Support NeoGAF

[StealthGoblin]

We're talking about the US...

I know. I am surprised. We have nothing like that at all. We do fuck all life skills things.

 

[JGS]

Let me rephrase your point: All other things being equal, teachers are absolutely vital to improving the school. Teachers cannot overcome dysfunctional environments. And that is what our society has maintained for a large chunk of our populace. Quite intentionally.

EDIT:Crap, I lost this post so I'll try to re-sum it up.

We agree on this. However, I don't think it's intentional. A local and state government has a vested interest in proving their entire edicational system is up to snuff. However, there is only so much time, effort, and resources to throw at the problem.

I don't think most people realize how much money is thrown into a good/middle/wealthy school system that has nothing to do with federal funding- parents, festivals, funding campaigns of one kind or another, good management, and yes even parental involvement.

That's where the difference lies and it's one poorer schools cannot make up and one that government shouldn't come to their rescue on with endless streams of cash if the location prohibits it's proper use.

How can everybody in an environment get out of it? That's just not feasible. It's fantastical. It's like suggesting that the solution to poverty is for everybody to become a CEO. It requires a blatant disregard of reality.

It's nothing like that and it's far from fantastical. Keeping the business example which doesn't really fit, no one is discussing a promotion which would be the case for a CEO position. We're talking about simple a raise to minimum wage- following the requirements of basic employment.

Further, I'm not saying that it's a parent's job to consider it. It's the governement's - local or state. One of the aspects of No Child was the idea of being allowed to move your kid out of a bad school which I think is entirely fair. The problem is it leaves a school hollow of talent which sucks but is not the problem of a parent trying to take care of their kid's education needs.

Again, If the school is academically dead anyway, there's no point in giving it CPR and blaming geography for it's sustainability. There are plenty of buildings and there would be plenty of teachers left over to adapt if people would simply stop trying to fix what is irretrievable broken.

I really can't imagine most countries who do better than us education wise actually having a vastly more complex sytem of riding a dead horse. That is what seems fantastical. Even more unlikely is the idea that school is what leads to change in an unhealthy environment. More times than not, the environment changes the school. You would need a Joe Clarke figure and even he wasn't the best example to follow.

 

[empty vessel]

Maybe we need more schools where kids can just live 24/7 in the inner city - similar to how some rich kids are sent away to school in high school. Sadly, the best thing we can do for some of these kids is to take them away from their parents.

Or we can create a more equitable society with sharply reduced inequality. Which sounds better to you?

 

[FLEABttn]

Again, If the school is academically dead anyway, there's no point in giving it CPR and blaming geography for it's sustainability. There are plenty of buildings and there would be plenty of teachers left over to adapt if people would simply stop trying to fix what is irretrievable broken.

I think what empty vessel is saying (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that without fixing the socioeconomic problems that reside at home, closing a "failed" school and busing the kids to a "good" doesn't fix the problem as the education in question isn't what's broken and it's the attitude towards education instilled at home that's is the problem.

If there exist two schools in one school district, one in a poor neighborhood and one in an upper class neighborhood, and they both teach the same curriculum, and they both pay the same, if the school in the poor neighborhood is failing, is the education really to blame and how would simply busing the kids who don't care elsewhere solving the problem?

It's a similar problem faced where I live. The more affluent areas have schools with better test scores and graduation rates than the less affluent areas, but they're all the same school district and teach a similar curriculum.

 

[StuKen]

Or we can create a more equitable society with sharply reduced inequality. Which sounds better to you?

..and that's just socialism.

 

[empty vessel]

I think what empty vessel is saying (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that without fixing the socioeconomic problems that reside at home, closing a "failed" school and busing the kids to a "good" doesn't fix the problem as the education in question isn't what's broken and it's the attitude towards education instilled at home that's is the problem.

Yes, with one slight caveat. It's not so much about the "attitude towards education" that is the root problem as the inherent economic and social instability in these environments (e.g., parents unable to pay rent and getting evicted and moving around, parents working more than one job and working irregular hours, parent in and out of prison, parent with substance abuse problems, parent with untreated mental health problems, etc., the list is endless). These root problems do tend to create a negative "attitude towards education," but the problem runs much deeper than just the attitude. It's a social problem that is all of our responsibility to solve.

 

[AndyD]

I think what empty vessel is saying (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that without fixing the socioeconomic problems that reside at home, closing a "failed" school and busing the kids to a "good" doesn't fix the problem as the education in question isn't what's broken and it's the attitude towards education instilled at home that's is the problem.

If there exist two schools in one school district, one in a poor neighborhood and one in an upper class neighborhood, and they both teach the same curriculum, and they both pay the same, if the school in the poor neighborhood is failing, is the education really to blame and how would simply busing the kids who don't care elsewhere solving the problem?

It's a similar problem faced where I live. The more affluent areas have schools with better test scores and graduation rates than the less affluent areas, but they're all the same school district and teach a similar curriculum.

The difference can be due to the quality of the teachers. Just because two teachers at the two schools you mention are paid the same and teach the same subject, that does not mean they are equally good and can produce results.

But I agree that busing lesser/underperforming students to a "better" school can actually harm all the kids, the advanced kids by reducing the quality of students in their classroom, stalling their progress, and the behind kids by wasting their time on a bus instead of additional more focused classes to catch them up, and also by putting them in larger classes where even less time can be spent on them individually and focused.

I still think a significant improvement would be made with smaller schools, more of them in a more community/neighborhood focused approach with smaller classes and more focus on individual kids. And a uniform curriculum across the board with leeway for the teacher to adjust the practice of teaching to the students. If they do really well, then teach more advanced concepts. If they struggle, then go slower.

 

[JGS]

I think what empty vessel is saying (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that without fixing the socioeconomic problems that reside at home, closing a "failed" school and busing the kids to a "good" doesn't fix the problem as the education in question isn't what's broken and it's the attitude towards education instilled at home that's is the problem.

If there exist two schools in one school district, one in a poor neighborhood and one in an upper class neighborhood, and they both teach the same curriculum, and they both pay the same, if the school in the poor neighborhood is failing, is the education really to blame and how would simply busing the kids who don't care elsewhere solving the problem?

I figured but this is incorrect in part unless the parents are saying to the kid to stop learning. If that's the case, a school being there does nothing anyway. However, in most cases, a school is what drives the education system. The kids who were part of a failing school would still need to pass/fail accordingly but their shot is better in a better school.

Again, the education is to be blame because the level of commitment and motivation is not the same between the two schools. There's no way it can be if they all things are equal. The funding is equal too, just not the level of non-government funding which is not the fault of the wealthier schools. Poorer kids benefit from the wealth of their peers' parents by moving them out of the poorer school. It's a side benefit.

