Public Education is a Socialist Monopoly

[Doubt]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

 

[bozman]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

My father is a school teacher and he'd like to know this too.

 

[TFian]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

95k eh? I guess I picked the wrong major..

 

[cwalner]

Please.

The local papers featured an article where hundreds showed up for just a few teaching jobs. Yet all we hear is "poor, poor pitiful me" caterwauling, as dictated by the unions. It never changes.

If, in fact, teachers were so terribly underpaid, why are there no ads in the newspapers for them? Why were so many allegedly "laid off" and instead of their being happy to earn more elsewhere, they simply beat their breasts and demand ever higher tribute from the taxpayers.

You do of course realize that we are in the middle of a recession, with unemployment higher than we've seen in a generation. Even if they are qualified for higher paying jobs, not many of those are hiring atm either.

I am curious as to what you think is a fair and reasonable salary for a teacher.

 

[SezMe]

Santa Barbara?

Yeah but I'm not responsible for all the loons who live here. Now, can we get back to some of the "facts" I questioned in #113.

 

[Mark R]

The highest correlate to educational achievement is the educational level of the subject's father.

Men in prison have all too often fathered children who will have lives of privation and ignorance.

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons.

Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.

What you are talking about is socioeconomic status. And when you are up, SE tends to keep you up and when you are down, SE tends to keep you down. This contributes to generational poverty and impoverished neighborhoods. Impoverished neighborhoods tend to have poor performing schools. Is there something wrong with trying to break this cycle? Is there a way to do it that does not involve public education?

 

[Travis]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that. Besides teaching is not like other jobs. Teachers are not just fact shovelers. They know that there is nuance to the way it is done and each class is going to need things done a particular way. Classrooms have personalities that need to be addressed. Then there is the fact that they don't have regular work days. There are tests to prepare, tests to grade, essays to evaluate and all that homework to be gone over and all that generally begins after the buses have taken the kids back to their homes.

And how would vouchers solve anything? All you would be doing is moving kids into school districts that probably won't have room for everyone that wants to get in. What's to be done with those that don't get in? If you have 40,000 students in a city with only three schools considered premiere and desirable a fat lot of good those vouchers did for the majority of the students. Maybe....just maybe what should really be done is to try and make all the schools desirable. Crazy idea I know.

How might that be done? I won't pretend that I know for sure but here are a few ideas.

Make teaching pay competitive against the private sector: That would probably mean paying them more on average. But if you want a chemist as good as the ones that work for the companies you might need to pay them better. Universities already know that.

Streamline administration and overhead costs: We really need to abandon the idea of individual school districts that each have different curriculum and requirements. This is inefficient and largely counterproductive. We need uniform curriculum standards and standardized material appropriation. This allows for efficiencies of scale.

Lower the teacher to student ratio: this is the hopeful benefit of making teacher pay competitive and overhead costs slimmer. With fewer students to oversee teachers can better attend to their individual needs. No longer do only trouble makers and Aspergers students get all the attention.

Optimize school campus size: consolidating smaller schools and breaking up larger ones can allow for a uniformity in campus material costs and allocations.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Santa Barbara?

I prepared an e-mail today and sent it to Professor Lewis at UCSB, as well as his friend, Professor Callan at Princeton.

Lewis took the breathtakingly rare step of standing alone to expose the fraud, the abuse, the incredible waste and inhumanity of the global warming scam.

His courageous act in resigning from the American Physical Society should give scientists all over America who are engaged in this massive scam the shock and the shame they desperately need to stop the deceit. But I am sure they will not.

Why does someone who lies as much as you care about deceit?

Now please continue to ridicule me, in violation of Rule 12.

You need to learn what ridicule means. What you were doing before was ridicule. Us calling you out for it is pointing out YOUR ridicule.

You don't just get to pathologically lie and insult people, then whine when someone points it out to you and act like a victim.

You're just a bully, and nothing more. And like all bullies, the second someone stands up to you, you hide behind your mother's legs and cry out, "Why are these people being SO MEAN to me?!"

And you know what's the most pathetic thing? You're a bully ON THE INTERNET. Where you're nice and safe behind your little computer screen you act so big and bad.

And even when someone stands up to you on the internet, it's just too much to handle, and you whine like you're actually being persecuted.


You know what the saddest thing is? I haven't even insulted you. I didn't call you conservatard or any of the many, many insults you have hurled at ALL liberals. I haven't called you a single insult. The only thing I have done is point out what you have proven yourself to be: a liar, and a hypocrite.

It is impossible for you to deny you are a liar, because I have easily pointed out where you have lied. It is impossible for you to deny that you are a hypocrite, because I have easily pointed out where you were one.

It's not ridicule to point out the contents of a person's posts. It's like you pointing out my spelling errors. That's not ridicule, that's just the truth. I DID have spelling errors.

