, etc. etc. etc. It DOES make a difference. We’re trying to turn schoolchildren around, and children are not the worldly wise bûllšhìŧ detectors we see on TV. They are easily misled by superficial coolness, flattery, and machines that go “ping”. Bring back the adults. You wouldn’t let them make a decision about surgery or going to war, why would you let them decide how much and what kind of education they need?
    presented without revision

28. Bill,

    Thanks for your clarification. Again, I found your posts to be filled mainly with opinion based on your own experiences, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t. To be sure, my original post also had my opinions based on my experiences.

    However, my original point is that your contention that homeschooled kids are by and large “socially retarded” is not only inflammatory but also completely unsupported. There is no research that I’m aware of that supports that claim and a lot of research that demonstrates just the opposite.

29. Man oh man — I attend to other things for 18 hours and the thread goes nuts. 🙂

    Bill —

    Tim, why do you suppose that so many parents, if given vouchers, would head to the private schools? I know you are correct, I just wonder why.

    Some of it is what you mentioned — the fact that they know “disruptive influences” (a phrase which I tend to find a little vague and potentiall prone to abuse) can be removed.

    I think another aspect is that private schools tend to have fairly selective admissions (having served on two different schools’ admissions committees, I know something about this directly), and so parents can be fairly certain that the climate of the school (academic, social, etc.) is one that they’d agree is a good fit.

    Lastly … well, using Robin here as an example, there are those people who think that anything private is automatically superior to anything public.

    And further, if public schools could easily toss out students you just KNOW that some of them would be suspending low achievers just to raise their overall standardized test grades.

    Possibly true, but I wouldn’t think it would be difficult to put in some safeguards in that regard.

    [on merit pay — different levels of classes]

    Now all of them take a final exam that is made up by the state

    Methinks that’s the problem right there. IMO, the exam should be appropriate to its particular class, not a one-size-fits-all variety.

    I can state that at least 15-20% of my students, on average, fail. I’ll admit that the majority of thise are not always academic failures–too many absences, suspended for fighting, that sort of thing, but I have no fear of giving an F. I’m a freaking pussycat, you get an F with me and you have richly earned it.

    Oh, the few F’s I’ve given over the years are ones which were absolutely warranted and nobody said boo about them — it’s just a hard thing to do when you really really want them to do better and feel like they can but don’t.

    I agree that there is way too much emphasis on advanced math (But I don’t enjoy math so take that with a grain of salt). I see no reason for most kids to take chem and physics (both are great subjects but require a certain ability in higher level thinking).

    Allow this physics teacher to disagree. 🙂

    There’s no real need for most kids to take a highly mathematical physics course, no — but I think a basic conceptual physics course is something that everyone would benefit from having had. Among other things, I think it’s actually simpler to understand than your basic biology course, and related at least as strongly to things they see every day.

    My first day of classes, I give a pop quiz with about half a dozen questions: why is the sky blue, why do we have seasons, why do we have high and low tides, that sort of thing. I never grade it, but it focuses their attention, particularly those who say they don’t really know what physics is yet.

    (Of course, one of my favorite responses ever to the seasons question came from someone who wrote about Persephone eating pomegranate seeds. “This is someone I can work with,” I thought.)

    Obviously, every kid should be able to read and write (though we should recognize creative writing as the talent that it is. Not everyone can do it well.).

    Agreed — and half this administration seems to have missed the essential lesson of WHEN you engage in it. 🙂 (It was just sitting there begging to be said…)

    I’m going to have to disagree here as well. I know it is popular for us to bash the athletic department but the truth is that a lot of my kids would not be there if it were not for sports.

    I’m of two minds about this and always have been. On the one hand, I completely agree with you that sports can be a great motivator for kids, and teaches a lot of wonderful lessons. On the other hand, I also see kids (more focused in some sports than others, interestingly) who think that because they play a varsity sport that they’re entitled to the world and more — and in some of those cases, the coach is feeding into it rather than helping moderate it.

    I think sports are definitely worth keeping, but I’d also try as much as possible to drive home the lesson that it’s a secondary activity, not the primary purpose of school.

    TWL

30. James,

    Bill, Tim, you guys are teachers. tell me, where did your school’s share of that four trillion go?

    We never got one — my previous school, at least, was an independent school and so far as I know didn’t get any public money whatsoever.

    And do you think that schools overemphasize non-academic stuff too much?

    See my response to Bill, sort of.

    Charlie —

    First, on measuring results. I think that the measurement should be whether the parent is happy with the results (whether it is education, behavior, college prep, test scores, SATs or football ranking…) If I, as a parent, can have a real, actual choice as to where my child can go, ‘I’ can pick the criteria of choice.

    I’d certainly agree with this much!

    (as a side note: I don’t have kids, but pay $1000 every year in taxes for schools. Wouldn’t it be interesting if I could choose WHICH school got my funding…)

    Interesting, yes. Problematic also, I suspect. First, it’s an easy step from there to saying “shouldn’t I get to choose whether my taxes go to the schools at all?”, which will result in half of childless taxpayers saying “not my problem” and bailing, thus putting a nail in public education’s coffin. Second, at that point you’d have schools devoting a lot of money to PR and advertising to get your attention, which in itself takes away from useful ways to spend the money.

    Bill —

    You can’t get too upset over the fact that someone is better at basketball than you are because it is a simple matter of genetics- not everyone can be 7 feet tall. But people like to believe that the only reason someone is smarter than they are is because they waste time reading or have no social life.

    I think that gets to the heart of a lot of it (and I’m sure our host here has run into more than a zillion people who think that being a writer isn’t “real work”). Wish I knew what could be done, though.

    Craig —

    What do you think of the social merits of high schools?

    I think they’re highly variable, but in general tend to do more good than harm. Having taught both at coed and single-sex schools (girls, to be specific), in both cases I see a lot of growth over the course of the years I get to see the kids — usually, anyway. While academics are (or should be) the primary focus of HS, the social side is so all-encompassing for adolescents that anyone who ignores it or pretends it won’t matter is deluding themselves.

    (And I say this as someone who was … well, let’s say “not socially adept” in high school. College was much better.)