 

[The Lamp]

This country just doesn't have enough scientists and engineers being made compared to some other wealthy nations, and I think that's a problem. I think we need to start at the K-12 level before moving into the college/university problem.

My mother's a bilingual 3rd grade teacher (used to be a chemical engineer, but she finds teaching to be her passion now that she's older) and teaches the kids that are trying to learn English and often come from broken homes. Repeatedly her children get the highest grades and test scores out of any grade and class in the school (and she's only been working 5 years and been in 3 different schools), even though they are learning two languages at once, concepts at often double the speed, and the other teachers just don't seem to understand why the can't get their kids to learn like hers.

She's very Ms. Frizzley, though. Her pedagogy was very out-of-the-box compared to the other sterile, routine teachers. She's very warm and loving to all her students, meeting them all individually on their level, and her classroom is covered in projects, ideas, group assignments, and colorful implementations and reinforcements of all the concepts the children need to learn. The ideas she comes up with to teach difficult concepts blows my mind sometimes, she's enormously creative in introducing and reinforcing concepts to her students. She absolutely loves bringing the best out of each of these kids, especially when they're behind. Compared to the other teachers, she's very peculiar in the amount of attention and creativity she invests into her students, and it puzzles them.

I don't say this to brag, but rather, seeing other teachers that teach those grades and remembering back to some of my teachers really makes me sad for the kids that have to be put through this unforgiving, sterile, public education system, with teachers that just go with the quota and do the bare minimum to meet test scores.

My sister being a teacher as well, I always get to hear teacher gossip and stuff going around the schools. Teachers always sound miserable with their job and it almost seems to me like they take out their frustration on the way they teach their kids sometimes.

The public school system needs a rigorous makeover, but I'm not quite sure what yet.

I know that my child will go to the best place my money can provide, and will learn to value education, like my mother did for me, and I know it will make a difference.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Maybe I just went to a shitty school but my son who is in the 2nd grade is learning about the parts of the eye in far greater detail than I did in the 4th grade. His class even dissected a sheep's eye last week.

That said, I work in two school districts and it doesn't even resemble what I remember high school looking like. It's far closer to a community college environment (not a lot going on).

I think that this is the problem with schools. You imply that them learning greater detail about parts of the eye is a good thing, but I'd say it's far worse. It's information that they won't remember in three weeks and that only one in a thousand will probably have any interest in in their lifetimes, and those people will just have to relearn it later in their life anyway.

EDIT:

Not only that, but those that fail the eye parts test fall "behind" their class mates. After a student fails enough of this bullshit they decide that they must be dumb and give up on their classes entirely, conceding that the only thing they'll be able to do is manual labor.

The problem is how we define intelligence. GAF bitches about memory based tests but as soon as a study comes out that says 35% of Americans can't find Uzbekistan they're all over it, declaring their superiority over the common American that they can find a shape on a bigger shape.

 

[AndyD]

I figured but this is incorrect in part unless the parents are saying to the kid to stop learning. If that's the case, a school being there does nothing anyway. However, in most cases, a school is what drives the education system. The kids who were part of a failing school would still need to pass/fail accordingly but their shot is better in a better school.

Again, the education is to be blame because the level of commitment and motivation is not the same between the two schools. There's no way it can be if they all things are equal. The funding is equal too, just not the level of non-government funding which is not the fault of the wealthier schools. Poorer kids benefit from the wealth of their peers' parents by moving them out of the poorer school. It's a side benefit.

If the home culture and attitude stigmatizes effort in school, intelligence, and ambition educationally then the kids are effectively being taught at home to devalue school so they stop learning and have an apathetic attitude when they are in school.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The solution to our education problem is to not count the test scores of the inner city hood-preps. I'd put our good suburb schools up against anything in Europe.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

What? There is information on this, though, because (thanks to academics looking to race as an indicator) that's how we measure policies.

There are tons and tons of things on this. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=gse_pubs http://www.danagoldstein.net/dana_g...middle-class-white-schools-in-crisis-too.html http://educationnext.org/teaching-math-to-the-talented Basically, our white students test a bit behind the various European countries listed (most with small non-whatever-"white"-country-is-nearest ethnic minority populations). It would be enough to be worried. When you take our best overall students, regardless of ethnic background, we're behind but competitive. With, well...

Thanks for your awesome links. So in short: middle class America is really starting to lag behind other countries. That alone is very worrying. However when you include our inner city schools well it pulls it down even more, making it even more worrying. Excellent post.

I really, REALLY wanted to dig into you after seeing this unbelievably racist post. I started to actually hate you as a person, the more this thread got longer, and I read your continuing disturbing posts. From you blatantly saying that minorities are the reason for America's low score compared to other countries, to you being so indignant of spending ten minutes - TEN MINUTES - of your day to read what was a rather well articulated post.

Then it sort of dawned on me that you probably didn't even realize that you're being a ignorant racist fuck. And before you start getting indignant that I'm calling you names, I'm one of those minorities from the inner city school system that scored in the top 10 percentile in my class who was personally offended by what you said in your OP and what it represented.

Maybe the next time you post, you'll think for a second that America is more than just white people, and that maybe us dumb ass minorities would like to be included in what your vision of America is.

Christ.

Shitty troll is shitty.

 

[AndyD]

I think that this is the problem with schools. You imply that them learning greater detail about parts of the eye is a good thing, but I'd say it's far worse. It's information that they won't remember in three weeks and that only one in a thousand will probably have any interest in in their lifetimes, and those people will just have to relearn it later in their life anyway.

I think your suggestion that its worse is wrong. Even if only 1 student learns he/she likes science its enough. Because that one child can start focusing on various sciences earlier and potentially get better in the end. The idea is to teach a variety of subjects and subject matters, from astronomy to zoology and across all the subjects a lot of children will learn about stuff they individually enjoy and perhaps start on a path to learn more in that subject.

Otherwise you dumb down education and those kids who are more advanced do not have the opportunity to shine.

 

[JGS]

If the home culture and attitude stigmatizes effort in school, intelligence, and ambition educationally then the kids are effectively being taught at home to devalue school so they stop learning and have an apathetic attitude when they are in school.

This is true, but that's also why propping up a poor school simply will not help the kid or the education system as a whole.

In the good old days, the schoolwork (& discipline for not doing it) was in the school. Now, the schoolwork requires a large amount of time at home with hypotheitical concerned parents. In actuality, home is not the best locale for it even in good school districts. The best schools know how to teach within the school system.

