My own education rant ( Re: Reading, Writing, and Multiple Choice)

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "psychic_serpent" 
<psychic_serpent at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Haggridd" 
> <jkusalavagemd at y...> wrote:
> > The class size at my elementary school was 
> > 60 students throughout all eight years.  I realize that this is 
> > anecdotal, but theses kids learned just fine.
> 
> This sort of argument is not just anecdotal, it defies logic.  If 
> teachers are having a difficult time now giving each student 
> adequate attention (most districts no longer allow classes larger 
> than 30 students, and some have lowered that to 20 for younger 
> students) how would doubling class size be a solution? 

"E pur si muove."-- Gallileo Gallilei

 I have no 
> way of knowing what years you went to school, but saying "theses 
> [sic] 

I missed the typo; I suppose that proves the superiority of public 
schools.


kids learned just fine" is not taking into account the many 
> challenges facing today's teachers.  You probably didn't have 
> computers in school, either, but a well-equipped school should not 
> be without computers in this day and age.
>
  
When I went to school, the only computers were room sized behemoths.  
We did quite nicely with Composition brand notebooks and the library 
card catalogue.  I guess you missed my agreement about funding for 
computers in my first post.

> I said earlier:  
> > > That said, however, raising teacher pay would, as a start, 
> prevent the private sector from leeching good teachers from the 
> schools who would otherwise have to choose between being able to 
> follow their calling or paying their mortgage.  In places like the 
> Bay Area (around San Francisco) real estate is at a premium even 
for 
> people making six figures; workers in jobs like teaching and police 
> work need to commute ridiculous distances because the wealthy 
people 
> they serve are unwilling to part with a little more of their income 
> to let these folks live in the same community.  They end up feeling 
> like domestics who have to live on the "wrong" side of the tracks.  
>  
> You said:
> > After implementing the reforms I suggested, agreed.  Your 
> > characterization of the taxpayers seems a little snide in its own 
> > right.  The quality of schools has historically been a prime 
> > factor in choosing where to live, irrespective of the property 
> > taxes quality schools may require.
> 
> Not in this case.  In Silicon Valley and similar places, the work 
> has dictated the reason for so many people being in a given place.  
> New communities have sprung up to house folks in the industry 
during 
> the last twenty years, and new school systems have been created 
from 
> scratch.  However, people who work for the public--teachers and 
> cops, chiefly--cannot live in the communities where they work 
> because houses there are outrageously expensive.  (The high 
salaries 
> of the folks in the computer industry mean that by and large the 
> market will bear those high prices).  Commute times of six hours a 
> day are not unusual in that part of the country.  Some communities 
> are considering constructing low-income housing especially for 
folks 
> like teachers, but this is not prevalent enough yet.  (I'm torn 
> between thinking this is a good thing and thinking it's more than a 
> little demeaning for the teachers.)
>
As extensive as my suggested reforms are, I didn't go so far as to 
suggest the abolition of the free market.  An essential part of these 
reforms is a drastic increase in teacher compensation.

 
> You asked:
> > Why should teachers have more job security than others in the 
> > workforce?  If the more experienced teachers cannot demonstrate 
> > that their experience actually makes for better teaching, then 
why 
> > should they not compete with new hires?  This might free up some 
> > funds to increase the compensation of the better teachers.
> 
> Teachers should have more job security because we need them, pure 
> and simple.  I think the question that should be asked is why 
should 
> just about everyone else have LESS?  Competing with new hires isn't 
> the point.  We're talking about the well-being of kids here, not 
> salesmen competing to have the highest sales.  More experienced 
> teachers are valuable resources.  If I thought that ALL of the 
> teachers at my kids' school were fresh out of college, I'd go 
> shopping for another school.  You never did say anything about the 
> private sector drawing away teachers who need to choose between 
> their calling and being poverty-stricken.  We'll only ever have 
> teachers with less than five years experience if there's absolutely 
> no tenure, and the teacher shortage will surely worsen.
> 

So we need telephones and telephone systems less?  We have less of a 
need for nurses?  Less of a need for really good pizza?
If these more experienced teachers are indeed valuable resources, 
they will be sought after.  If the "experience" is mere time-serving, 
then wasting your and my hard-earned tax dollars-- mine earned 
without the protection of tenure-- is wrong.