    TWL

31. Aaaaaand back to Robin —

    I’ve already said what my standard of success for a school is: “Is my child showing progress?” It’s subjective, but I think it’s a subjective measurement that parents who take an active role in their children’s lives are qualified to make.

    And the parents who don’t take such a role? What’s to stop them from picking a school based on how close it is to the baseball stadium, or the nearest strip club?

    (And lest you think that’s solely hyperbole, I passed a day-care facility a few weeks ago that was right next to “Titillations”, a strip club. I’m left to wonder if the clientele overlap … or the employees. I digress, however.)

    Tim:
    “I’ll ask you again, since you seem to ignore it every time I bring it up — would you be fine with using the ‘vouchers’ idea but applying it solely within the public school system? That seems to have a reasonable chance of creating the streamlining and competition you’re so confident is the answer, yet you don’t seem to be leaping at that particular opportunity. Why not?”

    How is that differnt from what happens now? If I want to drive my kid to the next school district and let him go to school there, doesn’t “his” money go there instead?

    1) You often can’t do that — a lot of schools are residency-based. I can’t send my daughter to a school in the next town unless I live in said down.

    2) No, “his” money doesn’t go there under those circumstances so far as I know — it might the following year, but not immediately.

    1.) I tend to think of government-run schools as a bad idea, because I’m of the opinion that government, though a necessary evil, is inherently, well, evil. Allowing the government to manage my child’s education seems like a surefire method of making sure he grows up to believe that the government is the answer to every problem.

    That leaves us at a bit of a deadlock, then — there’s no way I can address a core mindset that “X is evil” without turning into more of a confrontation than either of us would like.

    I will say, however, that if you’ve stated your beliefs accurately above (and there’s no reason to believe otherwise), then your interest really isn’t in reforming or improving public education, but in removing it entirely. As such, you’ll have to forgive me if I have to consider your suggestions on that basis.

    2.) I’m not sure exactly how a voucher that I can only “spend” in the public school system helps anything.

    Different schools, different teachers, different administrative priorities. If schools are given a fair amount of latitude in how they run things, doesn’t this let you choose the approach that’s the best fit for your child?

    3.) Even if the government does build two separate schools in the same district (though, expecting that to provide competition is like saying that XP Home and XP Professional constitute competing products), what would the difference be? Would we have separate governing bodies for each?

    Why not? Granted, we probably don’t at the moment, but is that such a hard thing to envision?

    It seems to me that if we have two schools that are being managed by the same set of inept fools (i.e., the local board of education), then it’s like a choice between eating horse crap or dog crap — technically, you’ve given me a choice, but it’s a lousy one.

    Nice to know you’re coming at this from a rational point of view.

    (On the other hand, “Tim Lynch — Feeder’O’Crap” does have a nice ring on a business card.)

    Still, I’m willing to admit that my experiences with the public school system were extremely negative, and that probably colors my opinion of it.

    Appreciated.

    When I say I want a voucher system, this is all I’m asking for: If I send my kid to a private school, I want the government to direct that $X that would’ve gone to my public schoool into the private school I’ve chosen. Why is that such a problem?

    The problem is that the public school in question isn’t “yours”. It’s the community’s.

    As I said in response to someone else earlier, as soon as you get to do that, the obvious next step is for someone who’s childless (or whose children have graduated) to say “I don’t want my money going to fund education at all.” Now, since you think public education (and any government-run program, if memory serves) is intrinsically evil, that may not cause a problem from where you sit — but from where I sit, it would be the beginning of sucking the public schools dry of virtually all funds and of most students whose parents have even a chance of pursuing another option.

    If you think taxpayers should have the option of choosing where the money goes (including out of the government entirely), that’s fine, but if you think it would stay limited to education I think you’re kidding yourself — and I don’t know that an a-la-carte approach to tax money is something we want to just blindly leap into.

    TWL

32. Bob —

    i wonder why it is suggested that there can be no way to assess a teacher’s capabilities when trying to determine their level of merit (for merit-based assessments).

    It hasn’t been so suggested.

    What has is that there’s no hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all variety of doing so that would work for every teacher (probably even within a discipline, but certainly across it).

    The method you’re suggesting (with a variety of information and individual judgements) is a good one, as long as the person or people doing the judging has no axe to grind — but that also involves a lot of time, thought, and effort. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but the people in charge of making these decisions (and yes, I mean the current administration) prefer a single number they can point to and say “a-ha! easy fix!”

    look, i’d be all for providing more funding to the public schools, IF there were any indication that it would be better spent than the money i’m already paying. that’s where auditing comes into play. if you say we need an extra .5 cent sales tax to fund a particular program, with particular goals, and how the money will be spent, and i think the program has merit, i’d be more than happy to vote for it. but simply saying that we need more money for education, when for all i know the money will go into raises for administrators or a new football statium, then i’m going to vote it down.

    That’s understandable — but given all the other venues in which money gets spent in ways I don’t like, school funding is the one I always consider a justifiable risk. (Well, one of them — libraries are the other.)

    oh, and one of the reasons that doctors/lawyers/plumbers/etc. make so much more than teachers? they aren’t government employees. private school teachers (and professors at private schools) make quite a bit more than public school teachers

    Untrue. When I was just starting out in California, my initial salary was a good 5-10K less than what I’d have made in the public school.

    Now, that may vary state-by-state — but it’s certainly not a blanket truth.

    TWL

33. Last post for a while, I promise.

    Dave —

    And while I very much disagree with the notion that teaching does not require a terrible amount of skill, I find the notion of paying teachers exorbitant salaries, i.e. the Sorkin solution, equally preposterous. Aren’t some professions supposed to be about more than just money?

    Sure, and I’d like to think teaching is one of them — but just because it’s about “more than money” doesn’t mean leaving incomes at the poverty level is a good idea.

    I don’t expect to get a $20-million, four-year deal from a school (or a trade to another school) — but I’d like to think that teachers should be given enough money that they aren’t worrying too much about being able to buy a house or afford child care. At least in urban California, most teachers haven’t a prayer of buying a house unless they want a 90-mile commute each way or have an independently wealthy spouse. (It’s a bit better where I am now.)