Just imagine how sucky a school has to be when the teachers are too bad to teach in school and the kids are living in an environment that does little to foster learning. Placing them in better schools alleviates part of the problem if not the whole which is completely impossible for the education system to fix.

Schools will never fix bad parents- especially if they're bad because they have to focus on paying the bills over they kids' education.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I think your suggestion that its worse is wrong. Even if only 1 student learns he/she likes science its enough. Because that one child can start focusing on various sciences earlier and potentially get better in the end. The idea is to teach a variety of subjects and subject matters, from astronomy to zoology and across all the subjects a lot of children will learn about stuff they individually enjoy and perhaps start on a path to learn more in that subject.

Otherwise you dumb down education and those kids who are more advanced do not have the opportunity to shine.

I guess it's perfectly suitable to teach a wide variety of topics to children when they're young as long as students aren't punished when they don't give a shit. The real problem is that curricalae that not all students have interest in is required to not only take but to pass if students want to get "ahead" in life.

 

[AndyD]

I guess it's perfectly suitable to teach a wide variety of topics to children when they're young as long as students aren't punished when they don't give a shit. The real problem is that curricalae that not all students have interest in is required to not only take but to pass if students want to get "ahead" in life.

When you spend one or two days or a week on a subject I hardly call it punishing whether you like it or not. I am not saying teach a year of anatomy in second grade, but spending a few days on the basics of anatomy is far better than not at all.

Coddling is stupid in my opinion and students should be taught responsibility. In adulthood and real life jobs you sometimes have to do stuff you don't like, and do it well to be successful, and this can be taught very early on as an important skill.

Students and their dislikes should not govern the curriculum choices because they are not always in a position to judge long term what is important and beneficial for them.

 

[GhaleonQ]

For all of those complaining about bad parents and unambitious students (and I agree), what would you do? Again, as a social conservative, some of you remind me of people lamenting the state of marriage without thinking of realistic policy solutions. I'm not saying there is one (like, I don't think America's sex culture or marriage can be fixed artificially), but I'm wondering if people have thought about it.

Also, I like a lot of these posts.

People adapt...It's that simple. Teachers began "teaching to the FCAT" and many schools began to get better ratings but so what? The actual FCAT has, over time, lowered their bar...exceptions were made for schools with high non-english speaking students, etc. In other words, people work the system in an effort to save their jobs and (more importantly) their legacy.

Jeb wants to be pres one day and he sure as shit won't be able to run on a failed education policy...the work to lay down the intellectual argument for his "success" begins with studies such as the one you pointed out...Did you read the last line of the article?

1. Can you cite a couple of souces? I'm not doubting, just asking. The authors do allow for this, though.

2. There's a difference between "doubting that tests reflect all that a student knows" and "just ignoring test scores." I think achievement grew enough to merit serious consideration.

3. I was referencing the data. I don't care about Jeb Bush and don't want his political career to go further. Plus, Rick Hess works for AEI, but he's still a very well-respected right-wing advocate for school reform.

My mother's a bilingual 3rd grade teacher (used to be a chemical engineer, but she finds teaching to be her passion now that she's older) and teaches the kids that are trying to learn English and often come from broken homes. Repeatedly her children get the highest grades and test scores out of any grade and class in the school (and she's only been working 5 years and been in 3 different schools), even though they are learning two languages at once, concepts at often double the speed, and the other teachers just don't seem to understand why the can't get their kids to learn like hers.

Teachers unions. Those that do support this (and there aren't that many, anecdotally) generally don't want testing to see if Frazzled Teachers work.

Thanks for your awesome links. So in short: middle class America is really starting to lag behind other countries. That alone is very worrying. However when you include our inner city schools well it pulls it down even more, making it even more worrying. Excellent post.

I will add that the 2nd link is from basically the main liberal popular writer on the left. I'm not just posting conservatives.

 

[dinazimmerman]

I don't have anything of substance to add to this discussion because I'm not familiar with the economics of education literature and all the empirical research done in other fields. However, I do have some fairly strong opinions about how primary and secondary education could be improved in the US, and they can basically be summed up as: MORE MATH AND SCIENCE. All students should be learning calculus at least in their junior year in high school. Advanced students should be learning it in their freshman year in high school. I felt I could have learned calculus much earlier than my junior year in high school if teachers covered more material earlier. Math was taught an especially slow pace in elementary school. We only knew a little tiny bit of algebra by the fifth grade. I think this is unacceptable.

 

[FLEABttn]

For all of those complaining about bad parents and unambitious students (and I agree), what would you do? Again, as a social conservative, some of you remind me of people lamenting the state of marriage without thinking of realistic policy solutions. I'm not saying there is one (like, I don't think America's sex culture or marriage can be fixed artificially), but I'm wondering if people have thought about it.

As far as the parents go, no clue. Maybe there's not a solution. I'm just not sure.

As far as the kids go, incentivizing good academic performance in some tangible way? I know some schools do like quarterly ice cream social things if you improve your GPA by like .5 (which I found to be stupid as it was a disincentive for those who consistently performed well as well as not being a very good incentive for those who did poorly, as if a few scoops of ice cream will make someone want to go from a 1.3 to a 1.7). Something more than that perhaps?

 

[Dai Kaiju]

I think the biggest problem with public high school in the US is that a lot of kids view it as a daily social event instead of a place where they go to learn. A solution would be having seperate schools for boys and girls be the norm like it is in many other countries. It's too late to do that now though.

Uniforms would help too. Fewer cliques that way.

 

[JGS]

As far as the parents go, no clue. Maybe there's not a solution. I'm just not sure.

As far as the kids go, incentivizing good academic performance in some tangible way? I know some schools do like quarterly ice cream social things if you improve your GPA by like .5 (which I found to be stupid as it was a disincentive for those who consistently performed well as well as not being a very good incentive for those who did poorly, as if a few scoops of ice cream will make someone want to go from a 1.3 to a 1.7). Something more than that perhaps?

My kids school recognizes the high achievers. It's a magnet school so it's kind of expected. Kids who are on the honor roll have their names placed in the cafeteria and they have a special breakfast with the principal.

They also get recognition at the end of the school year. I think it's one of the things that motivates my oldest kid. Last year they called his name for all the awards except attendance. There were gasps in the audience (I was pleasantly surprised too).

Of course, they probably thought he was some poor little black kid from the hood!

 

[ProfessorLobo]

When you spend one or two days or a week on a subject I hardly call it punishing whether you like it or not. I am not saying teach a year of anatomy in second grade, but spending a few days on the basics of anatomy is far better than not at all.

Coddling is stupid in my opinion and students should be taught responsibility. In adulthood and real life jobs you sometimes have to do stuff you don't like, and do it well to be successful, and this can be taught very early on as an important skill.