> You said: 
> > I have suggested that teachers minor in education courses myself. 
> > I did not suggest that they be abolished, only the degree program 
> > in education process.
>  
> That still doesn't address the question of what major elementary 
> education trainees would take.  There's a huge interdisciplinary 
> component to this (see Richelle's post), and right now there's no 
> one major (other than "Elementary Education") that would address 
the 
> variety of skills and background material needed by the person 
whose 
> goal is to teach our youngest children.  It's also a different 
story 
> entirely from teaching older children.
> 
> > I simply do not accept poverty as an excuse for poor teaching.  
> > Experience with vouchers in poor areas belies that claim.
> 
> Can you point to these studies?  I know of at least one cited by 
> Americans United for the Separation of Church and State that 
> contradict your assertions. 

Consider the source.  Do you want to get into the question of all the 
myriad ways bias can corrupt a study?  We would have to analyze every 
single one critically.

 I'm sorry you don't "accept" poverty as 
> an "excuse for poor teaching."  How can you judge what is poor 
> teaching under these circumstances?  Reread Richelle's post about 
> the students she teaches.  I am also acquainted with teachers who 
> work in North Philadelphia at schools where many of the children 
> never eat a hot meal except at school (for free), never see a book 
> except in school and never receive any help with homework.  A 
friend 
> who is an art teacher gave a wind-up alarm clock (because their 
> electricity was frequently shut off) to a little girl in second 
> grade so that she could get herself and her little brother out of 
> bed and to school on time each day, no thanks to her drug-addled 
> mother.  The ART TEACHER had to take care of this, and we're 
talking 
> about a seven-year-old who's responsible for herself and her five-
> year-old brother.  She's an amazing kid, but if another kid 
> responded to this situation by being the student from hell, are you 
> saying it would be the teacher's fault?  Social Services said there 
> was no reason the mother couldn't keep the kids if she went into 
> rehab; no one wants to break up families as a first choice.  Saying 
> the teachers are making excuses is highly misdirected finger-
> pointing.  Until you walk a mile (or twenty) in their shoes, I 
> wouldn't accuse anyone of making excuses.
>

Actually, modesty prevented me before, but, "been there, done that, 
did without the T-shirt".  I repeat, it is a handy and overused 
excuse in finger-pointing itself to divert attention from the 
individual teacher's responsibility.  Poverty does not make 
criminals, nor does it excuse poor teaching.  Individuals must take 
responsibility for what they do, and what they do poorly.
 
> In response to:
> > > > 8.  Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.  
> I said: 
> > > Where do I start?  So what?  I'll tell you what--a little thing 
> > > called the First Amendment, that's what. 
> You responded: 
> > The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not preclude 
> > purchasing educational services from private sources.  
> > The "restriction of funds to a specific purpose" argument has 
been 
> > used by people from all sides of the political spectrum to 
justify 
> > spending the money, from Voucher advocates to those who want to 
> > fund Planned Parenthood only for those services that do not 
> > include abortion.  Both sides know that money is fungible.
> 
> Funds going to family planning services do not violate church/state 
> separation.  While some people may not agree with it because of 
> their own religious convictions, the fact remains that restricting 
> funding for these services primarily because of religious reasons 
> WOULD be contrary to the constitution.  Using public funds for what 
> amounts to prosyletizing would also be a church/state violation, 
and 
> as I pointed out, at sectarian schools it is virtually impossible 
to 
> say whether the money is or isn't going for "religious studies" 
> since classes that may not be overtly religious in nature can still 
> be delivery systems for the religious beliefs at the basis of the 
> curriculum.
> 
We will never agree on this. It is a shame.  Absent some sort of 
voucher system, the incentive for improvement (the loss of those tax 
dollars of which I spoke) is minimal.  I can't see taxpayers throwing 
ever larger piles of money down a hole.  The increased resources that 
you and I believe are needed will not then be allocated to education, 
no matter how many job actions are taken by the teachers' union. 

Tell me this. Do you feel that it is an impermissible intrusion of 
Church into State the the Declaration of Independence refers to "the 
Laws of Nature and Nature's God"?  Purchasing education services from 
private sources is not the "establishment of religion" spoken of by 
the first amendment.