    Basically, I agree with you that you don’t want to make the salaries so huge that people come just for the paycheck — but I think you want to make them respectable enough that people aren’t scared AWAY by the paycheck, and to a large extent that’s happening now.

    Jason —

    One thing I like to point out about the teaching pay scale, however much I respect them, is we have to take into account that in most school districts they do have about 3 months off every year.

    That’s a bit of a canard, actually. Most teachers spend a reasonably large chunk of the summer doing course prep for the following year, and meetings and such run well past the “last day of school” for kids and start well before the alleged “first day of school.” When relatives ask me when my year starts, I always say “under which definition?”

    I’d say that on average, the amount of actual downtime I’ve gotten each summer is a month, maybe six weeks.

    The other thing a lot of people who make that claim overlook (and I’m not necessarily referring to you, Jason) is that a typical work-week is by no means the standard 9-to-5 job when it comes to teaching. Most of my workweeks during the school year are in the 60-80 hour range, and there are days during crunch periods when I’ve been known to set my alarm for 3 a.m. so that I can go into school and get some work done. (This was both pre- and post-baby, BTW.) That’s something that should also be considered when talking about presenting a “true” annual salary.

    The teachers on this thread will correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t many school districts pay teachers, even if only marginally, for other duties, like for teaching summer school, coaching, or sponsoring some of the more involved extracurricular clubs?

    Depends on the school or the district — but some certainly do, yes.

    And perhaps appropriately, now I’ve got to go pay some bills. 🙂

    TWL

34. A couple of quick thoughts on specific sub-topics:

    Most merit-pay proposals seem to me to rest on a dilemma. As various folk have noted, the easy/simple methods for assessing “merit” are demonstrably limited with respect to accuracy. On the flip side, any evaluation system that produces a worthwhile level of accuracy is going to require significant time and money to administer — and that money definitionally falls under “administration” costs, which critics of public schools consistently decry as wasteful.

    Which demonstrates, of course, the logic-flaw in asserting that all “administrative” costs are wasteful and inappropriate. As in any large organization, one needs supervisors, managers, and/or administrators to run the organization — and secretarial support to deal with the inevitable paperwork associated with running said large organization. [I’ve long thought that teachers should have more direct secretarial support than they do, for instance.] And sufficiently large school districts necessarily require greater central oversight than smaller ones. [Then again, I tend to think that school districts can get too big to be usefully managed — LA Unified, in which my sister-in-law teaches, may be an example of that problem.]

35. Judge teachers by their popularity with students and parents? The “most popular” teachers tend to be the ones with no backbone, who flatter and pimp and inflate those grades so the kid won’t be benched for the big game. Evaluations by the principal are no better– principals want teachers who haven’t caused them any trouble.

    One teacher I knew said that every year the most popular and least popular teacher shouls be taken out and summarily executed; it would greatly improve the overall situation. Harsh but intriguing.

    At any rate there is quite a bit of truth in what you say.

    Unions are powerful? Get a clue and stop repeating neo-conservative cliches.

    Unions ARE powerful. In North Carolina, as a state worker, I have no union. My sister, teaching in New York, has a very powerful one. She gets a hëll of a lot more money than I do. I’d be willing to bet that, on average, teachers in states with unions get paid more than those in states without unions. Of course, pay isn’t everything and I have some problems with how her union operates but there’s no denying that they have power.

    One thing the teaching profession could do: call for the abolishing of university “teacher education” programs. Education classes are proverbial in their uselessness, even among practicing teachers.

    Amen, brother! Listen to the man! HUGE waste of time, though a few of the teachers I had were among the finest people I have ever known–but their classes were oasis’ in the desert.

    your contention that homeschooled kids are by and large “socially retarded” is not only inflammatory but also completely unsupported.

    In my defense, what I said was “I’ve noticed that although home-schooled kids are, on average, way ahead of the others in pure knowledge, they tend to be a bit socially retarded (this is not true for all of them).” which certainly has enough qualifiers in it. I regret using the word retarded though, which is too loaded. I’m not implying that the ones I have seen are immature or slow or complete social outcasts–just that they often have a certain degree of difficulty relating to their peers. (Someone said “And this is a bad thing?” It is if you’re a 15 year old.)

    I mean, I LIKE my social outcasts. They hang out in my room. I show them cool websites. They lend me truly odd CDs (A band that does bluegrass versions of Metallica? WTF?). But I think they’d really rather be able to do all this with some kids their own age.

    Re: summers

    It’s valid to point out that teachers get summers off–I only get almost 2 months but that ain’t bad. So you could make the claim that we should factor that in when comparing teachers saleries to others.

    Tim is right though–it isn’t a 40 hour week, at least not for a good teacher. The funny thing is, in some ways we are masochists. I’m happy that we finally have new textbooks this year even though that means I have to toss out all my painstakingly created worksheets and chapter reviews (I HATE the ones that come with the books. I have to make my own) and start over again. If I A-had a copy of the book and B- had been told exactly what subjects I’ll be teaching I’d probably be making them up right now.

36. > let’s start holding the layman responsible for understanding what the hëll’s going on around him, her or it.

    Uh, how many years does it take to become a lawyer? A doctor? A chemist? A programmer? How many years should someone be expected to spend in school until they are able to understand what the hëll’s going on around them? Let’s be practical, shall we?

    Although … I admit I’d much rather see a few more elected officials with more than high school science under their academic belts. Might make for some saner legislations.

    > Isn’t it better that one might gravitate towards a certain profession because it’s a “calling” and not because they want to clean up big time?

    It’d be nice, but I can’t help remembering the ONE SCENE from the long-defunct L.A. LAW show where the firm’s founder is a guest speaker to a freshman class of would-be lawyers and, when he asks if there are any questions, the ones he does get are all about how much a lawyer makes and which sort of practice is the most profitable. And then I wonder how far from the truth that is?

    > Nuns can be terrifying teachers.

    Having been in classes taught by nuns (latter part of Grade 6, as well as grade 7) I can attest to that.

    > in most school districts they do have about 3 months off every year

    And all the teachers I’ve known have invariably spent at least a month of that either keeping up, or improving their skills through summer courses at university. At their expense, of course. So much for three months off.