Students and their dislikes should not govern the curriculum choices because they are not always in a position to judge long term what is important and beneficial for them.

Just understand that the reason students are not putting forth any effort and falling behind is obvious.

 

[djtiesto]

So in short: Students need more "me time" that focuses on what their true passions and be educated by that, in contrast to being mindless sheep being controlled by the time of a gong. It would also be good to get the parents involved two as a bridge needs to be made between home life and school life.

Why couldn't somebody summarize this for me instead of me wasting ten minutes? TEN MINUTES!



People always say this shit how kids of the "modern age" are somehow worse than kids 20 years ago.

If it makes you feel any better, I once (out of boredom) read his book, basically was pages upon pages of Libertarian pro-homeschooling rants. Now THAT was a waste of time

 

[beelzebozo]

some incredibly interesting, in-depth discussion taking place here, and i want to thank everyone who's put so much thought into their posts. the problem is obviously huge, and with my limited exposure to that problem i don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, but i'm extremely happy and impressed that some very intelligent people are on the case.

seriously, i wish there were more threads like this on gaf.

 

[lilltias]

1. Up the taxes.
2. Cut spendings on the military.
3. Use most of it on education.
4. Maybe a bit on health care (but educated people are healthier in general)
5. Become the country of the forever.

Yeah?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

some incredibly interesting, in-depth discussion taking place here, and i want to thank everyone who's put so much thought into their posts. the problem is obviously huge, and with my limited exposure to that problem i don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, but i'm extremely happy and impressed that some very intelligent people are on the case.

seriously, i wish there were more threads like this on gaf.

Agreed. So glad I made this thread.

1. Up the taxes.
2. Cut spendings on the military.
3. Use most of it on education.
4. Maybe a bit on health care (but educated people are healthier in general)
5. Become the country of the forever.

Yeah?

We're number 2 in spending in health care. There is no reason why we should contain the most bloat in health care, military, and education compared to every other developed nation. Actually I think we already do.

 

[I_D]

Nooooo! Stupid server reset erased my post.

Ugh... to summarize:


Funding:
- Tests shouldn't affect teacher hiring/firing because then the teachers (in an attempt to keep their jobs) teach only what is tested, then drill it to make sure students pass. This is the problem with "teaching to the test."

Tests:
- They assess only rudimentary skills and hardly anything on them is of worth. The History tests are especially bad about this, as most of the tests refer only to random facts and pieces of locally-relevant history.
Students are expected to learn how to be productive and skilled members of society, not random fact-generators.

Environment:
- It's pathetic that schools have fewer computers than businesses. It should most definitely be the other way around. Schools should feature the upper echelons of technology, as even that will be inferior by the time the students graduate.
- Parents must become more involved. There has to be some type of incentive for parents to want their kids to learn, because otherwise it'll never happen, no matter how good the school is.
It's classic behavior modeling: If parents demonstrate a complete lack of interest in school work, the children have no reason to be interested other than personal preference (and very few kids would prefer to study over playing).
- Discipline has to be changed. Schools are so soft nowadays that the only way to punish a student is through the police or through the parents. The police obviously aren't the preferable way to go about things, so it falls back to the parents.

Values:
- A standardized test may not be the best way to go about things, at least not with our current definition of "required" knowledge. There are way too many rudimentary skills and random bits of rote memory required on the current tests, and way too few useful skills for these tests to be of any real value.



EDIT:
As far as minorities are concerned...
It is true that their scores are worse than whites', but that's purely a product of their environment. In a purely ideal world in which race meant nothing, the scores would be perfectly even across the board.

Unfortunately race and culture do play a part. Certain cultures value education more than others, at least a school-based education, and that plays out in the classroom.
Racism plays a part as well, obviously, as minorities hardly ever get a chance to succeed as well as whites do, and that plays out in the classroom as well (sort of offhandedly, as it affects the culture more than individual people directly).

 

[GhaleonQ]

I hate to harp on this, but every person I mention this idea to likes it, which means there's probably a major problem with it. I could use more "common man" opinions. Gold Star Teachers (I linked to it earlier):

Gold Star Teachers
First, an inconvenient truth. The classic method for improving education has been reduction in class size. Smaller classes are always better for kids, the thinking goes, and any challenge to this status quo immediately encounters a buzz saw of opposition from parents and teachers, who are drawn to the obvious appeal of smaller classes. The costs of small classes, however, are high and not just monetary—they dilute the quality in the teacher workforce, reduce training for individual teachers, and use funds to hire more bodies rather than for higher salaries.

Yet surprisingly, the research supporting across-the-board class reduction is thin, at best. The evidence that proponents most frequently cite—based on the Tennessee STAR experiment—is shockingly narrow to base an entire theory on. This research suggests that smaller classes are not a uniformly good idea and that while dramatic reductions in class size at first grade and kindergarten could yield some benefits, these results were contingent on there being no accompanying dilution of teacher quality.5 Of course, in the real world, these conditions rarely hold. Meanwhile, international evidence suggests there is no simple relationship between class size and student achievement. Some nations that excel in middle school mathematics, for example, have class sizes in that subject ranging from 40 to 50 students per class.6

Given the current fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, class size reduction is on hold—or receding. The fact that roughly 55% of K-12 outlays go to salaries and benefits for teachers means that district officials are forced to start reducing the ranks of teachers as they address these shortfalls, but they rarely have the tools to use teachers in smarter, more cost-effective ways as they do so.

But rather than seeking to compel parents or teachers, against their preferences, to accept substantially larger classes across the board, the “Gold Star Teachers” initiative—in which highly talented teachers are given the opportunity to teach more kids per class—is intended to reshuffle the incentives, improve instruction, save dollars, and create a productivity-enhancing dynamic that puts superintendents and principals in positions to better utilize their talented teachers.

Research suggests, and experience shows us, that some stellar teachers can comfortably handle three dozen students or more. While today’s value-added data systems have limitations and while student performance on reading and math assessments is not a simple proxy for teacher quality, value-added measures provide a systematic way to identify teachers whose students are consistently achieving outsized gains. And these teachers whose students register greater gains compared to their Wisconsin peers for at least two consecutive years would be eligible to participate in the Gold Star Teachers program should they so choose.

Gold Star Teachers would have the opportunity to become more productive by teaching more students per class, and would be rewarded for their increased workload even as the state pockets substantial savings. Teachers’ continued participation in the program would be made contingent on their students continuing to make larger-than-normal gains. Though hard to imagine just five years ago, enforcing such eligibility criteria is now feasible given today’s technological tools and refined data collection.

