US Education Reform

[Fight!]

A fellow poster construed a rather ingenious discourse, in my opinion, that I felt I'd share with you all.

The most glaring issue with American education is the rigid, old fashioned way in which schools are zoned. The public school system in the United States functions along geographic lines, in which what schools students will attend is dictated almost entirely upon where they live. This leads to a horrible system in which schools find that they do not have to compete in any meaningful way for students, as they will be getting however many students live in their district. This means that parents of students in failing areas have two choices: move, or pay the tuition at expensive private schools. Obviously there are scholarships for low income students and the like, but the bottom line is that because of the way that our schools receive funding parents are hit with a double whammy: they must pay the taxes that go towards their childs education. and then must pay the private school tuition on top of this.

The solution? Charter schools. A Charter school system would force failing schools to either get their act together or go under meaning that years of mediocrity would simply not be tolerated. An excellent program arguing for charter schools is John Stossel's "Stupid in America" I linked the article, but you should be able to find the video with a little google hunting. HE is a big champion of educational vouchers, a system in which the funding that would normally simply go to the local school is attached to the child instead. Then, parents could essentially shop around for schools and have their child attend whatever school (within reason) that they wished to - forcing underperforming schools to shape up or fold.

The second problem, one which is often overlooked, is the social climate in the Unites States regarding education. I am at Illinois State University, which is the "teacher's school" in Illinois. Even here, where such a significant number of students are education majors, it is still a degree that is looked down up. Armstrong and Miller perfectly encapsulate this attitude in their "Become a Teacher" sketches, in which the people who have failed in life fall back on teaching as a way to make ends meet. The NYT very recently did an excellent one of their "Debate Pieces", where they have a number of articles from different people weighing in on a particular issue. Here is the one that they did on education. Better illustrating my point is this article from the NYT, where administrators highlight the fact that America's best and brightest simply do not consider teaching to be a worthy pursuit, a choice quote from a study done on this issue states that

Top Nations recruit 100% of their new teachers from the top third of their graduating class. In the U.S. that number is 23%, and 14 % in high poverty schools

Put quite simply, our best and brightest avoid the classroom like its the plague, and this leads to many teachers simply not being qualified for the positions that they fill.

Of course, the teacher's unions don't let this get in the way of making sure that underperforming teacher's are almost unfireable and are paid the same as good teachers. A good chunk of the Stossel article was talking about this very issue, but I can give a more personal example. I graduated from Oak Park River Forest High School back in 2009, and here is its pay chart. You will notice the obvious, of course. There are quite a few teachers who do not make all that much. The very lowest are paid that little because they teach a very light course load, but I think that the average income of the teachers at OPRF is around $70k, without the insane benefits they get (such as full medical, dental, etc.) Granted that teachers only have to actually teach from 8-3, M-F, for 9 months a year, this isn't really a bad deal. My problem with it is that is almost impossible to fire teachers once they receive tenure, there is almost zero oversight on teacher performance, and pay is entirely based on how long you have been teaching at that school rather than how well you are performing. It is incredibly demoralizing for teachers to realize that no matter what their performance is, they will always see the same incremental pay increases. What other profession is run in this insane manner? And I truly believe that we have no one other than the teacher's unions to blame for this situation, they are great at protecting the older teacher's jobs and benefits but fail both the new teachers and the students.

All of this glosses over the various achievement gaps that we see in America. But that is a whole other issue that would deserve its own thread. At its most basic, our problem is that in the last 30 years we have doubled (inflation adjusted, OFC) per pupil spending, but graduation rates and test score performance has been flat. Funding is not the critical issue here.

I think it's brilliant, thoughts?

[hellheaven1987]

If the salary of teaching is not that sucked more people probably would want to be a teacher...

[Nevins]

If the salary of teaching is not that sucked more people probably would want to be a teacher...

Thats a tricky statement. On one hand you are correct in saying that introductory salaries of teachers are rather low, but you fail to factor in two things.

1. Time at work - While no teacher will ever only work during their 8-3 day, a teacher has FAR more free time (what other profession gets every holiday, weekend, and summers off?)

2. Benefits - The benefits package for many (certainly not all) teachers is extraordinary and often forgotten when these kinds of discussions come up. Many can retire quite early, at least in my home state of Illinois, and can retire with full benefits and half of their salary as an annual pension. All of this at age 55 ain't bad.

The biggest thing hampering salary for well performing teachers is that their pay is tied purely to years in the profession rather than some evaluation of their competency. Other than professional pride, a teacher has no real motivation to go the extra mile to help their students, nor are young teachers rewarded for their hard work.

I'm sorry about the briefness, but its late and Im drained from 6 hours of ARMA.

[Ahlerich]

If the salary of teaching is not that sucked more people probably would want to be a teacher...

that and if the teachers had military advisors and a no fly zone with neutral un observers

[Corona1]

I'm against this because
1. There is no proof that charter schools perform significantly better than public schools
2. Charter schools do not have to accept students of all race, gender, disability, etc
3. Vouchers could be given to religious schools, which is unconstitutional

As for blaming teachers and unions, I've yet to see an explanation of why middle or upper class schools aren't struggling. They have the same tenure, the same unions, the same standards, etc. Yet they aren't struggling, only inner city schools are (probably because they get hardly any funding) It's a matter of poverty and funding, not teacher competence

[Nevins]

I'm against this because
1. There is no proof that charter schools perform significantly better than public schools

There are studies that show both ways, but saying that one system should be ignored because it is not massively better than another is foolish.

2. Charter schools do not have to accept students of all race, gender, disability, etc

? And you think that the public would allow schools to usher in some second wave of segregation? Not to mention that special needs students/ students of certain races often show the most gain in charter school systems.

3. Vouchers could be given to religious schools, which is unconstitutional

No, it isn't. It is only unconstitutional if they favored one religion over another.

@ your edit

Suburban schools are struggling compared to their international peers as well. Check the test scores.

[Corona1]

There are studies that show both ways, but saying that one system should be ignored because it is not massively better than another is foolish.

Studies for the negative health effects of smoking go "both ways" as well. There are always going to be conflicting studies when money is to be made. Regarding charter schools, the most respected/often cited report is Stanford's CREDO study of charters, which found that nearly half of charter schools performed the same as public schools and 37% performed worse than public schools

? And you think that the public would allow schools to usher in some second wave of segregation?

Uh, yes? Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely to attend private schools than whites... Not to mention, historically private schools were used to bypass desegregation laws

[Rolling Thunder]

Uh, yes? Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely to attend private schools than whites... Not to mention, historically private schools were used to bypass desegregation laws

Economic separation does not imply segregation. Simply because fewer blacks/hispanics attend private schools does not equate to segregation, it is simply a reflection on the economic status of the majority of blacks and hispanics. Segregation implies deliberate [and highly illegal] exclusion of certain minorities on the basis of their being a minority. Economic separation occurs on a daily basis - I am separated from people who can buy Bentleys, for example.

only inner city schools are (probably because they get hardly any funding)

Statistically, America spends more on it's inner-city schools than it does on it's suburban ones, but as they say, you can lead the poor to water but you cannot make them drink.

[Menelik_I]

A fellow poster construed a rather ingenious discourse, in my opinion, that I felt I'd share with you all.

I think it's brilliant, thoughts?

Very interesting

On the question of bright students avoiding teaching, it is a somewhat wide spread phenomenon, for example in my country 70% of Teacher Formation school attendants are sub-standards students.

This is has to do with the perception that teaching is easy, so weak students take refuge there and brilliant ones by pass it. I fear there are no way to remedy this problem short of drafting people to teach, which is insane.

The only way to remedy this would be schools to have more flexibility in hiring and firing teachers, so the teachers who failed to get experience on job despite can be substituted by others.

[Nevins]

Studies for the negative health effects of smoking go "both ways" as well. There are always going to be conflicting studies when money is to be made. Regarding charter schools, the most respected/often cited report is Stanford's CREDO study of charters, which found that nearly half of charter schools performed the same as public schools and 37% performed worse than public schools

If we look at the national programs were the models are just being developed, then yes. If we look at the well thought out and executed D.C. plan, no.

Uh, yes? Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely to attend private schools than whites... Not to mention, historically private schools were used to bypass desegregation laws

Charter schools mentioned in the article above have been focusing specifically on helping minorities in high poverty areas. You also don't even know how city charter schools work if you don't know that they do their enrollment by lottery and must accept every child.

[Armenum]

US universities are actually quite good, it's the secondary education that needs work. For example, the math/science scores of US high schoolers are rather disappointing given US is an advanced country. In my view, first off teachers need to be paid more and thus with it, stricter qualifications for teaching. Then, the amount of material taught should be increased and their should be an emphasis on proofs and theory from an early age. Possibly, there should be stricter qualification to advance to next grade (mandatory state exams) and in addition a greater emphasis on foreign language. Finally, children who can't keep up and do well, should just be left behind.

[HissingNewt]

US universities are actually quite good, it's the secondary education that needs work. For example, the math/science scores of US high schoolers are rather disappointing given US is an advanced country. In my view, first off teachers need to be paid more and thus with it, stricter qualifications for teaching. Then, the amount of material taught should be increased and their should be an emphasis on proofs and theory from an early age. Possibly, there should be stricter qualification to advance to next grade (mandatory state exams) and in addition a greater emphasis on foreign language. Finally, children who can't keep up and do well, should just be left behind.

I know in Texas we have mandatory state wide exams (it's called STAAR or something like that now, but used to be called TAKS). Those in and of themselves don't really solve anything right now because they're made for what is effectively the lowest level of student to pass. And even then, if you do fail, there aren't really bad consequences unless you're about to graduate (you don't get to graduate unless you pass them, and you get to take it again if you fail the eleventh grade ones). Honestly, the entire US education system from 1 to 12 needs to be reformed in major ways.

[Armenum]

I know in Texas we have mandatory state wide exams (it's called STAAR or something like that now, but used to be called TAKS). Those in and of themselves don't really solve anything right now because they're made for what is effectively the lowest level of student to pass. And even then, if you do fail, there aren't really bad consequences unless you're about to graduate (you don't get to graduate unless you pass them, and you get to take it again if you fail the eleventh grade ones). Honestly, the entire US education system from 1 to 12 needs to be reformed in major ways.

Given the political nature of the US, it may not be a bad idea to privatise many schools. It seems that the private high schools and universities are of much better quality than the public ones.

Of course, that being said, I'm sure there can be meaningful reform to help the public education system - the issue is will the politics and people allow such drastic change?

[Nevins]

Given the political nature of the US, it may not be a bad idea to privatise many schools. It seems that the private high schools and universities are of much better quality than the public ones.

Of course, that being said, I'm sure there can be meaningful reform to help the public education system - the issue is will the politics and people teachers unions allow such drastic change?

Fixed.

What we see in American education is that our fourth graders test among the very best nations, but when those age groups are tested again as sophomores (year 10) they drop some 20 positions in the rankings.

[Pyrich]

Fixed.

What we see in American education is that our fourth graders test among the very best nations, but when those age groups are tested again as sophomores (year 10) they drop some 20 positions in the rankings.

Unions are a political ideology within the US political machine however. More and more so an international one. Cause in point, Trumpka calling on Europe to press human rights violations on Republicans like Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Listen to some of their leader's speeches of the continued campaign to adopted Labor and business more and more into government. The expansion of the Labor movement into internation fields. Using their influence from one country in others.

Im not bashing Unions in general, but I am just a tad concerned about the international merger of these "Rights" guys who seem more concerned with their ideologies opposed to.. well.. Rights.



I'm also firmly against Private sector Unions representing Public sector workers. Public sector and Private sectors should be kept from merging as much as is humanly possible, especially in the Labor field (Not refering to the Federal Labor Department and their very good anti-child work laws and many other workers rights they regulate). Not against them forming their own Unions to watchdog the public industries workers situation. But it should be remembered they are a public affair, and their capital they recieve through taxes should in no why what so ever be used to influence private/public matters. Besides their own labor issues.

A private Union is a part of the system, they can work with business and succeed, they can milk an industry to death (See Detroit). When they coil up and in the public sector they are no longer playing fairly as far as im concerned. And when a private industry fails its bad, when a public one does... well.. its about 30 years of pain.

[xcorps]

Fixed.

What we see in American education is that our fourth graders test among the very best nations, but when those age groups are tested again as sophomores (year 10) they drop some 20 positions in the rankings.

Great post to start the thread.

Do you think that the standardized testing is an actual indicator of learning or an indicator of preparation?

[Hotspur]

I have two problems with the OP.

1. The assertion that there is no competition within a given school district. Acknowledging the fact that every school district operates differently so your mileage may vary, intradistrict school choice exists.

2. The assertion that teachers only "work" 8-3, five days a week, nine months a year.

[chamaeleo]

US universities are actually quite good, it's the secondary education that needs work. For example, the math/science scores of US high schoolers are rather disappointing given US is an advanced country. In my view, first off teachers need to be paid more and thus with it, stricter qualifications for teaching. Then, the amount of material taught should be increased and their should be an emphasis on proofs and theory from an early age. Possibly, there should be stricter qualification to advance to next grade (mandatory state exams) and in addition a greater emphasis on foreign language.

I am of the opinion that not everyone should go to college. When secondary education is viewed as a mere preparatory experience for higher education, the focus slips away from preparation for life, and all too often a failing student is passed along for the next institution to fix (or not)...on the student's dime.

How many HS grads who never move on to uni use, or even remember, any math beyond basic algebra? How many can earn their bread recalling Shakespearian quotes, or pointing out bad grammar? Of what use as a lifeskill is memorizing a bunch of historical dates, to be promptly forgotten within three days of regurgitating them on a standardized test?

What happened to practical classes which used to occupy the majority of intellectually unambitious students, like: woodworking, automotive repair, horticulture, home ec, and so on? There used to be workstudy internships, but now? It used to be we were taught how to balance a monthly household income. Seems like that caught up to us w a vengeance, a few years back!

After all those years in school, and many more working, I'd say that my very most important HS class was Typing. I was a bandgeek and never had time to take a woodshop class, but even after earning my MS in Geology I more often apply my trig skills calculating mitercut angles and working my speedsquare.

Finally, children who can't keep up and do well, should just be left behind.

Don't leave them behind, just give them a more realistic path. There exists a total disconnect between HS and the workforce, and it is no wonder so many kids simply drop out. They fail to see the point. Perhaps it's because they're right, there simply is no point to HS, unless they've set themselves a higher target?

So what do they do? Jump through some hoops to earn their GRE, go to community college, ITT, etc, if they're serious about learning a trade? Join a gang? Rob liquor stores?

When it becomes obvious that college will be a massive waste of time and money, the student should be directed by their High school towards a goal more appropriately suited to their interests, skills and strengths.

[Nevins]

I have two problems with the OP.

1. The assertion that there is no competition within a given school district. Acknowledging the fact that every school district operates differently so your mileage may vary, intradistrict school choice exists.

It may in certain areas but the nasty effect of "bonuses" to school funding coming from local property taxes means that those in more affluent areas often make it illegal to attend the school without being a resident in that area. There are certainly systems that allow limited choice, such as the Magnate schools in the Chicago Public Schools system, but these are only offered in limited areas.

2. The assertion that teachers only "work" 8-3, five days a week, nine months a year.

Please name me another profession that even remotely resembles our classical teaching schedule. I'm dying to hear about it.

Great post to start the thread.

Do you think that the standardized testing is an actual indicator of learning or an indicator of preparation?

Standardized testing is an indicator of both and neither at the same time. So called "Teaching to the Test" drives many educators I have worked with/observed up a wall, as they feel that they are being forced to teach children how to answer multiple choice questions rather than imparting any real knowledge. A good analogy for this would be test preparation in high school. Lets say that you had a physics test coming up, and your teacher provided you with example problems ahead of time. Those merely attempting to pass the test will memorize those examples and merely learn how to work the problems, while more a second type of student will work to learn the actual concepts behind the problems. The second method is definitely more challenging, but leads to real learning.

This is the problem that many educators, especially in those that are deemed struggling by NCLB, find themselves in. They could take the time to actually teach concepts, but if they do so the students will not be as prepared for the standardized tests as their peers are who are taught to the test.

So, your question is answered as a bit of both. If students are struggling with the material to begin with, test prep may help but we are ultimately harming those children's education in the long run. Likewise, some sort of test prep is required in order to help students who may understand concepts to perform well on tests.
Unfortunately, there simply is no easy alternative for gauging student and teacher performance at a large scale other than the tests.

Snip.

I believe that the Germans have a model program for this sort of thing. Essentially they allow students to graduate from HS early and then apprentice them out to different sorts of trades, such as plumbing/ electrician, where they can learn their skills earlier and not waste their time with education that often goes unused.

[Vanoi]

I am curious though, what salary do you guys think teachers should be making here?