    > I can speak to where the trillions of dollars are going: lots of technology. Educators are enamored of machines that go “ping”!

    Unfortunately. But some are waking up to the idea that machines just might not be such a good idea after all, and going back to having little Johnny use the computer between his ears beats relying on calculators and spell checkers.

    We can but hope.

37. “In my defense, what I said was ‘I’ve noticed that although home-schooled kids are, on average, way ahead of the others in pure knowledge, they tend to be a bit socially retarded (this is not true for all of them).’ which certainly has enough qualifiers in it. I regret using the word retarded though, which is too loaded. I’m not implying that the ones I have seen are immature or slow or complete social outcasts–just that they often have a certain degree of difficulty relating to their peers. (Someone said “And this is a bad thing?” It is if you’re a 15 year old.)”

    Bill, I just wanted to chime in once, but you keep saying things that I feel that I have to respond to!!

    The desirability of lack of conformity and not being able to fit in with ones age mates (I don’t say peers because ultimately, age is a horrible method of choosing ones peers) is not an absolute. Its desirability stands or falls on the reason for the lack of conformity. For a hyperbolic example, plunk a normal healthy kid down in a population of psychopathic, anti-social misfits, and his inability to relate to everyone around him is very desirable. (So would be his immediate exit from that population!)

    That being the case, the hypothetical difficulty of a homeschooled child to relate to some other children his own age because of his greater maturity or intellectual gifts is not a problem of the homeschooled child. Quite the opposite in fact. It is the children with whom the homeschooled child is trying to interact who have the problem.

    By the way, I am not disagreeing with you at all that this happens. In social settings with various ages, I have observed many homeschooled teens prefering to hang with the adults rather than kids their own age. The reason, frankly, is that the behavior of their age mates is so immature and downright obnoxious that the company of adults is preferable. The homeschooling parents that I know (including myself) take pride in this unintended consequence of our educational choice. There is no shame or regret in raising a child who is generally more mature than the other kids his age. It’s a source of pride.

    “I mean, I LIKE my social outcasts. They hang out in my room. I show them cool websites. They lend me truly odd CDs (A band that does bluegrass versions of Metallica? WTF?). But I think they’d really rather be able to do all this with some kids their own age.”

    And these are the homeschooled kids that you believe are socially inept? I’d be surprised if they are. They sound more like the “geeks” and “misfits” that are always cast out in the school setting. Not because they are more mature but because they’re not part of the “in crowd.” Because they like strange music, act different, or dress in a unique way. (Imagine being so socially inept, and they’re not even homeschooled!!!!) Such kids would probably benefit greatly from homeschooling, where they would be free to explore their individual interests without the cruel attitudes that are so common among kids in our school system.

38. is property tax not supposed to go toward education? at least that was my understanding. if that is correct, last i checked, new york has quite the taxes, so therefore, where is the $$$$ going?

    Joe V.

39. (This was written periodically throughout the day today, as I had a few minutes to check the site here and there and copied quotes I wanted to reply to. Apologies if any of the points I make have already been addressed.)

    Jason wrote:
    “I have to ask, why, if we’re concerned about the ever-declining quality of our education, would we want to REDUCE the requirements and qualifications necessary teach?“

    I’ve got no interest in lowering the standards for people to teach, but changing the current requirements and qualifications? I’m all for that.

    I honestly believe that the standards we use now are completely faulty. I have no doubts that there are some very good teachers who come through our current system (that is, they go to college and get degrees in education), but based on my observations of good teachers and the things that my education-student friends in college were being taught, I believe that they are good teachers despite the system, definitely not because of it.

    No one walks into the classroom as the perfect teacher, and many of the skills necessary to be a decent teacher can be taught. Just like Peter didn’t learn to tell stories as well as he does in a classroom, great teachers have skills that they certainly didn’t pick up in a modern college course in education. (Probably not in older education courses, either, but I’ve no experience with those.)

    In a reply to Charlie later, Jason continued along the same vein:
    “And I’d rather err on the side of caution, with strict requirements that require a certain amount of dedication to act as a vetting process when we put someone in front of our youth, to make sure they really want to be there.“

    I’ve no qualms at all with making sure that a teacher wants to be there, or that they’ve got some skill (whether natural or obtained through training) at, well, teaching. But as Charlie pointed out, a lot of the “education” classes now are a lot more focused on making sure one has the proper political beliefs and “respect for diversity”, not on actual teaching ability.

    Eric wrote:
    When we can see clearly that PlanX disadvantages that outweigh the problems of the status quo, we must NOT accept PlanX.* I don’t deny that the public schools need to find a better way, but treating them like businesses isn’t the way.“

    I’d agree, except that I don’t think that the disadvantages of the voucher system outweigh the problems of the current system. In fact, the problems are largely the same, but they’re lessened.

    Eric:
    “You find me a business that succeeds when 1) it MUST work with whatever faulty materials it’s given, 2) it RARELY has enough capital to invest properly, 3) it CANNOT measure its true success because of the lack of a true, reliable bottom line, 4) it DOES NOT PAY its employees salaries comparable to others with similar levels of education, and 5) its competitors CHERRY-PICK the best raw materials, then I will seriously think about treating the public schools like that business.

    Schools don’t work as businesses because… they aren’t be allowed to do the things to do the things that businesses do? You’re making my point for me, aren’t you? For the school system to succeed, it must do the things that businesses would do.

    1.) The fact that we don’t allow our schools to separate the wheat from the chaff is part of the problem in the current system. We try to put everyone in the same school system, even though we know that doing so provides a disservice to everyone.

    It hurts those students who have strengths that lie outside of the traditional educational model — they’re not only forced to sit through it now, but they’re constantly preached at with the idea that everyone should go to college, which simply isn’t true.

    It hurts students who have strengths that serve them well in the traditional classroom, because their education is disrupted by other students.

    So why not allow schools to, at the very least, locate those students who’re better suited for other things and help them find what they’re truly good at? Get the “faulty” raw materials out. (I’d say they’re not faulty so much as not right for that particular use, but…)

    You may think that I’m trying to write the slower students off, but that’s not what I’m doing at all. I want to stop the system that makes them think they’re stupid (and worse, encourages others to think less of them because they’re allegedly stupid). That their strengths lie in other areas doesn’t make them somehow inferior.