YOU are a liar. I called you a liar. That's not ridicule. That's what you are. If you don't like it, stop lying.

 

[excaza]

At least he managed to make a post without mentioning liberals, communists, or socialists.

Though he still hasn't managed to make one about education.

 

[Flo]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this any country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that. Besides teaching is not like other jobs. Teachers are not just fact shovelers. They know that there is nuance to the way it is done and each class is going to need things done a particular way. Classrooms have personalities that need to be addressed. Then there is the fact that they don't have regular work days. There are tests to prepare, tests to grade, essays to evaluate and all that homework to be gone over and all that generally begins after the buses have taken the kids back to their homes.

And how would vouchers solve anything? All you would be doing is moving kids into school districts that probably won't have room for everyone that wants to get in. What's to be done with those that don't get in? If you have 40,000 students in a city with only three schools considered premiere and desirable a fat lot of good those vouchers did for the majority of the students. Maybe....just maybe what should really be done is to try and make all the schools desirable. Crazy idea I know.

How might that be done? I won't pretend that I know for sure but here are a few ideas.

Make teaching pay competitive against the private sector: That would probably mean paying them more on average. But if you want a chemist as good as the ones that work for the companies you might need to pay them better. Universities already know that.

Streamline administration and overhead costs: We really need to abandon the idea of individual school districts that each have different curriculum and requirements. This is inefficient and largely counterproductive. We need uniform curriculum standards and standardized material appropriation. This allows for efficiencies of scale.

Lower the teacher to student ratio: this is the hopeful benefit of making teacher pay competitive and overhead costs slimmer. With fewer students to oversee teachers can better attend to their individual needs. No longer do only trouble makers and Aspergers students get all the attention.

Optimize school campus size: consolidating smaller schools and breaking up larger ones can allow for a uniformity in campus material costs and allocations.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Very well said, Travis.

I think another issues is that we need to start spending the kind of resources on gifted students that we do on special ed and remedial students. Special ed students receive far more funding and resources than gifted students do.

Now of course, I'm not saying special ed students don't deserve attention and education. But the fact is gifted students are simply going to contribute more to the economy and the work force. A special ed student is someone we are just trying to bring to the remedial level of abilities. Yet if gifted students received the kind of attention and resources that are reserved for special ed kids, their potential for success is huge.

There was an interesting article in Newsweek about this a couple years ago, in which a mother compared the school resources for her autistic son vs her gifted daughter:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/27/autism-and-education.html

It pains me to suggest taking some of the federal money designated for my disabled son and spending it on my overperforming daughter. My son will probably meet minimum standards, but most parents of autistic children describe goals for their kids in much more modest terms: being able to bathe themselves, get a job, or live semi-independently. My daughter has the potential for much more. If she were given even a fraction of the customized education that my son receives, she could learn the skills needed to prevent the next worldwide flu pandemic, or invent a new form of nonpolluting transportation. Perhaps she could even discover a cure for autism.

Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.

They discussed this in the book "Freakonomics," that the biggest correlating factors in the academic success of a child is the academic expectations and success of the parents.

There was also a 30 year study by the US Dept of Education "Strong Families, Strong School" which found the same results:

http://www.projectappleseed.org/strongfamiliesschools.pdf

Parental involvement is the most important factor in academic success of the child.


This is also discussed on the Michigan Dept of Education website:

The most consistent predictors of children’s academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child’s academic attainment and satisfaction with their child’s education at school

Jonathan, why do you completely discount the educational achievement of the mother? Why do you only single out the father?

What year do you think this is, 1950? It's 2010, bub. I know just as many women who are the top earners in their household as I do men, and I know just as many women who are as educated or better educated than their spouses as I do men. My mother is more educated and makes more money than my father. I am more educated and earn more than my husband.

Every study I have found shows that *parental* involvement and *parental* academic achievement is the strongest factor. I have not found one single study that supports your claim that the father alone is the primary factor. As Mark said:

the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

One PARENT. Not father. PARENT.

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons

Women have been earning more undergraduate degrees than men since the 1980s.

More women than men earned doctorates in 2009. (50.4%)

More women than men earn graduate degrees. (60%)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-15-womenphd14_st_N.htm

In light of these facts, how do you possibly justify your post in which you only single out the academic acheivements of men, considering women today are more educated than men are?

You ask why I don't concede to your points (though I did concede to a couple, in actuality). Maybe it's because everything you post is a lie, offensive, or wrong? Or all three?

Reading your posts is like being stuck in a time warp. The Red Scare is alive and well, and women don't count.

You should really consider joining us in the 21st century sometime. It's pretty cool here. We have I-pods!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.

