• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Public Education is a Socialist Monopoly

1. We have TRIED increasing the funding in CURRENT DOLLARS for decades. All it has gotten us is endless demands for MORE MONEY. Money has not solved any problem yet, and so naturally teachers' unions promise that THIS TIME, THIS TIME it will! How gullible can people be.
No, not really. Funding for schools have been tied to student performance based on a standardized test. It's known as the TAKS test-soon-to-be-renamed STARS. The better students perform at a school the more funding it recieves. The assumption being that a school that performs badly necessarily means that the school adminstration and faculty are poor. This is not always the case and I'll explain later.

Schools with poorly perfoming students go on a three strike system, After the third strike or poor student perfomance on the TAKS test, the principal of the school is reassigned and a new "fireman" principal is assigned. If the students perfom badly again the administrative staff and faculty is sacked and replaced with fresh blood. During this time the student performance expectation is set to 100% passing, which is an impossibility especialy where there are students with learning disabilities and students who have emotional problems.

This system inevitably encourages the school districts to cheat on the test results to maintain TAKS compliance. (I have wittnessed this personally.) Other ways of dealing with perfomance issue is to redraw districts so that a "scapegoat" school recieves all the special ed. and emotionaly disturbed students. (again, I have wittnessed this personally) Other schools in the district perform better when the "problem" children are redistributed within the district.

The problem is that the assumption is that it is the school and faculty that is the sole reason or cause for the poorly performing students. The education adminstrations seem to fail to recognise that there is a whole battery of reasons that students do not perfom well. Here are a few.

1. Parents: Students perform better in school when the parent encourages the student and participates in their childs education. The issue here is that parents fail to do so for various reasons. limited contact with child due to work hours, time management issues, domestic abuse and neglect, and apathy. Part of the job of parenting include the childs education. You do see a distinct correlation with student performance and parential attention.
I have personally seen parents refusing to answer phones and doors or fail to respond to requests for meetings about the performance of thier children. I have personally wittnessed parents deny thier childrens poor behaiviour when it is played back form them on survailence tapes.

2. Socio-economic: Some cultures and economic areas are not education friendly. In the area where I grew up and live the predominate culture is hispanic and the main economy was agriculutural. Most hispanic familes down here were once employed mainly by farms and packing plants. Families did not see education past the first few grades as being necessary. You just learned how to read and write and do basic math and then you were off to work in the fields or packing plant. For women, it was get married and produce more filed workers. Now that the economy is changing from agriculture to service and industrial education is becoming more of an important issue. But the family attitudes concerning education have not kept up with the times. You also have parents that become jealous that thier child is recieving a higer education than they had. They feel that their authority as parents is being threatend by the higher education the child is recieving.

3. Education Adminstration ignorance, apathy and corruption: I live in an are that is 90% hispanic. I have actually read memo from the state board admonishing school districts down here for not having enough caucasians in school districts. Where are we supposed to bus them in from, up state?!?! There are school districts where the local schoolboards vote themselves a payraise at the begining of every meeting. We are in a economically depressed are yet we have some of the higest paid schoolboard members in the state.
And the forementioned gerrymandering of school districts to favor certain schools over others.

4. Special interest groups: The usual cast of characters that try to bend the content of education to thier particular agenda. Both liberal and conservatives camps are guilty of this.


2. No, schools are NOT using money correctly. Their administrative staffs are bloated. They keep incompetent teachers. And they pay them too much. At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.
There are methods for dealing with poor performing teachers, even those who are union. Testing is one such method, re-certification is another.
I think you will find that in the majority of school districts teacher's salaries are below $60,000 a year. A $95,000 salary seems more like the exception that the rule.

3. People don't advocate more money so much as teachers' unions do.
Now these unions have brainwashed parents and kids into standing on the corners for them, demanding higher funding and of course higher taxes to pay for it.
Teaching children requires money for materials and classrooms and equipment, and cooling and heating, and feeding the children, and providing for thier safety, and transportation, administration etc.. The teacher's salary is just one small percentage of that total bill.

No one is saying that corruption and mismanagement is not rampant and present, but taking it out on the teachers is not the answer. Teachers do not make the rules, they are only employees doing what they are told. The stress in getting so bad that there are very high burnout and turnover rates amoung teachers (which some see as good since the individual teacher's salary does not get that high due to quitting at an early date)
Also there are fewer americans that want to become teachers because of the stress. So now there is a growing trend to import teachers form other countries. The Phillepenes and India are the two largest sources of imported teachers

It is easier to blame the teachers for the poor performance of students than to accept the fact that there are also more complicated socio-economic reasons behind a students perfomance.

our education systen cannot improve untill these issues are properly addressed.
 
Last edited:
JonathanQuick, you have been asked this repeatedly and not answered, but I'll ask once again...

What is your alternative to the public education system (presumably within the U.S.)? What do you propose to do to "fix the system"?

It's easy to gripe and moan, but coming up with solutions - that takes hard work and a willingness to actually solve the problem. As I tell my physics students, you can scream & moan all day long about how "physics is hard" and "this isn't fair" etc, but unless you think & work hard at it, you'll just flunk like the rest of the slackers :)
 
Last edited:
I'm confused.