    My dad has been a miner, a truck driver, a logger, and a grocery store owner during my lifetime. He’s got a high school education, nothing more. I assure you, though, that he’s a good deal more intelligent than almost any college student I ever met. However, I also recognize that he’s better suited for learning outside the classroom than inside it.

    We’re all equal in rights and deserving of the same basic respect, but we’re not equal in abilities, no matter how much the current system is true.

    2.) I’m sorry, but I’d have to see some raw numbers on that. I’ve yet to see a school system that isn’t throwing a ton of money down the toilet. I think it’s less a problem of not having enough capital and more a problem of not properly managing the capital available.

    Of course, if I saw the numbers, and the system wasn’t wasting money, I’d be more than willing to support additional funding.

    3.) Why can’t it measure success? The doctor measures success patient by patient — why can’t a school do so student by student? Because there are too many students and too few teachers. What we need is someone who spends time with the children on a day to day basis and would therefore be better suited to determining whether the student was really learning anything. Thing is, we have those people, and you’re arguing that they don’t have the right to choose a school that better suits their student (or that they should be punished for doing so, since they lose the $6,700 that the government would’ve put toward their student’s education otherwise).

    Stop trying to make decisions about schools on the macro level. Allow parents to make the decisions for their individual students, and the micro level decisions will determine the fate of the schools on a macro level.

    You admit that testing doesn’t work, and you see how I believe my solution will. You obviously disagree — why, and what is your solution?

    4.) I suspect that’s related to 2, and has more to do with mismanagement of funds (and a higher than necessary administrator-to-teacher ratio).

    5.) I don’t like the use of the word “best” there at all, as it only applies if you’re measuring the two “products” by the same measuring stick. A school that specializes in benefitting the smarter kids will likely have better test scores, just like a fence-post factory will produce bigger chunks of wood than a toothpick factory.

    I’m talking about multiple types of schools — one type that produces future nuclear physicists and doctors, another type that produces police officers and fire fighters, a third type that produces artists and musicians, and on and on. Will the first school produce better science scores than the third? Of course. Does that mean it’s better? No.

    You keep saying that schools can’t be like businesses because they can’t filter out the “faulty” materials. I, on the other hand, am saying that schools fail because we insist on sending iron, wood, marble, and silicon through the exact same processes and then expect them to come out the other side as useful materials.

    Eric wrote:
    “Even if they did offer the full amount, that still leaves $3,300 or more per year for the family to come up with. You think someone near the poverty line sees that kind of sum as an opportunity? If someone walked up to me right now and said, ‘I’ll give you ten billion dollars if you give me ten thousand dollars in cash right now,’ I’d have to refuse him! I don’t have that kind of cash on me. That someone didn’t offer me any real benefit because I couldn’t afford his offer!“

    So… I might be able to come up with $3,300 for my kid to go to a better school, but because my neighbor can’t, I shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity?

    Tim has been suggesting a voucher system for “public” schools. I’m okay with that if we allow for different types of public schools. Send the kids who show an aptitude for math and science to one school, the kids who show a rapport with animals to another, the kids who have a knack for spinning tales to a third and the kids who have a talent for woodwork (or metal shop or…) to yet another, and stop trying to measure them against one another. That way, everyone can afford to send their kids to school (since they’re public), but the schools are better tailored to meet the needs of the kids.

    Star Wolf quoted Bobb as saying:
    “… so that I can learn to write in something called Plain English. And the instructor is very good as telling us that it’s not “dumbing down” our writing…but that’s exactly what it is.“

    …and then disagreed, saying that dropping the technical jargon isn’t “dumbing down” the language, which is correct. Unfortunately, The Star Wolf missed the rest of Bobb’s quote, which pointed out that the problem wasn’t technical jargon, but pretty common every day words:

    “And the instructor is very good as telling us that it’s not “dumbing down” our writing…but that’s exactly what it is. It’s an admission that the common American citizen lacks the reading comprehension to easily comprehend words like utilize, initiate, and promulgate.“

    Tim wrote:
    “And the parents who don’t take such a role? What’s to stop them from picking a school based on how close it is to the baseball stadium, or the nearest strip club?“

    Unfortunately, nothing. Parents who put other things above their child’s education is a societal issue that’s a problem in the current system as well as in my version of the voucher system.

    I hope and pray that those students will manage to transcend the example their parents give them, but that’s no reason to hold my (hypothetical) kid back by not letting me pick a school that suits him.

    Tim wrote (about my question on how his “public vouchers” program would differ from the current system):
    “1) You often can’t do that — a lot of schools are residency-based. I can’t send my daughter to a school in the next town unless I live in said down.

    2) No, ‘his’ money doesn’t go there under those circumstances so far as I know — it might the following year, but not immediately.”

    I’m basing the following on second-hand knowledge and my (possibly faulty) memory, so please take it with a grain of salt.

    One of the history teachers in my local high school is famous for the amount of work he requires students to do. By the time I was in high school, it had become fairly common for students to transfer to another high school (in a different county, requiring them or their parents to drive anywhere from 10 to 40 additional miles) to avoid taking his class.

    I seem to remember that this caused a bit of a stink because the county was required to send some amount of money to the other school systems in exchange for their accepting the kids. Now, whether this is just a local (or state) policy or I imagined it, I can’t say, but it seems pretty similar to what you’re talking about with “public school vouchers”.

    Tim:
    “Different schools, different teachers, different administrative priorities. If schools are given a fair amount of latitude in how they run things, doesn’t this let you choose the approach that’s the best fit for your child?“

    Assuming that we allow for different administrative priorities, it does. I just don’t see it happening when the entire school system in which I’m permitted to use the money earmarked for my child’s education is under the thumb of the federal government.

    Tim:
    “Nice to know you’re coming at this from a rational point of view.“

    Sorry. I was out of line in applying the “crap” analogy to all school systems, and should’ve applied it a little less liberally. I apologize. I wasn’t thinking, and I assure you that I meant no offense to you nor any of the other teachers who may be hanging out here.

    In a system like our local one, where the county government is run by a handful of families who like to play favorites, I’d prefer to have an alternative that’s run by someone outside of the system, because offering another school run by that same group isn’t offering much of a choice at all.

    I know that there are some good teachers in the local school system, and I can’t name more than two that I actually believe to be bad. They’re hampered by the administration, and I don’t see how a system that lets me pick only from schools run by that same administration would be of any use. If you’re proposing a “public school voucher” system that would somehow allow me to avoid a bad administration, I’d be willing to entertain the idea.

    Tim:
    “As I said in response to someone else earlier, as soon as you get to do that, the obvious next step is for someone who’s childless (or whose children have graduated) to say ‘I don’t want my money going to fund education at all.’“

    I’m not talking about letting the taxpayers control what happens to “their” money when it goes into the government pool, I’m talking about letting the money earmarked for my child’s education be used for my child’s education, regardless of whether I choose to allow him to go to a government-run school.

    Tim:
    “Now, since you think public education (and any government-run program, if memory serves) is intrinsically evil, that may not cause a problem from where you sit — but from where I sit, it would be the beginning of sucking the public schools dry of virtually all funds and of most students whose parents have even a chance of pursuing another option.“

    Well, the idea is that if public schools can’t improve to compete in the marketplace, they would die because all students would now have the chance to go to a school that better serves their needs.

40. Tim,

    I love your comments (and I’ll bet you’ve done a great job as a home-schooling parent–though I was under the impression that your only child was too young for this–are you talking about future plans?).

    Here’s the thing–the kids I’m talking about (and you are correct that they are not all or even mostly homeschooled) are going through high school alone NEEDLESSLY. It isn’t that there aren’t any other kids with the same interests–we have, as I love to keep pointing out, 2600 kids. This is not a typo. Even if whatever you are is a measly 1% of the population that’s a whole CLASSROOM of fellow whatevers.

    But these kids are almost painfully shy and very fearful of rejection. Which gets me nervous since there are subgroups that will accept anybody and they are usually not the best ones. The Druggies. The Vandals. The Visigoths. Marching Band.

    One reason why I am so well loved, or at least haven’t had my car keyed, is because I open my room an hour early and let anyone who wants to come in and play around on the computers or play YuGiOh (don’t get me started) or whatever, which has actually allowed some of them to slowwwwwly make friends with each other. Then they disappear and never write.

    Of course, this is from someone who was afraid to speak up in groups of people right up until college and now strikes up conversations with people who, I’m pretty certain, were thinking about mugging me. I think at some point I must have had a stroke or a takeover by a pod.

    Getting excited about the new school year yet?

41. “That being the case, the hypothetical difficulty of a homeschooled child to relate to some other children his own age because of his greater maturity or intellectual gifts is not a problem of the homeschooled child. Quite the opposite in fact. It is the children with whom the homeschooled child is trying to interact who have the problem.”

    that’s one hypothetical case. however, they may also not get along because they lack a certain emotional maturity.

    now, i can only speak from (very limited)personal experience. the one home-schooled person i’ve spent the most time with had serious emotional maturity problems which i believe stem from her home-schooling environment.

    this points out a basic problem with home-schooling. kids with lousy parents will also have lousy teachers.

    not that i’m writing-off the whole system, just saying it isn’t full-proof (or fool-proof, for that matter).

42. School should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense.

    Nah, we should give out national defense vouchers and allow each family to have defense choice. If I put my vouchers into missile defense, I don’t get protected in a land war. If I put all my vouchers into armored cavalry, I get opted out of the missile shield, etc. That’s what free-enterprise is all about!

43. i would also if there are many good parents who are not necessarily intellectually capable of teaching at a high school level.

    not that you need to be brilliant to teach high school, but it is a particular ability that not everyone else has.

44. Bill,

    Thanks for your response. It struck just the right cord.

    I hope I’m doing well as a homeschool parent. Usually, I’m fairly confident. But I’m glad you didn’t see the kids around the dinner table tonight. Yikes! They are good young’uns, but they have their moments. (For the record, I’ve got SIX children.)

    What you describe is a lot darker than I remember it. I was one of the awkward, shy kids, but I had my circle of friends who were similarly looked on a third class citizens. I had someone I could relate to. I’m glad you’re where you are. I may have some very sincere disagreements with how education is run in this country today (I’d favor a system that let’s parents choose their school without being forced to fund schools that they don’t use), and I’m sure we could get into some very spirited debates. But I’m glad that the kids have teachers like you. I wish you were legion.

    Actually, I am looking forward to the Fall, but not the way that you think. We school year round, taking several periods of time off throughout the year rather than one long three month break. We find that the school year calendar doesn’t make much sense in light of today’s modern industrial society. (The extended vacation during the warm season was to allow the kids to help with the farming.) By doing it this way, we try to avoid having to remind our kids in the Fall of what they were taught the previous year and forgot during the summer break. (It might sound cruel to keep the kids studying indoors while their friends are all outside playing, but you have to keep something in mind – A typical homeschool day lasts two to four hours. After that, they’re free to play.)

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to the Fall because we take our big vacation (two weeks) after Labor Day. We can go on holiday anytime we want and always wait until school is in session. So, our kids typically get the month of September off because we’re out of town for two weeks anyway.

    It’s an interesting perspective. I always hated the Fall because school was starting up again. My kids love it because they get a break!

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your ideas with me. I enjoy the give and take of differing perspectives.

    Tim

45. Americans in general are for to casual in their use of prescription drugs, and tragically include their children. Which is just crazy to me, given the increasing number of studies that show that we have almost no clue how long-term drug use affects an adult, let alone a developing child.

    I am curious how an “increasing number of studies” could result in our having “almost no clue” about the subject studied. Perhaps you meant that there have been very FEW studies on the long-term affects of anti-ADHD drugs in children, which wouldn’t be inaccurate.

    However, these drugs are rarely used “casually”, since they are mostly controlled substances and, more to the point, only “calm” kids who actually have an attention deficit. Most of the drugs are STIMULANTS, and if given to a normal child, would have him bouncing off the walls. They are not tranquilizers and do not flatten affect as you imply.