> There are also numerous people who run private and religious 
schools 
> who are opposed to vouchers because they fear government 
> interference in their schools.  They are free from that right now 
> and like it very much.  They are not completely free from 
> regulation, as all schools must receive accreditation from a body 
> such as Middle States.  But they'd also have government breathing 
> down their necks, possibly preventing them from doing the very 
> things that were the reason for creating the school.  (Such as 
> having religion permeate the curriculum.)
>

Private schools do not have to participate in a voucher system.  I do 
think that accreditation should be a prerequisite for the school to 
participate.

> I ranted (yeah, I admit it<g>):
> > > I get so tired of people 
> > > thinking vouchers are the be all end all solution for 
> > > education.  Vouchers would kill the public schools, pure and 
> > > simple.  The fact is the public schools take the students no 
one 
> > > else wants.  All private and parochial schools may choose their 
> > > students. 
> 
> You said: 
> > I am equally tired of that same old song.  Monopolies lead to 
> > inefficiencies in many other arenas than in education.  The 
> > solution is to break the monopoly, not make it stronger.  Did you 
> > ever consider that poor teachers might have made that unfortunate 
> > kid into a student that no one else wants?
> 
> No.  Not for a minute.  Even the worst teachers don't have that 
> power.  Parents do.  You're spouting empty rhetoric about 
> monopolies, 

Empty?  Ask one of your social studies teachers-- a good one-- about 
the pernicious effects of monopoly.

but you're still not explaining how to force non-public 
> schools to take students they don't want (or don't have room for).  
> If you say "tell them they have to if they accept the vouchers as 
> payment" that brings us back to those folks running non-public 
> schools who don't want vouchers because they fear exactly this sort 
> of government meddling.
> 
I think that it is quite reasonable to require participating schools 
to honor all students with vouchers, up to their previously 
determined capacity.  Againg, the schools do not have to participate 
in the program.


> You assert: 
> > The most inefficient system for educating studnets is the current 
> > publi system.  In response to the outside competitition, the 
> > public system will either get better, obviating the need for the 
> > vouchers, or shrink, as it should if it doesn't do the job that 
> > others can do.
> 
> There is no basis for this assertion.  

You missed the opportunity for a few more "[sic]s" there.  But to 
answer your point, there are numerous reports that the per student 
cost is far higher in the public system.  In my dictionary, it says 
that that is the precise definiton of "inefficient"; its denotation, 
if you will. 

In districts where the 
> funding is adequate or more than adequate the public education 
> system is preferred by parents and students over alternatives.  I 
> went to public school for K-6, private school for seventh grade, 
and 
> back to public school for 8-12.  I call seventh grade "my year in 
> hell."  The public schools I attended were far and away better than 
> the private one (which, not surprisingly went belly-up when I was 
in 
> the middle of eighth grade, forcing my former classmates to attend 
> my public school during the rest of junior high).  
> 
> Now, that school was going under long before I came along as a 
> student.  The reasons for that are numerous; its switch from being 
a 
> girls' school to a coed school (how to completely alienate [sic]

Can I do a "[sic]" if you split an infinitive?  (I was getting 
worried there for awhile.  You proofread your post better than I 
did.  Two points for public education!  <g>)

the 
> graduates and dry up alumnae contributions!) 

I just get all hot and sweaty over correct Latin declension.)

is probably the chief 
> one, followed closely by their having an expensive new building 
> erected which devastated the endowment.  Many of the students had 
> trouble keeping up when they were forced to switch to public school 
> mid-year.  Their parents wanted their kids to go to a private 
school 
> but weren't tremendously wealthy, so they sent them to the only one 
> they could afford or would take them.  Is this what you call 
> competition?  Just because you're sending your child to a non-
public 
> school is no guarantee that it's a GOOD school.  (And in my case, 
> just because your kid receives a scholarship to boost enrollment at 
> a private school doesn't mean you should switch your poor kid's 
> school and make her miserable for a year.)  
>
In response, I say that that, at minimum, the private school must be 
accredited, and that as you pointed out, if a parent isn't desperate, 
he ("He" includes "she"-- my old grammar book says so.) won't switch 
his (Ditto for "his" and "her".) child out of public school.  If the 
private school doesn't do the job, the parent is free to select 
another school.  Who knows, by that time the competition miight have 
spurred the public school to clean up its act.

 
> When schools spring up just for the purpose of taking advantage of 
> vouchers, there will be a huge number that fail, forcing kids back 
> into the public schools mid-year.  Someone else pointed this out. 

