Longer School Year?

[Nevada_Ballin]

I give a resounding YES. Education is so important to our children. They've had it WAY too easy for the past couple of decades. Get rid of the cell phones kiddies, stick your noses in the books and catch up with the other kids in the world.

I say:
ALL DAY school, not 10am to 2pm. Work like your parents work and you'll be smarter for it when you're older - 8am to 4:30pm.

ALL YEAR School, screw the 3 months off crap. That's why they forget shiet. Give them four weeks of vacation, besides holidays to use in June or July in case there happens to be a few families left in this country that actually takes a vacation together in the summer. And speaking of holidays, get rid of those 10 day "Christmas breaks" and one week Easter "Spring" breaks... get your asz in school kid!

[RicoVacilon]

This push for a longer school year is based on some glaring fallacies. Especially the data comparing us to other countries. We don't spend less time in school than most other countries. Yet that isn't what many of these people will tell you. We aren't embarassingly behind in education as these people would tell you. It is a constructed myth made to serve someone's purposes. Who that someone is I'm not even sure.

[sideoutshu]

The democrats don't care. Most of their kids rarely show up at school anyway.:p

[conviction]

i voted no, the length of our education isn't the problem imo

[RicoVacilon]

i voted no, the length of our education isn't the problem imo

I agree and will go one step further--the problem with education in America isn't education.

[SUPDOG]

What, 10 months of singing Obama indoctrination songs not long enough for ya?

I am sure that more government lessons would ring a resounding yes from the indoctrination crowd!

Nobody ever answered my question on what middle school kids are supposed to help Obama do....


MMMMMM.........MMMMMMM.......MMMMMM......Barack Hussein Obama!:eek:

[theanalogkid]

I give a resounding YES. Education is so important to our children. They've had it WAY too easy for the past couple of decades. Get rid of the cell phones kiddies, stick your noses in the books and catch up with the other kids in the world.

I say:
ALL DAY school, not 10am to 2pm. Work like your parents work and you'll be smarter for it when you're older - 8am to 4:30pm.

ALL YEAR School, screw the 3 months off crap. That's why they forget shiet. Give them four weeks of vacation, besides holidays to use in June or July in case there happens to be a few families left in this country that actually takes a vacation together in the summer. And speaking of holidays, get rid of those 10 day "Christmas breaks" and one week Easter "Spring" breaks... get your asz in school kid!

I don't know where you've went to school for 4 hours a day.

[Play Action]

No. School buses f-up up the economy, because it makes people late for work..

[Nevada_Ballin]

I don't know where you've went to school for 4 hours a day.

There are seniors in high schools all over the country who go for only 4 hours a day. The whole "credits" thing is bullshiet and needs a makeover. A senior in high school should be polishing up those math skills and either getting ready for college or the workforce - not sleeping in til 9:30am and then leaving school at 2pm to run home and play Guitar Hero or party.

Interesting, I heard a teacher talking about this. His point of view was that he doesn't have enough time in a class to actually TEACH his curriculum. He has to rush through it and hope the kids get it or those who didn't reach out to him during the 40 minute class.

These last couple generations of kids have been pussifed severely. School districts and teachers have been so restricted in what they can do or even say in the classroom that it's made the American school system at K-12 a worldwide joke.

Not surprised that most of the vote are "no" here so far. It's always a "not my fault, we got bad teachers" excuse with the students. Ridiculous.


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

i voted no, the length of our education isn't the problem imo

What is the problem in your opinion?


.

[A Disciple]

What is the problem in your opinion?


.
the quality of the education. it dont make it any better to teach BS for longer each day or for more of the year.

if the actual education itself isn't better... extending the hours won't help.

Think of it like this... if I play Warren in Madden, it don't matter if I get 4 quarters or 6... if i dont actually get BETTER i still wont beat him. lol

[Nevada_Ballin]

the quality of the education. it dont make it any better to teach BS for longer each day or for more of the year.

if the actual education itself isn't better... extending the hours won't help.

Think of it like this... if I play Warren in Madden, it don't matter if I get 4 quarters or 6... if i dont actually get BETTER i still wont beat him. lol

Yes, better quality teachers is a must. I don't think a longer school year is meant to be the "end all" solution, it's just a piece of an overall reform to stop having dumbasz kids.

If teachers are rushed to teach their subjects, I'd say that in itself compromises the quality of the education. Put it this way, one teacher gets 9 months to teach 5th grade math and another teacher (of same teaching skills) gets 11 months to teach 5th grade math. Which teacher's class do you think will have the better test scores?

.

[RicoVacilon]

School districts and teachers have been so restricted in what they can do or even say in the classroom [. . .]"

Do you actually have any evidence for that, or are you just speaking off the cuff?


Not surprised that most of the vote are "no" here so far. It's always a "not my fault, we got bad teachers" excuse with the students. Ridiculous.

I haven't heard anyone here say that though.

[RicoVacilon]

the quality of the education.

The quality of education isn't the problem either. Trying to fix this from a supply end will merely result in wasted dollars. This is a SOCIAL issue, not a teacher/principla/district/school issue. Until society as a whole is ready to step up, nothing will get better.

[RicoVacilon]

Yes, better quality teachers is a must.

You're showing that your opinions on education are informed solely by sound bites and not by actual data. :(

[levdgg]

You're showing that your opinions on education are informed solely by sound bites and not by actual data. :(

Rico are you a teacher?

[A Disciple]

You're showing that your opinions on education are informed solely by sound bites and not by actual data. :(
did you attend public school in America?

[levdgg]

did you attend public school in America?

Ha. I was basically leading toward the same thing.