46. Robin,

    We may be approaching the point where all we can do is say “I see what you mean, but I don’t agree” here, since some of this is definitely boiling down to a conflict of worldviews (or at least, similar goals with *vastly* differing ideas about how to achieve them). Nevertheless, a few comments:

    No one walks into the classroom as the perfect teacher, and many of the skills necessary to be a decent teacher can be taught. Just like Peter didn’t learn to tell stories as well as he does in a classroom, great teachers have skills that they certainly didn’t pick up in a modern college course in education. (Probably not in older education courses, either, but I’ve no experience with those.)

    It may surprise you to hear this, but I almost completely agree with the above. One of the strengths (and weaknesses, I hasten to point out) of the independent-school system is that teachers don’t have to be credentialed — as a result, I’ve never gotten around to getting mine despite the fact that I’m about to start year (eek) 14.

    I have plenty of friends who are credentialed, however, and one of them sums up my opinion of the process (witnessed from a distance) as something like this:

    If you’re a natural teacher, a credentialing program won’t tell you anything that isn’t common sense. If you’re not a natural teacher but an okay one, it’ll remind you of some things you OUGHT to know. [She tends to use as an example someone who both of us taught with in the past.]

    My sense is that the credentialing program as it currently stands is seriously flawed, and that there at the very least ought to be an alternate way of going about it. Certainly I believe being an education *major* is not a great idea, at least if you’re teaching at the high school or middle school level. (I can’t comment on the earlier grades, since I’ve never taught them. That’s where all the really brave people go.)

    We’re all equal in rights and deserving of the same basic respect, but we’re not equal in abilities, no matter how much the current system is true.

    I’m sorry, I’m having trouble parsing that last clause there. Your overall point (that schools should be more flexible in seeing where a student’s talents lie, whether it’s in or out of the classroom) is one I generally agree with.

    I’ve yet to see a school system that isn’t throwing a ton of money down the toilet. I think it’s less a problem of not having enough capital and more a problem of not properly managing the capital available.

    I have to ask: how many school budgets have you actually looked at? There may well be a fair amount of waste, but as others have pointed out if you want to be able to evaluate teachers fairly and thoroughly that’s going to require more administrative structure than most people seem to think is necessary.

    So… I might be able to come up with $3,300 for my kid to go to a better school, but because my neighbor can’t, I shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity?

    That’s not a fair summation of Eric’s point, Robin, and you know it.

    Tim has been suggesting a voucher system for “public” schools. I’m okay with that if we allow for different types of public schools.

    Fine by me, though I’m not sure I’d segregate the “types” to the same degree as what you’re suggesting. In part, you’re suggesting tracking the kids at what might be a very early age, and I’m not generally in favor of that for a number of reasons.

    [This is actually quoting Bobb}:

    “And the instructor is very good as telling us that it’s not “dumbing down” our writing…but that’s exactly what it is. It’s an admission that the common American citizen lacks the reading comprehension to easily comprehend words like utilize, initiate, and promulgate.”

    I have to agree with this. I tend to use Big Words [tm] and complicated sentence structure when I write (as people here may have noticed 🙂 ), and I know that in some cases it’s turned people away from my writing. (Someone once told a friend of mine that he preferred someone else’s reviews to mine because mine made him have to look things up and he didn’t want to feel dumb. Sigh.) I certainly try to make things as comprehensible as possible for my students, but I’m not going to shy away from being as particular as necessary in my phrasing. (I have a bit of a reputation for being picky with kids’ wording, actually.)

    Tim wrote (about my question on how his “public vouchers” program would differ from the current system):
    “1) You often can’t do that — a lot of schools are residency-based. I can’t send my daughter to a school in the next town unless I live in said down.

    I’m basing the following on second-hand knowledge and my (possibly faulty) memory, so please take it with a grain of salt.

    [example deleted]

    I’m not familiar with any such examples, but I’m also not really in a position to be privy to such. I’ll take your word for it.

    Tim:
    “Different schools, different teachers, different administrative priorities. If schools are given a fair amount of latitude in how they run things, doesn’t this let you choose the approach that’s the best fit for your child?”

    Assuming that we allow for different administrative priorities, it does. I just don’t see it happening when the entire school system in which I’m permitted to use the money earmarked for my child’s education is under the thumb of the federal government.

    Deadlock, then. I don’t see it as being nearly so monolithic.

    In a system like our local one, where the county government is run by a handful of families who like to play favorites, I’d prefer to have an alternative that’s run by someone outside of the system, because offering another school run by that same group isn’t offering much of a choice at all.

    I have to wonder where the heck you’re living, where the next HS over is “10-40 miles away” and a handful of families run the county. I mean, I grew up in New Jersey and recently moved back there, which is supposed to be a mainstay of political corruption, and I’m not seeing the latter.

    And now, the key issue for vouchers as I see it:

    Me:
    As I said in response to someone else earlier, as soon as you get to do that, the obvious next step is for someone who’s childless (or whose children have graduated) to say ‘I don’t want my money going to fund education at all.’

    Robin:
    I’m not talking about letting the taxpayers control what happens to “their” money when it goes into the government pool, I’m talking about letting the money earmarked for my child’s education be used for my child’s education, regardless of whether I choose to allow him to go to a government-run school.

    But that means you ARE talking about the former, Robin. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you say the money is earmarked for “your” child’s education, then a childless person can claim *with equal validity* that their money shouldn’t have to be earmarked for any child’s education.

    There is no way out of that progression other than justifying it with “but I wanna!”, so far as I can tell. I understand the desire, but it is not “your” money to disburse as you see fit, any more than someone who doesn’t drive gets out of paying for roads and other infrastructure.

    Those property taxes go to support public education. That’s the education of the public, not the education of your kid specifically. I, for one, think we should all be striving for a well-educated citizenry — not that I’m saying you don’t, but your posts have on occasion been willing to effectively say “well, too bad for those who can’t afford X type of education”, which is effectively throwing them over the side.