You are setting up a straw man and knocking it down, which proves 
nothing.  The accreditation process takes more than a single year.  
Fly-by-night private schools are not going to get a single voucher 
dollar.



 I 
> won't belabor the point, but I went through something almost 
exactly 
> like this, with the exception that I convinced my parents to let me 
> go back to my old school at the beginning of the school year, and 
> didn't have the disturbing experience of having to do it in January.
> 
> Me:
> > > As for no funds going to support religious studies,  [snip] 
> You:
> > See above argument re NARAL and abortion funding.
> Me again:
> See above argument about how NARAL and abortion funding is 
> completely different.
> 

See above yourself!  <g>

> You said:
> > Parents would not be forced to send their kids to private 
> > schools.  They still have the opportunity to have their children 
> > attend public schools, with all the many advantages you 
describe...
> 
> Saying parents would not be "forced" when you want to eviscerate 
the 
> public schools' funding, turning them into schools no one would 
want 
> to go near, is rather odd. 

Barb, many of these schools are already ones which no one wants to go 
near.  They just don't have any alternative!

 Clearly the goal of vouchers isn't to 
> improve public schools, but to take money from them. 

Clear to whom?


 (You can say 
> it's to foster competition all you like, but without adequate 
> funding they CAN'T compete.)  

There will be fewer students, so the loss of funds will be 
proportionate to the smaller task.

There's little enough money now, and 
> vouchers will mean less money.  And parents who do not wish to send 
> their kids to the available religious schools either because they 
> are not religious or the available schools are not affiliated with 
> their religion will be stuck with public schools no one cares about 
> anymore and which are not adequately funded.  At that point they 
may 
> very well feel that they are "forced" to send their kids to schools 
> with which they do not agree ideologically and which will be 
> prosyletizing to their children.
> 

O Lord, smite me with such a curse!  Pretty please!


> You said:
> > The truly egalitarian thing would be to empower poor parents to 
> > have the same options as more affluent parents.  In the instances 
> > where this choice has been implemented, Parentes have "voted with 
> > their feet" time and time again.
> 
> The truly egalitarian thing is to have public schools improved to 
> the point where even affluent parents want to send their children 
> there, as happens in many, many districts across the country.  
There 
> are many fine public schools because in the areas where they exist 
> there has been a recognition of their importance and there is 
> funding commensurate with that.  These also tend to be in areas 
> where there are fewer problems with poverty impeding student 
> learning when kids are not in school.  (Although affluent areas 
> still have problems with such things as teen drinking and drug use, 
> among other things, and kids who engage in these activities go to 
> both public and non-public schools.)  It is not egalitarian to 
> expect the rest of us to pay for religious prosyletizing.  That's 
> called un-Constitutional.
>
You keep going back to that (specious) separation-of-Church-and-State 
argument.  Is it that you are unsure of the persuasivenes of your 
other arguments?

> You said:
> > Don't get me wrong.   I want to increase teacher pay by a great 
> > deal, by over 100% in most cases.  I cannot justify doing this 
for 
> > the present system.
> 
> Good to hear about the increases, but saying "the present system" 
is 
> a rather meaningless phrase as systems differ vastly around the 
> country (as noted by your saying that in Louisiana you can only 
> pursue certification if you already have an MA in the field in 
> question).  

Pleas read my post.  I said that the route of accrediting individuals 
with non-education degrees was to make them obtain an M.A. degree in 
Education.  I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Ah, I was clear, if brief:

"In Louisiana, this requires a special Masters degree-- In Education. 
This doesn't address point #2."

Private schools work on reading comprehension rather well, in my 
experience.

Every state has a different system, just about, and some 
> work better than others.  What we need to do is hold up the 
> successful systems and use them for models, rather than abandoning 
> the public schools in favor of a "system" that has the potential to 
> tread on many people's Constitutional rights and would have no 
> government oversight.
> 
> --Barb
> 

Barb,
We both feel strongly that the important thing is to educate our 
kids.  Whatever solution we come up with in practice will have some 
of the elements I suggested, while maintaining to some extent the 
protections for our current teachers that you seem to find of 
paramount importance.  I hope and pray (if that's ok with you, that 
is <g>) that the answer will be persuasive enough to command the tax 
dollars necessary for its implementation.

--Haggridd (who had a crush on his second grade teacher-- and she was 
a nun, too!)