What you are talking about is socioeconomic status. And when you are up, SE tends to keep you up and when you are down, SE tends to keep you down. This contributes to generational poverty and impoverished neighborhoods. Impoverished neighborhoods tend to have poor performing schools. Is there something wrong with trying to break this cycle? Is there a way to do it that does not involve public education?

This: http://www.air.org/reports-products/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=221
"this report considers six nonschool factors that are related to student achievement. These are the highest level of education attained by either of the students’ parents; the highest occupational status of either of the students’ parents; the number of books that students have access to in the home; whether students speak the native language of the country at home; students’ immigrant status; and students’ family structure."
But these are just the non-school factors. Other studies have focused on school factors, such as teacher preparation and availability of textbooks.

 

[Francesca R]

(This is the only way I can quote the relevant text . . )

[ . . . ]I quoted the late Professor Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics. HE said public education is a socialist monopoly. Do you think perhaps HE knows something about socialism and monopolies?

Yes he knows something about socialism and monopolies. But you don't know anything much about him. You quote-mined, missing quite a trick, then you made something up. People don't need to know more than Friedman to know more than you.

Appealing to authority when you get what the authority said wrong isn't a logic fallacy so much as a competence one.

 

[majamin]

So, in summary, there are many factors to student achievement, including

School/Teacher:

1. Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
2. Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback
3. Parent and Community Involvement
4. Safe and Orderly Environment
5. Collegiality and Professionalism
6. Instructional Strategies
7. Classroom Management
8. Classroom Curriculum Design

Student:

9. Home Environment
10. Learning Intelligence/ Background Knowledge
11. Motivation

[source]

... but I'm willing to guess that JQ will find either strawman our replies, or go back to ranting about "socialists" and "lefties". I hope you prove me wrong, JQ. I really do.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Student time-on-task. Also noteworthy are Marzano's "High-yield instructional strategies". Anything else?

Well, the quality of the teacher in the room is a big one, as well. Probably, in my view, the most important thing.

But then, I already mentioned that in my previous post criticizing teacher preparation

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships

so

having a doctorate in physics = you by default understand the value of family relationships?

Why would having a graduate degree or a doctorate make you incapable of having an affair, killing your wife, abusing your children, or just being a neglectful or bad parent in general?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

Actually, teachers in my district can top out at $100K+ per year, but that's with 20 years experience and a Master's degree + an additional 60 credit hours of coursework.

And that's in a very well-to-do community which places an extraordinary value on its children getting a good, solid education.

In other words, no where close to the ordinary.

 

[majamin]

Well, the quality of the teacher in the room is a big one, as well. Probably, in my view, the most important thing.

But then, I already mentioned that in my previous post criticizing teacher preparation

Agreed. Do you think the teaching quality influences the effectiveness of time-on-task significantly?

 

[Francesca R]

Someone asked me about the authenticity of the OP quote: "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one."

I would not doubt that Friedman said this. There are stacks of curated quote libraries to look through. It is not in wikiquote as far as I can tell.

There is the following from a talk to the Cato Institute in 1998 called "The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community"

I have for a long time been in favor of trying to privatize schooling through a voucher system. But what I want to talk about is a little different from that. As we all know, our public education system is a socialist enterprise. [ . . . ] And in addition, in the interim you had the unionization of the teachers, so that today our elementary and secondary school is not only a socialist enterprise it's also an almost completely unionized enterprise. It is a monopoly, a real monopoly, not a fake one.

So it's not as if Friedman was at all in favour of publicly owned and administered schools--he wasn't. Almost everything about it went against the "Free to Choose" doctrine.

But he was in favour of public financing of schools via the voucher idea. As I quoted in post 41, Friedman thought that the huge positive externalities of an educated population--coupled with his limited-but-existent treatise on the alleviation of poverty--justified public subsidy. I have never seen anything indicating the voucher idea was "interim", to be replaced by some private-charity-if-you're-lucky/stay stupid-if-you-are-unlucky financing method.

That's about the total of my injection to this debate.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Someone asked me about the authenticity of the OP quote: "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one."

I would not doubt that Friedman said this. There are stacks of curated quote libraries to look through. It is not in wikiquote as far as I can tell.

There is the following from a talk to the Cato Institute in 1998 called "The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community"



So it's not as if Friedman was at all in favour of publicly owned and administered schools--he wasn't. Almost everything about it went against the "Free to Choose" doctrine.

But he was in favour of public financing of schools via the voucher idea. As I quoted in post 41, Friedman thought that the huge positive externalities of an educated population--coupled with his limited-but-existent treatise on the alleviation of poverty--justified public subsidy. I have never seen anything indicating the voucher idea was "interim", to be replaced by some private-charity-if-you're-lucky/stay stupid-if-you-are-unlucky financing method.

That's about the total of my injection to this debate.

Thanks for digging that up, Francesca