    There’s our collision of worldviews, I think: you’re insistent that the money somehow should remain “yours”, and you’re not seeing or not acknowledging the inconsistencies in or logical consequences of that stance. The public system is flawed, no question, and I’m happy to discuss ways of changing or reforming it. I am not willing to entertain the idea of scrapping it, and I take particular exception to any attempt to cloak said idea in the guise of reform.

    (I’m not saying you’re doing that last — at least not intentionally. Your statements can certainly be interpreted that way, however.)

    TWL

47. Robin said:

    So… I might be able to come up with $3,300 for my kid to go to a better school, but because my neighbor can’t, I shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity?

    1) Voucher proponents often use the “vouchers give EVERYONE access to private schools!” argument in their ads. Here in Michigan I’ve seen this idea used over and over again. One TV ad showed a [rich] white kid in a limo driving past a [poor] black kid, with the [words] implied by the ad, then it asked, “is it fair that only one of these kids gets to choose his school because he can afford it?” While vouchers might increase access for some folks, they do not benefit everyone, nor do they provide anyone who is even remotely poor the opportunity to find a better school.

    2) IMO, You should not be afforded the opportunity by the government, by the taxpayers, by me. It’d be like the government paying the moving fees for “white flight.” (I don’t mean to bring race into it, but the economic factors involved are very similar, regardless of race.)

    Tim has been suggesting a voucher system for “public” schools. I’m okay with that if we allow for different types of public schools. Send the kids who show an aptitude for math and science to one school, the kids who show a rapport with animals to another, the kids who have a knack for spinning tales to a third and the kids who have a talent for woodwork (or metal shop or…) to yet another, and stop trying to measure them against one another. That way, everyone can afford to send their kids to school (since they’re public), but the schools are better tailored to meet the needs of the kids.

    1) I tend to agree that once a kid gets past a certain grade (9th? 10th?), we would do better to begin specializing education more. I’d like to see an improved apprenticeship program (which I recognize has been mentioned in this thread already). The “one-size-fits-all” approach is fundamentally flawed past a certain point.

    2) Transportation needs to be improved. People deserve equal access to public services, and if you start moving kids out of “home districts” to attend other public districts (which I support, BTW), you’d better be prepared to transport them.

    3) We actually have something like this in Michigan–“schools of choice.” The biggest problem with it is that many schools are now so desperate to get students that they let parents get away with anything. “Oh, Johnny failed his class so you’re leaving? Well, maybe he really only got a D. Let me check with the teacher…” No joke.

    4) I agree with you that many kids who are “slow” under the current system would benefit from an environment that offered more options. Unfortunately, NCLB is taking that possibility away by forcing schools to concentrate on core subjects to a silly degree.

    Allow parents to make the decisions for their individual students, and the micro level decisions will determine the fate of the schools on a macro level.

    I watch this happen EVERY DAY, and the system is abused again and again by parents who lack integrity. Certainly there are many, many good parents, but far too many of the bad screw over the system and their students by allowing their kids to pick the easy, no-work teachers. (Who should be removed, no question. See Tim’s response–I think it was Tim–on tenure not protecting bad teachers.)

    Robin, you sound like someone who is (or would be–I don’t know your situation) very invested in your child’s education and future. You don’t sound like someone who would make snap judgments about a teacher. Systems like the one you advocate would work well if every person lived up to the values you express. The amount of “gaming the system” that I see every day in public education as parents gain more and more control over their students’ individual educations has convinced me that too many people are not like you, and I have no faith in their ability to maintain any sense of integrity in the face of the choices you’re talking about.

    That’s not a defense of public schools; it’s just a reason why I don’t think some of your ideas are practially viable.

    Eric

48. Tim said to Robin:

    There’s our collision of worldviews, I think: you’re insistent that the money somehow should remain “yours”, and you’re not seeing or not acknowledging the inconsistencies in or logical consequences of that stance. The public system is flawed, no question, and I’m happy to discuss ways of changing or reforming it. I am not willing to entertain the idea of scrapping it, and I take particular exception to any attempt to cloak said idea in the guise of reform.

    (I’m not saying you’re doing that last — at least not intentionally. Your statements can certainly be interpreted that way, however.)

    Not only can the statements be interpreted that way, but many of the leaders of the voucher movement have those exact goals in mind:

    1) Stop my money from going to public schools
    2) If you don’t have your own money to educate your kids, screw you
    3) Cloak selfish, elitist programs in veils of public service

    Robin, I’m not ascribing those motivations to you in any way, but many of the people pushing vouchers are motivated that way.

    Thanks, Tim, for putting things so well.

    Eric

49. Tim (Butler),

    You know why I was under the impression you only had one young child? Because I am feeling bit under the weather and in my Alka Seltzer Cold medication stupor got you crossed up with Tim Lynch…which is not a bad person to get mixed up with, but anyway there you you go.

    (and I think having 6 kids in the home-school situation automatically eliminates a lot of the problems that an only child would have).

    Do you work with other home-schooling parents or do you do it all on your own? And here’s another question, one with selfish motivation on mypart–what, if anything, could a humble teacher of science try to market to help out home school parents? Is there any kind of science material that you’ve seen a need for?

    Always looking for a way to supplement the checking account, that’s me!

    BTW–really really off topic–anyone who is in the Hermitage PA area this sunday–they’re shooting a zombie movie and need zombies. Yeah, what are the odds? I show up intown for a few days and bam! they need zombies. And some folks say there is no God. Anyway, send me an email if you want to be a part of it and are in the area.

50. Nice how you can twist words.

    Didn’t twist a thing. PAD’s original comment was asking why not get some support from the unions, and you came back with that being a sign of weakness. I did no twisting there.

    I never once said a thing about salaries or anything that effects my own salary. When I talk about givebacks, I am talking about things like health benefits, pensions, tuition reimbursement funds, money for professiona development training, etc.

    In New Jersey, we have an abysmal teacher retention rate. Now let’s start cutting the benefits that they already get. Where does that leave these students? Without teachers.

    Now who is twisting words? No where did I state anything about cutting teacher’s salaries or benefits. My problem is with the monies that the unions receive. Why not use some of the dues money to actually help the schools immediate concerns and not worry just about the lobby industry that unions support?