The benefits of Gold Star Teachers would flow not merely to the students now able to learn from these talented educators, but also to public officials, school district leaders, and taxpayers. Allowing a talented teacher to instruct, say, 35 students instead of 20 (Wisconsin’s statewide average reported class size today) would boost a teacher’s productivity by 75% if those students fared equally well.7 These savings, of course, should be shared by the state with districts and participating teachers to incentivize and reward performance.8

Today, principals often ask good teachers to take on tough roles simply because it’s the right thing to do. When asked to take a few especially demanding students or a couple extra kids, teachers are not currently rewarded or recognized—they’re simply asked to be good team players. The Gold Star Teacher program would change this inequity.

What about parents? All things equal, parents typically prefer smaller classes. But all is not equal. At every school in Wisconsin, involved parents always know who the best teachers are. Smaller classes mean that these teachers can work with fewer children. This is fine for those parents whose children are fortunate enough to get into those classrooms, and among those who know how to work the system to obtain such a slot, but it creates frustration among parents whose children do not get into the class of a heralded teacher.

Given the choice between a Gold Star Teacher serving more children and another teacher working with fewer, many or most parents will likely prefer the larger class. But it is essential that parents be given a choice. The logic of the Gold Star Teacher program is that it is all about choices—by teachers, by parents—and not about fiat.

Thoughts?

 

[I_D]

Ghaleon,

That information uses test results as the basis for its argument. Real "student achievement" isn't actually measured since most of it happens past schooling years. It also cites funding as a defense, which wouldn't be an issue with some minor governmental shifts.

Small classes are unquestionably better than large classrooms; this is whole reason tutoring works. Individual attention = better results.

However, I'd argue ~20-25 students is the best size for a classroom. A class this size is easy to control and give attention to, yet is large enough to foster social skills and other important non-academic knowledge.

 

[SciencePilot]

From my experience, I would say that money isn't really the biggest issue. It's more of a culture issue. If people cared more about education, then they would do better. That said, I wouldn't say it's the government's job to try to make them care. The culture is how the culture is.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Ghaleon,

That information uses test results as the basis for its argument. Real "student achievement" isn't actually measured since most of it happens past schooling years. It also cites funding as a defense, which wouldn't be an issue with some minor governmental shifts.

Small classes are unquestionably better than large classrooms; this is whole reason tutoring works. Individual attention = better results.

However, I'd argue ~20-25 students is the best size for a classroom. A class this size is easy to control and give attention to, yet is large enough to foster social skills and other important non-academic knowledge.

1. We'll agree to disagree on testing's usefulness, especially since the United States has a competitive disadvantage from leading in so many industries. The way we stay ahead is by developing new things, and it's not obvious that "objective" knowledge doesn't produce most of the people who create new things. Maybe Spain can just copy world production developments and maybe the person who's going to be a welder doesn't prove anything if someone teaches him to the test, but the knowledge of the person who will push bioengineering to the next level is probably testable.

2. Your comment on funding doesn't seem right. I'd like to increase funding slightly, but I'd also like to point out that we'll probably have lame economic growth for the next 2 decades, more teachers costs a lot more than you make it out to be, and every dollar you want to spend on teachers is a dollar you can't spend on something else that may be nearly as important to you.

To me, it's always important to stretch dollars.

3. Given current protests (or any widespread industry's lobbying efforts, really), can you see why it's dangerous to have too many people personally invested in a troubled industry? When you have too many financial people in District Of Columbia and New York, too many farmers in Kansas, too many automobile factory workers in Michigan, and too many public employees in California, movement can't outdo inertia and bad stuff happens.

4. So, a great teacher with 40 students will do worse per student than a good teacher with 15?

 

[Telosfortelos]

Ghaleon, Bill Gates has been making media rounds in the past couple of weeks recommending exactly what you stated. Give the best teachers more students (and increase their pay). Here's the AP article about his suggestions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134144292 (Note that I don't support spending cuts for education as the subject of that article might imply)

I have a lot to say on this subject, but limited time just now. I hope this thread doesn't die anytime soon.

Opposition to merit-based salaries and other popular reforms likes to make two contradictory arguments: 1) Critics don't value teachers enough 2) teachers can't really do much because success is so closely tied to socioeconomic conditions.

This argument implies a couple of strawmen about education reformers (and I use "education reformers" as short hand to refer to the popular types that are most commonly heard from in the conversation today - of course there's not one uniform reform position). Reformers support good teachers, and many have suggested increasing how much we spend on teacher preparation (both in and out of college). Reforms believe there are good teachers, and that merit-based incentives will allow us to better acknowledge success in the field. Of course this requires you to believe that measuring teachers is possible, and I do. You can do a lot of nifty things with statistics! It shouldn't be done wrong, and their are certainly risks for misinterpretation. We need advocates for teachers to help illuminate the possible pitfalls, not to decry any possible statistics-based evaluation.

As for the poverty argument, there's no question that we need to better improve the conditions disadvantaged children to help improve their education. Health care, mental health care, and food programs are a part of that. None of this is mutually exclusive to education reform.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The problem is that learning is stigmatized in society. The "learning is for fags" and "most education is librul and therefore can be dismissed" has successfully permeated in the social consciousness. That means that even as the bar keeps dropping to ensure a high graduation rate, there will always be people trying to race to see how they can get under it. Until this attitude is gone, there won't be a whole hell of a lot that can be done.

I think that posting solutions will be pointless until this is done away with. Unless people want to make the difficult decision of moving on with this attitude and just leaving the slackers behind. Which they may have to do if things get worse.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Ghaleon, Bill Gates has been making media rounds in the past couple of weeks recommending exactly what you stated. Give the best teachers more students (and increase their pay). Here's the AP article about his suggestions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134144292 (Note that I don't support spending cuts for education as the subject of that article might imply)

*grins* It's been noted. http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/260947/stray-links-28-february-2011-reihan-salam I'm not a huge fan of his efforts, since it seems like he just wants to give money to a bunch of things (which is good) without paying attention afterward (which is bad) and without picking political fights (which is really bad but understandable). I can't complain if he gives interesting ideas publicity, though.

I obviously agree with the rest of your post, and I hope that just repeating the same things over and over will eventually get teachers to come to the negotiating table. At a certain point, fearing mass firings or teacher poverty or whatever is less compeling than the earnestness of (some) reformers and the additional benefits.

I feel like voluntary union association would limit unions' ability to highly influence elections and encourage them to compromise more quickly. http://politicalscience.stanford.ed...l and the Power of the Agent- JLEO V22 N1.pdf (from a conservative, but 1 at Brookings) says that it's as powerful as incumbency in elections, although I haven't checked or read about the numbers.