I took an art adult education course at Brookline High in Massachusetts, which is a public school, but in a wealthy community, and very well funded. This high school has up to date computer labs that trains students on a vast variety of computer pograms, with plenty of computers so each student can have their own during labs. They have scientific laborities with an enormous amounts of resources so that students are able to do a huge range of experiments. Their textbooks are up to date. For their arts program, they have an entire builing JUST for arts. It is loaded with many, many art supplies, like what you'd see at a small university, as well as a huge array of musical instruments. They also have a building just for sports, and they have a pool, a gym, a great field, and plenty of sports equipment to go around to all the students.

Is the OP honestly suggesting that this school has no advantage over a school in a ghetto that has five kids sharing one textbook that's ten years out of date, which has only a handful of out of date computers with no modern computer programs, and a school with little to know sports or arts resources because they simply can't afford it? Is he HONESTLY arguing a kid in a poor school where you've got 30 kids sharing 2 40 year old microscopes is not at a disadvantage compared to a student who has a wide array of modern scientific devices with which he can do advanced laboratory testing?

Of course money doesn't solve everything.

But, Jonathan, since you seem to be unaware of this fact, you should know that money can actually be exchanged for goods and services. These services include resources which are necessary to teach students things. You can lecture a kid on how to use JAVA all you want, but unless you have a computer to show them how to do it, it's probably not going to sink in.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I want to work there. I've been teaching at a local community college for eleven years and my salary is only $60,000. And I graduated Suma cum laude

I earn about $88,000 a year, but then I have a Masters degree in physics (not in physics education, thank you) and have been teaching for about 13 years. In the free market, I can demand a higher salary than most others in my field due to my degree and experience. In addition, I happen to teach in a well-to-do community who wants real experts in their subject matter teaching at the local high school.

So, even in our "evil, socialist" system there is a fair amount of capitalism and free-market forces at work. Ironic, given the OP :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Is the OP honestly suggesting that this school has no advantage over a school in a ghetto that has five kids sharing one textbook that's ten years out of date, which has only a handful of out of date computers with no modern computer programs, and a school with little to know sports or arts resources because they simply can't afford it? Is he HONESTLY arguing a kid in a poor school where you've got 30 kids sharing 2 40 year old microscopes is not at a disadvantage compared to a student who has a wide array of modern scientific devices with which he can do advanced laboratory testing?

I think the OP is simply venting his spleen: "SOCIALISM IS EEEVIIIILLLLLL!!!11!1" :jaw-dropp

It'll be interesting to see whether or not he returns to offer any solutions. Of course, that would require work and a desire to solve the problem, as opposed to griping about it.
 
It's not unheard of for a teacher's salary to max out at around that level, especially in wealthier areas.

However...To get that kind of pay, you generally have to have a PhD with several decades' teaching experience. Those that get those sorts of salaries are few and far between.

My father retired as a high school teacher with 26 years in. Had his maters degree and taught US history, (including AP classes), English and Psychology. He retired in the late 80's.

As an Engineer, I had almost matched his yearly income at retirement when I had 5 years experience. And I was not considered well paid at that time.

The upside for him is a pretty good pension.
 
In New York City public schools a teacher's salary can max out at $100,000 after 22 years of service (and a Master's Degree plus 30 additional credit).

That could be a grandfathered rate, though. There could also be zero people actually accomplishing this rate group. It'd be interesting to see what the typical wages look like, as opposed to hypothetical maxima. There are a couple of Amway billionaires out there, but I wouldn't let that convince me that Amway is a business of billionaires.

Which brings up one of the consequences of pay-for-quality that hasn't been discussed: if schools are forced to pay higher salary/compensation/bonuses for higher quality teachers, this may direct their hiring to low-quality teachers for budgetary reasons.

Here in BC, we have a similar merit-based scheme which means that teachers with doctorates in education get great salary. All two of them. Result: DEd graduates are more likely to get hired by McDonald's than by a school district. We ultimatley find them managing corporate in-house training for $150k+/yr.
 
I love it when people want to bitch and moan about teachers, they always seem to cherry-pick the few highly paid teachers within a given district and then yell at the top of their lungs about how crazy it is that "these teachers are being paid so much!" Of course, they ignore the majority of younger teachers which don't even come close to earning that top level of pay.
 
I take it that the school doesn't have a lot of Jewish students?

Hehe, you know it's funny you said that, because Brookline actually has one of the highest concentration of Jews in the country. You can't swing a dead cat* without hitting a temple.




*this was not an invitation to kill and swing me
 
Come to think of it, if teaching in a public school were such a cushy job, as so many critics claim, then how come so few of these critics want to teach? They'd be fools not to take advantage of such a "cushy" situation, wouldn't they? :rolleyes:
 
LOL I can't believe I missed that. I knew he was joking about something but I didn't quite get it. Didn't even notice my own typo, even when he quoted me.

Inattentive cat is inattentive

That's fine- I was starting to think I had imagined it.....
 
I'm anxiously waiting for his solution to the socialist scourge of education.

I'll just bet you are.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.

Call it "school choice" - you know, like Bill and Hillary Clinton practiced, by sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friend's School.

By the way, Al and Tipper Gore sent their precious kids there as well.

And you'll NEVER guess where Barack Obama and Michelle "I've never been proud of America" send their kids.

Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.
 
Last edited:
I'll just bet you are.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.

Call it "school choice" - you know, like Bill and Hillary Clinton practiced, by sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friend's School.

By the way, Al and Tipper Gore sent their precious kids there as well.

And you'll NEVER guess where Barack Obama and Michelle "I've never been proud of America" send their kids.

Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.

I know rather a lot of public school teachers. I know none of them with kids in private school. I'd love to see evidence that there's any kind of trend for teachers to do so. I suspect there is not.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom