School Budgets, Teaching and Teachers {Ron Smith}

When I put the blame on the teachers union, it is from personal experience. I went into teaching from engineering, I was very well prepard to teach math and science. I ended up leading the debate club, the senior class, and the soccer program because the teachers in my district were all experienced and older than me. (and therefore did not want to have these extra duties.)

When they had a layoff, they used senority even though it meant some non math credentialed teachers took over my positions (and they dropped the debate and soccer programs). Personally, I would have preferred to see competition for the remaing positions, and still think the best teachers would prefer a merit based pay and hiring and firing system. I see nothing but socialism in the concept that all teachers of a given year of employment get the same pay. Of course the poorest teachers have a different viewpoint but if you put the education of kids first and foremost, how can you support what is going on now?

BTW, when I went to school, the seniority system worked because there was high growth and new teachers could continually be hired, if that were always true then the present system would not be so bad, but if its bad I say bring in vouchers and let the staff fight it out. (I know, I am mean -- but the education of a generation seems to be at stake.)

Unfortunately, unlike 150 years ago, people who can't read, write, and do math will not be able to support themselves as farm laborers in today's world.

Unfortunately, for all our massive expenditure on government education we turn out a lot of students who can't read, write, or do math.

Back a couple of hundred years ago, it was decided that it was better for the country to have informed and educated citizens. States and localities implemented "poor taxes" so that children whose parents couldn't afford tuition and books could still go to school.

Well, do we have more informed and educated citizens? Is there more or less civic involvement now compared to then?

As I pointed out in #75, today's "poor taxes" (schools taxes) account for about 75% of your property taxes and about 40% of your state taxes. Do you think that represents good value for money?

If your proposal is implemented, what do you propose to do about the children whose parents can't afford to pay for their schooling?

How about voluntary charity?

We could save some money by getting government out of the police, fire and court business, too!!!

And why do we need public sewers??

I never mentioned any of the above. In any case they amount to no more than 15% of state and local budget.

Indeed, because they involve little wealth redistribution (everyone pays a little, everyone gets a little) they are probably reasonably left in the government sector.

Indeed, because they involve little wealth redistribution (everyone pays a little, everyone gets a little) they are probably reasonably left in the government sector

How do you know how much I pay in taxes relative to my neighbors? How dare you assume that stealing "a little" from me is reasonable??

Only a statist would refuse to let the market handle our sewage disposal issues! Let us each decide for ourselves how much sewage disposal we wish to buy!!

And why do we need public sewers??

Some residents of a little town up the road from where I live are asking the same question. For years, a private company has handled the water treatment. The town is growing, and the town council wanted to take over the water handling from the private firm.

The residents said no. The private company is still in charge. It seems to be working out well.

Sounds as if the unions in your district are a little more powerful than they are where I live. Here, math teachers would have to have math certificates even if other teachers had more seniority, and they can't make you take club sponsorships.

There are still problems with teacher who have tenure sometimes. It's not that they can't be fired; generally it's that the administration doesn't want to do all the paperwork necessary.

Well, do we have more informed and educated citizens? Is there more or less civic involvement now compared to then?

I think we have a higher percentage of people who are able to read. I'm not sure about the civic involvement - do you know?

As I pointed out in #75, today's "poor taxes" (schools taxes) account for about 75% of your property taxes and about 40% of your state taxes. Do you think that represents good value for money?

What do you consider good value? Do you think it's how much I'm paying compared to how much I'd pay for a private school education for my children? Or is it the number of students whose education I'm able to finance through my taxes? Or is it the quality of education overall in my state and district?

How about voluntary charity?

How many poor students are you willing to send to private school? Are you doing so now?

I suspect if that option worked well, the government wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

It's not that they can't be fired; generally it's that the administration doesn't want to do all the paperwork necessary.

Yeah, I worked in California, had ten years seniority. In CA you must join the union, (you do get the big liability policy). The firing of teachers is impossible, because where I taught the teachers owned the board. In one school, good administrators were released four years in the ten I was there. Reason? They did not get along with the teachers, (thought teachers should pull yard duty..Etc.) which the teachers considered beneath them. I was one of the youngest teachers (at age 26). I was quite liberal then, but I still believed in teachers really knowing the subject and working hard, so lots of teachers were not sad to see me go.

We had a retraining program, where we were taught to relate teaching skills to the "real" world. (We did not teach, we planned and managed a large group of people and conducted evaluations of their acheivement.) When I went back to Engineering at Lockheed I received a 20% raise and was able finally to start saving for retirement. (I still loved the teaching part of the job and arranged to do teaching of engineers part of the time in aerospace.)

as far as education goes, people with special gifts should be nurtured, but not to the point where we have the majority of children leaving school without knowing how to read, or write, or knowing basic history so they can be good citizens...

I'm not talking about neglecting the majority. I'm talking about the disproportionate funding that goes to the education of the bottom 5% (ie, "special ed"), who also happen to be most disruptive to the learning environment

If we took the extra money that currently goes to special-ed, and used more of it to ensure that poor-but-gifted students developed to their full potential, the US would be more prosperous. And by reversing the "mainstreaming" of disruptive special-ed kids into classrooms where the other kids actually would like to learn, we can stop holding back the majority as well.

The govt should only give money (whether it is welfare or SSD) based on student achievement or somehow hold their parents accountable. I am sure we would see a big lift in grades and state test scores if that were the case.

Before there was welfare, a kid who did well would be able to support himself, help out his siblings, and be able to take care of his parents in their old age (no social security either), while a kid who did poorly would continue to be a burden to his parents into adulthood.

This was a VERY powerful motivating factor for the parents. Things started falling apart when people could count on a government check for being disfunctional.

But the average 12-13 year old is smart enought to figure out how to set up and play a Gamecube. I see no reason why that child would not be capable of going beyond eighth grade.

It depends on your definition of eigth grade. Here's the 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS - 1895. Take a guess how well the average 2003 8th Grader would do.

I have a copy of the original "McGuffey's Readers" that were used in the "Little House on the Prairie" one-room schools in the 1800's. Here's a selection from the Fourth Reader:

...There is a lowering sublimity in his brows, which one seldom sees equaled, and the obliquity of the light shows the upper and lateral parts of his forehead, proud and palpable as the hills of his native north...

The above is an example of 6th-7th Grade reading level of the 1800's.

The definition of 8th grade is now "what is within the ability of a bottom-20% kid to learn in 8 years". Define the bar low enough, and yes, just about every kid can make it. Just about every kid can learn to play basketball, too. More or less. But add the requirement: "Play well enough to make the Varsity team", and it's a whole different story.

What would a high school education be, if "high school educational load" was defined as "that amount of learning which would strain the intellectual ability of a teen in the top 20% of intellectual ability"? That is what high school USED to be in the 1800's: you either maintained the pace, or you dropped out.

I really like the European model, in which students who show aptitude are allowed to go on to high school, and those who don't are given vocational training. I think that before students go to high school, they ought to be able to show they have the ability to succeed there. If they don't have the skills, there ought to be remediation available for those students who wish to take advantage of it.

Of course, many FReepers will say that is taking away the students' freedom of choice....

Kids would retain their freedom of choice. They could continue to take academic courses. They just should not have the expectation that the TAXPAYERS will pay for it, if it seems like a bad investment. However, there would be nothing stopping any kid from buying education himself (either his parents buying, or him working to pay for it on the side).

Taxpayer-funded education is an investment by the nation's taxpayers. There should be some scrutiny on what sort of return on investment there is.

What do you consider good value?

Sadly, graduated income taxes (for most states) and value-based property taxes make that different for everyone. If you have many children in government education, have a low or modest income and live in a less expensive house it may represent good value. If you have a higher income and live in a more expensive house with no children in government schools it represents poor value. Of course, if the schools fail to educate their students, then it is bad value for everyone.

Because nobody pays directly for education they tend to be price insensitive, always open to "a small tax increase" ... "for the children". Because there are more tax-spenders than tax-payers, the pressure will always be to increase costs (someone else will pay). However, because education is largely a government monopoly there will be less pressure to increase service. Therefore, over time government education will become poorer value.

One big reason for establishing the government role in education was to assimilate the large number of immigrants who arrived here at the turn of the last century. However, now we have multi-culturism, bi-lingual education and a "progressive" slant on American history. In that sense, they are not offering good value, or indeed good values.

Note that these policies are the result of court cases, and teachers, administrators, and school systems pretty well have their hands tied on how to deal with special ed. students.

Sarcasm?

In case you were being serious (series?), I never said government must provide such services, only that they are reasonably left in the government sector.

When we have got rid of the big programs, the ones that swallow 85% of your taxes, the ones that are entirely about income and wealth redistribution then we can worry about the role of government in sewage disposal!

.... but somehow, I feel you were being sarcastic.

When I went back to Engineering at Lockheed I received a 20% raise and was able finally to start saving for retirement. (I still loved the teaching part of the job and arranged to do teaching of engineers part of the time in aerospace.)

Good mix. You may find your way back to teaching yet, perhaps in a more congenial district. I fully believe that if you're meant to teach, eventually you just have to. :-)

Note that these policies are the result of court cases, and teachers, administrators, and school systems pretty well have their hands tied on how to deal with special ed. students.

But not the legislators. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to special ed.

They're going to have to figure something out. If the school systems fail to satisfy the middle-class parents who pay for it all, and they take their kids out, there's eventually going to come a call to abolish the public school system, root and branch

I could readily agree with that.

You know, the welfare reform act required that students receiving AFDC benefits had to remain in school...but they didn't require that those students attend regularly or pass any classes.

Any judge or legislator who requires students to stay in school ought to also put attendance, behavior, and academic strictures on the requirement.

When we have got rid of the big programs, the ones that swallow 85% of your taxes, the ones that are entirely about income and wealth redistribution then we can worry about the role of government in sewage disposal!

.... but somehow, I feel you were being sarcastic.

Well, I confess to a little sarcasm, at times, under the right circumstances, when I feel up to it, and when the stars are just so, but I don't feel that using public funds to support public education is any less defensible than using public funds to support sewage disposal, police, fire or the courts. To the extent that government involvement in these things redistributes income and wealth (whether upward or downward), I think that the tax side of these issues is as important as the funding side.

My experience has been that government seems to become involved in those areas that the private sector avoids or performs inadequately. This country is committed to educating its young and is committed to educating all of its young. Surely, there are many ways to improve the way we do that, but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the strength of that underlying commitment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.