 

[I_D]

1. We'll agree to disagree on testing's usefulness, especially since the United States has a competitive disadvantage from leading in so many industries. The way we stay ahead is by developing new things, and it's not obvious that "objective" knowledge doesn't produce most of the people who create new things. Maybe Spain can just copy world production developments and maybe the person who's going to be a welder doesn't prove anything if someone teaches him to the test, but the knowledge of the person who will push bioengineering to the next level is probably testable.

2. Your comment on funding doesn't seem right. I'd like to increase funding slightly, but I'd also like to point out that we'll probably have lame economic growth for the next 2 decades, more teachers costs a lot more than you make it out to be, and every dollar you want to spend on teachers is a dollar you can't spend on something else that may be nearly as important to you.

To me, it's always important to stretch dollars.

3. Given current protests (or any widespread industry's lobbying efforts, really), can you see why it's dangerous to have too many people personally invested in a troubled industry? When you have too many financial people in District Of Columbia and New York, too many farmers in Kansas, too many automobile factory workers in Michigan, and too many public employees in California, movement can't outdo inertia and bad stuff happens.

4. So, a great teacher with 40 students will do worse per student than a good teacher with 15?

1. The advantage is unfortunately becoming less pronounced as other countries improve. Asian countries, in particular, are starting to soar past the US's scores.
A test can be plenty useful, I think, just not the tests we have now. I've been taking SOL tests for the majority of my school career (Virginia schools) and have seen, first-hand just how pathetic they are. I never scored below an "Advanced Proficiency" (highest bracket of scores) on any test, even though I hardly knew squat about upper-level sciences or maths. They're so damn easy almost anybody can pass them, which is why holding them to high standards is detrimental; what was previously the minimal amount of required knowledge has become the only knowledge taught.

2&4. The funding could be easily fixed, but it would affect other industries. One year's of spending in Iraq, for example, could have improved schools by an insane amount.
There's nothing wrong with one teacher being stretched over 40 students, especially if doing so shows no negative repercussions; I was simply saying that a smaller classroom is likely more beneficial, and I doubt the 40-person class is actually as effective as a smaller class, regardless of what our (flawed) tests indicate.

3. You're exactly right. Creating "zones" of knowledge breeds localized learning and students become trapped in one occupation or location.
This is why I think the "standards" need to be changed. Students must learn a wide range of knowledge that can be applied to a variety of situations (likely K-8) then later schooling can be more specialized.
Something else I didn't hit on before is the fact that schools underestimate student abilities. Nine years of education is waaaaay more than enough to teach students essential knowledge (hell, that's more education than most people ever got for their entire lives just a hundred years ago) and public schools fail to take that into account.

 

[Telosfortelos]

Ahh, sorry I missed it. I'll read the whole thread tonight.

A few other things (typing quickly, need to run):
1) Education reform doesn't have to mean simply focusing on math and reading. We should absolutely be concerned with the ability and willingness of children to research and learn and critically evaluate information. We should investigate methods for getting children to value their own education. While I don't support most alt-education programs, I think we can learn a lot about this from free-schools and other non-traditional schools (for an example of a free school, check out part 3 of This American Life episode 424) This isn't mutually-exclusive to the other bits of education reform either, and those touting the need for more than just math and reading should start thinking about how we can implement critical-thinking education, and maybe even evaluate it.

2) And while I'm personally concerned with poor inner-city schools (my niece, whom I'm very close to, goes to one, and other than my wife and me (we live about 150 miles away), she doesn't have the family support system to counter-act bad schools and bad teachers - and she's had some fucking terrible teachers), we also need to focus on middle of the road students. Students, some of whom might be in honors tracks (or advanced or AP or whatever you want to call it), but aren't necessarily where our newly-globalized economy needs them to be. There's a great deal that can be done here, and it's rarely part of the discussion. I didn't have a support structure at home, but I was a pretty good state-level mathematics and debate competitor in high school with very good test scores and the ability to get into most colleges, but my high school still failed me. I didn't learn anything in class, and when I went to college I just didn't do any work and stopped going to my classes. A better high school education with higher expectations could have helped prevent this (or mental health programs for students. Depression was probably my biggest hindrance, and the aforementioned lack of support at home). In the tech world (and gaming world), this story is very common, so I'm sure a great many of you had similar experiences. [edit: Uggg, I hate anecdotal arguments. I should have left this section out, but stay it will]

3) We need substantial reform at the college level. We need to spend money researching how best to educate educators. Perhaps we could see some university pilot programs where states promise a certain minimum salaries for select groups of top-tier students to go through rigorous programs and teach in the state for some minimum number of years. Similar things have been proposed, I don't know if anyone's actually doing it though.

 

[GoutPatrol]

So in short: middle class America is really starting to lag behind other countries.

Just stopping everyone there. The myth that American schools have fallen behind the rest of the world recently is bullshit. Ever since they started doing these types of studies the United States has always been in the teens.

http://www.good.is/post/debunking-education-myths-america-s-never-been-number-one-in-math/

Back in 1964, American 13-year-olds took the First International Math Study and ended up ranking in 11th place. Considering that only 12 nations participated, including Australia, Finland, and Japan, our next-to-last performance was pretty abysmal. Other international tests American students have taken over the years have also never showed that we were in the top spot. It's a myth that we've fallen from our glory days.

 

[captmorgan]

I think there needs to be two different tracks, one for Parents who care about their kids (college track) and the other for Parents who could care less (specialized trades).

Ya I just wanted say Fuck you.

Really are you saying everyone is in the trades only because their parents didn`t give a shit about their kids. Really? I would bet any amount of money that the average tradesman is far more intelligent, creative and logical than the average collage student. Fuck I would go as far as saying is also far more useful to society in a whole.

You want to fix education teach everyone the basics of all the trades then let them specialize in what ever field they want later. Done a far more intelligent, productive and useful society.

 

[Zhengi]

So I have actually been thinking about this subject and if I ever go for a PhD in education, I would probably tackle this question of what we need to do in K-12 education to improve outcomes. My current uneducated thinking goes as follows:

1. Elementary education at the moment is too bloated. I know we are following the Greek model in where every citizen should have some specialty and knowledge in every area. For this reason, elementary education is focused on English, Mathematics, Sciences, History, Arts, and usually an elective. I think we should cut down the subjects taught in elementary to English, Math, and Science. Teachers who teach multi subjects can be said to be jacks of all trades, but perhaps having teachers who are experts in a single subject will lead to better teaching of that subject to kids.

I know there are good reasons as to why the other subjects like History and the Arts should be taught to children, but for many students, they will most likely never use these subjects when they are fully grown. You will get the one or two kids who are exceptional in these subjects, but for the majority, Arts and other elective subjects might not be as helpful.

So by narrowing the scope of early education down to these subjects can help to avoid the cacophony of subjects that a kid is learning early on. It is when students reach middle school and high school that these other subjects should be taught, which leads to my next point.

2. The middle school and high school system should mirror the college system more. Have the basics like English and Math be required, but the other subjects should be chosen by students based on their interests. So if a student wants to take Psychology, they should be able to select that course and have it meet requirements for going to college. In California, we have what is called the A-G requirements, which is a set structure that is not very flexible for high school students. The A-G requirements are as follows:

4 years of English
3 years, 4 years recommended of Math
2 years of History
2 years of Science
2 years, 3 years recommended of Foreign Language
1 year of Arts
1 year of Electives

Now the reason I say the A-G requirements are not as flexible is that most classes given to high school students will fall in only those areas. There are no other classes available for them like Psychology, Anthropology, Business, Philosophy, Geology, etc. that really falls in those areas. I think if we broaden the requirements and let students take subjects that they might be interested in and have it count towards entering College, then students will be able to find subjects they are interested in and thus they have a better idea of what area they want to study in.

3. Another reason why I think the above might work is if we place more importance into vocational education. Not every student is meant to go to a 4 year university and thus those extra courses really are a waste. We should have more vocational type courses in high school like workshop or auto body repair classes so that students can explore those areas.

The main focus of education appears to be to create an one size fits all type of education and it is this inflexability that hurts our students. How do we know that they might not succeed in other vocational activities if we do not give them the opportunity to try them? A person who goes through vocational school and finds a career that they love should be considered a success. One has to ask why people need to be taught extra subjects that might not even affect their lives later on. We want productive members of society and education should be more lean and green to achieve this goal.

4. Of course, we also need parents to be active in their kids' lives. Schools need to reform the way they operate and have the parents more engaged. I like some of the suggestions in this thread like having parents sign the progress report of students every week and providing access to parents online to check on the progress of their kids. The schools should do everything in their power to put the onus on the parents to be involved with their kids' education.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I swore I wasn't going to post in this forum but after reading comments asserting change in the current line of parents is just absurd and unfeasible without government intervention by enacting social reform policies that restricts and prevents parents from having the freedom and liberty to raise their child in their own unique way.

Restrictions and limitations are never positive for the foundations of freedom in generally all aspects of ones life. Forcing parents to subscribe to policies that eliminates control over their children does not take into account each child's individual needs and desires in addition to different physical characteristics, behavior and personality traits. You can not regulate the amount of food a parent feeds their child, for example, or determine what sort of punishment for certain bad behaviors is appropriate, and lastly, the only way to oversee parenting would be to define child, teen, perhaps even young adult in very broad legal language.

My suggestion would be to completely disregard all parental regulations and improve the lives of the children entering into K-12 by revamping the school system in general. That way, if they have a shitty household school could potentially be a sanctuary of learning and increase their willingness to become more actively engaging in classroom activities. This can only be achieved in one way. And, that is to make classes challenging by reinforcing critical thinking in a fun and rewarding way. There is of course, immensely more concepts to make the classroom more enjoyable but I am merely stating a broad example to paint the picture.

If school is fun, challenging, rewarding, accessible, full of positivity, and chiefly, all around balanced to cater to children, and teens physical, mental, emotional and intellectual needs then the community and individual will notice mutual benefit. The new generation of children will become adults and through the lessons they learned in their development years, will in turn, bestow onto their generation of kids and so on so forth.

I honestly believe to save the future it must first be restructured at the lowest denominator and that is the future of tomorrow. My reasoning is the present leaders in policy and politics in addition to business and commerce are beyond the point of change and will continue to follow the same path they believe is the right direction. And, by at the very least making strides in one, significant aspect of our youth's lives will therefore affect the entirety of the youth's population to produce effective results for their future.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I wonder what American Culture would be like if we idolized scientists, intellectuals, and engineers, rather than pop culture.

SMH. Talk about a missed moment of awesome. Our technology and culture would be so far ahead of everyone else it wouldn't even be funny.

 

[Zhengi]

I swore I wasn't going to post in this forum but after reading comments asserting change in the current line of parents is just absurd and unfeasible without government intervention by enacting social reform policies that restricts and prevents parents from having the freedom and liberty to raise their child in their own unique way.

Restrictions and limitations are never positive for the foundations of freedom in generally all aspects of ones life. Forcing parents to subscribe to policies that eliminates control over their children does not take into account each child's individual needs and desires in addition to different physical characteristics, behavior and personality traits. You can not regulate the amount of food a parent feeds their child, for example, or determine what sort of punishment for certain bad behaviors is appropriate, and lastly, the only way to oversee parenting would be to define child, teen, perhaps even young adult in very broad legal language.

My suggestion would be to completely disregard all parental regulations and improve the lives of the children entering into K-12 by revamping the school system in general. That way, if they have a shitty household school could potentially be a sanctuary of learning and increase their willingness to become more actively engaging in classroom activities. This can only be achieved in one way. And, that is to make classes challenging by reinforcing critical thinking in a fun and rewarding way. There is of course, immensely more concepts to make the classroom more enjoyable but I am merely stating a broad example to paint the picture.

If school is fun, challenging, rewarding, accessible, full of positivity, and chiefly, all around balanced to cater to children, and teens physical, mental, emotional and intellectual needs then the community and individual will notice mutual benefit. The new generation of children will become adults and through the lessons they learned in their development years, will in turn, bestow onto their generation of kids and so on so forth.

I honestly believe to save the future it must first be restructured at the lowest denominator and that is the future of tomorrow. My reasoning is the present leaders in policy and politics in addition to business and commerce are beyond the point of change and will continue to follow the same path they believe is the right direction. And, by at the very least making strides in one, significant aspect of our youth's lives will therefore affect the entirety of the youth's population to produce effective results for their future.

Thoughts anyone?

I don't think it would be necessary to have social change to get parents involved in their kids' education. Give school the power to keep students back a grade if parents don't follow the school policy. Like they have to sign off on a certain number progress reports for their kids to qualify to go to the next grade.

As much as people don't want to admit it, parents are an important part of any kid's educational development. It doesn't matter if they want the freedom to raise their kids in the way they see fit. They can do that in the context of the kid's daily life. However, when it comes to education, schools should be able to get parents involved and this would help students more than it will hurt the parents' freedom to raise their kids in any manner they want.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

I keep hearing about how America is falling behind in the world in the realm of education.

I've been doing some research and it confirms this.

However I wonder if this is due to the fact that there are so many underperforming inner city schools dragging the country down. It's no secret that these schools have extremely little funding and the children who attend their tend to be stuck in the system. By my knowledge other countries don't have this problem or at least not as severly.

Is there any information that doesn't include the inner city schools when comparing America to the other countries? Or just comparing the white students (because a vast majority of inner city schools consist of minorities) to other countries?

And if America is still underperforming how do you think the country should fix the education system?

I understand the argument where people say, "cutting education funds don't help. The scores are just as bad."

However, I never find they can answer the question, "how does taking resources away HELP teachers teach better and kids learn more?"

Personally, I think there are several things wrong with education in general
1. Lack of resources. Yes, taking money away DOES affect education quality. You want higher quality education? Hire better people! Why the hell would anyone want to be a teacher if the pay is shit? Schools using old textbooks? Schools with shitty facilities? LOL let's take money away! I know some people are selfish assholes who want to keep their money instead of spending it on kids (for some, especially if they don't have any), but at the end of the day, they'll be funding YOUR pension...you'd think you'd want them to have some sort of job instead of living on welfare and drinking your milkshake.
2. Subjects. I always felt a more practical and career-oriented approach would be better. It would give kids an end goal. Something to work towards. Who the fuck cares if they make it into Uni or College if they don't even know what they want to do? The hell are we teaching them subjects they'll never use? They'll be bored cause they don't see a need for it. If you look at Sweden (I believe), they get you down a career path as soon as you enter Uni. The hell can't we do it? There's still room for 'personal growth' and 'exploring the world and different subjects' and shit, but there has to be more than just that in life.
3. Culture. Kids nowadays don't respect authority. There's a sense of entitlement that the past few generations have had that gives them a power over teachers. Worse is THEY know it. Teachers are more or less powerless when kids threaten them. They're powerless when they refuse to learn. They're powerless if they don't care. They're powerless if they refuse to listen. They are not allowed to discipline them.
4. Parents. A lot of parents aren't helping. They're either putting the blame on the teachers instead of their kids or they're not helping the kids themselves. I don't consider school a daycare. Parents NEED to take more initiative into their kids lives and not just leave it up to the teacher to do everything for them.
5. Lazy. A lot of kids are simply lazy. It's related to point 3 in that a lot of kids don't seem to be willing to work. Doesn't help that a lot of role models make it seem so easy. It also doesn't help when your peers may be the same way. Why would you want to put in that effort if nobody else is going to?

 

[thetechkid]

Another Cold War Space Race but with something new to inspire people to want to beat someone else in a competition. People wanting to learn is a good first step.

Use technology. What's sad is videogame tutorials are often more helpful in 'teaching the game' than the school system is at teaching concepts. For example, there should be a math program that allows students to attempt the problem, but the problem is broken down and shows exactly where the student made the error and why. With technology, there can be more instantaneous feedback. It doesn't help if the student has to wait a day for the teacher to grade the paper he just did and has no real way of knowing if they did the problem correctly. There needs to be a better 'practice environment' before official graded assessments are given.

I can't add anymore to this other than why isn't this being done?

 

[Barry Lightning]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

This is an RSAnimate adapted from a Sir Ken Robinson address. I recommend it.

thanks

 

[DanteFox]

Pay teachers more.

No.

Make pay based on merit and not seniority, for starters. Of course the unions will be having none of that, as we all know.

 

[kamspy]

Is there really a problem with America's Education?

Yes

And if so how can it be fixed?

nuke it entirely and start over. there's not enough space on Evilore's server for all the specific points.

I've got three daughters in public school. Aside from one phenomenal teacher, we've had nothing but crap. These people shouldn't even be allowed to make Kid's Meals.

 

[Angry Fork]

There should be a cap on how much someone can make based on their profession imo.

Get rid of hollywood stars making 40 mil for spending 3 months acting in some movie. Put a 5 mil cap or something and use the other 35 mil for education and shit that matters. I love film btw and I 100% respect acting and film/television, but they get paid ridiculous money at the expense of people who really need it, it's just shameful imo. Then there's also the military BS that should be cut obviously but that's not going to happen since America has to be ruff tuff mcgruff all the time because people think pride is more important than common sense.

There also needs to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism in separate sectors depending on what needs what, everyone keeps talking about one or the other as if you can only choose one. Force people to pay taxes on healthcare/education so everyone can get it, then other stuff like construction and so on can do the whole capitalist bs so you make as much as you produce or whatever. Anyway I didn't mean to tread off into capitalist/socialist stuff but Education imo should be a right from birth, people shouldn't have to pay 50 grand for 1 year at a prestigious college. Yes they're prestigious so that's why they're expensive bla bla etc. but part of me thinks all of that is just stirred up for the sake of justifying it. I mean what if colleges didn't have any names, nobody would be able to look at a resume and say "oh he went to harvard, so he's better than so and so". We should be paying for education not a brand name. Maybe those ivy league schools really do have the best education though and are the best in the world, in which case I suppose the money is well spent, I don't know though, I don't have any statistics as to whether joe shmo in random state college is capable of getting the same education as someone in Harvard or Yale.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

To those who say that it's the parents: pretty much. There's not necessarily a way to fix that except, as EV has suggested, to raise the standard of living of our poor and middle class. Arguments that aim to weaken unions or lower union membership seem, to me, to be quite foolish, for I've never actually seen any argument that points to a quantitative OR qualitative justification for such; "it makes bad teachers hard to fire" does not account for the rather massive gap in the USA's education vs. the rest of the western world's.

Ghaleon: you're one of the few people "within the system" that I've ever seen say that the balance of power should be shifted more toward the administrators. Indeed, research that I've done indicates that administrators tend to be even more of a problem in terms of creating inefficiency; speaking anecdotally, I can say that the administration at my high school shuffled around nearly every year, with the school having 3 different principals in a five-year period and the office staff getting shuffled around pretty consistently as well, while the teachers tended to remain pretty constant, with the most intelligent, clear-headed, and most critically-minded teacher in the school actually serving as the rep. to the local teacher's union. Anecdotal, yes, but it does seem to corroborate what I've read, statistically.

I'm all for teachers being judged according to qualitative standards, but the problem with this is that teachers inherit "problems" from teachers at lower grade levels. How do you evaluate a 9th grade teacher who teaches a class where only a fifth or so of the students actually read at grade level? I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I have to doubt that standardized testing could account for such a massive problem and disparity. There is no easy solution; concessions will likely have to come from all sides, but I'm mightily suspicious of attempts that seek to minimize the role and power of unions, as though that were the obvious choice.