There are good teachers and bad teachers. Just as there are good students and bad students. There are great public school and horrendous ones. There's a need to improve in every aspect. Granted, most of the statements on here are of the blanket variety.

Also, who is going to four-hour-a-day schools, NB? I re-ask AD's question to anyone who is or knows someone who is.

[conviction]

What is the problem in your opinion?


.


The quality of education isn't the problem either. Trying to fix this from a supply end will merely result in wasted dollars. This is a SOCIAL issue, not a teacher/principla/district/school issue. Until society as a whole is ready to step up, nothing will get better.

NB,
What Rico said ^^^ It is primarily the overall attitude of society. Kids for the most part don't take school seriously and they don't value education. Making this already painful education longer would only make it worse for kids who show no interest.

I would project that the problem is at home and that perhaps parents aren't doing their part in their children's education development.

Regardless, kids that do take school seriously learn nothing but the skill of being organized. Otherwise the information they receive is quite useless. They have crappy curriculum in a school system that teaches one answer for all problems and excludes all other possibilities. So basically the curriculum allows for very little of critical analysis and opening up the mi.nd for various conclusions.

Also I went to a statistically one of the best public schools in the state and i drew nothing from years there.

[TheRealist]

Ha. I was basically leading toward the same thing.

There are good teachers and bad teachers. Just as there are good students and bad students. There are great public school and horrendous ones. There's a need to improve in every aspect. Granted, most of the statements on here are of the blanket variety.

Also, who is going to four-hour-a-day schools, NB? I re-ask AD's question to anyone who is or knows someone who is.

There is no incentive currently (especially in terrible schools) to want to be a "good" or "excellent" teacher.

Why?

Because the system doesn't reward good teachers with higher pay, better schools, or more opportunities. Schools don't negotiate with teachers on an individualized basis, they negotiate with their UNION and the only way of advancement (wages, what I said above, etc.) is through seniority.

Institute competitive learning (have schools compete for students...through vouchers maybe...hmmm) and then schools will be forced to only want the BEST teachers at their schools while getting rid of the ones that just down right don't give a damn. I can already think of a bunch of variables for making teachers more performance based. However, none of this happens while the teachers union is still in place...it restricts competition and as a result...we have teachers that don't have the incentives in place for them to want to do their job effectively.

[conviction]

There is no incentive currently (especially in terrible schools) to want to be a "good" or "excellent" teacher.

Why?

Because the system doesn't reward good teachers with higher pay, better schools, or more opportunities. Schools don't negotiate with teachers on an individualized basis, they negotiate with their UNION and the only way of advancement (wages, what I said above, etc.) is through seniority.

Institute competitive learning (have schools compete for students...through vouchers maybe...hmmm) and then schools will be forced to only want the BEST teachers at their schools while getting rid of the ones that just down right don't give a damn. I can already think of a bunch of variables for making teachers more performance based. However, none of this happens while the teachers union is still in place...it restricts competition and as a result...we have teachers that don't have the incentives in place for them to want to do their job effectively.

Yes, on another thread I talked about a proposition of a free market school system. I'd guarantee much greater quality if that were to happen.

[TheRealist]

Yes, on another thread I talked about a proposition of a free market school system. I'd guarantee much greater quality if that were to happen.

For sure.

Any of you ever had an employee that you worked with that just absolutely slacked off/was a constant underperformer, yet somehow still just managed to stick around?

At the end of the year, suppose this guy got the same raise or a higher raise than you. What kind of effects does that have?

1.) The guy is going to continue to doing a terrible job.

2.) As a result, the people he serves (in this case teaching) are going to fall behind or be less well off than students with better teachers.

3.) Since the "good" teacher knows that his slacker employee got the same/higher raise, he now has less incentive to want to be a good teacher and instead will just skip by like the other guy.

4.) Now all students are less well off.

There are certainly exceptions in this model, but just imagine how many more amazing teachers we could have if there was an actual incentive (motivated by self-interest) that could make otherwise average/poor/possibly never even considered the profession into these kind of people.

Don't get me wrong, wanting to help students and advance their intellects is motivation enough for some to pursue excellent, meaningful, 20+ yr careers...but for the vast majority...it just doesn't cut it.

[Nevada_Ballin]

NB,
What Rico said ^^^ It is primarily the overall attitude of society. Kids for the most part don't take school seriously and they don't value education. Making this already painful education longer would only make it worse for kids who show no interest.

I would project that the problem is at home and that perhaps parents aren't doing their part in their children's education development.

Regardless, kids that do take school seriously learn nothing but the skill of being organized. Otherwise the information they receive is quite useless. They have crappy curriculum in a school system that teaches one answer for all problems and excludes all other possibilities. So basically the curriculum allows for very little of critical analysis and opening up the mi.nd for various conclusions.

Also I went to a statistically one of the best public schools in the state and i drew nothing from years there.

To answer Rico real quick about just talking "off the cuff" - I have 20 y.o. twins who just finished the whole K-12 thing a couple years ago. I'm kinda familiar with how the school system works still. I've dealt with it at ground zero.

Conviction ~ those are great points and you are dead on, i totally agree with you. But I look at how Asians perform scholastically (absolutely blow our kids out of the water) and wonder why that is. They don't like school any more than any other kid - kids are kids, they all hate school no matter where they are. Of course there's always the few who like school but that's everywhere as well. But Asians do better across the board - why? Do they have better schools? Do they have better teachers? Is it better parenting? Is it a better society for education?

A search to check out chian's education revealed:


Children usually entered primary school at seven years of age for six days a week, which after regulatory changes in 1995 and 1997 were changed
to five and a half and five days, respectively. The two-semester school year consisted of 9.5 months, and began on September 1 and March 1, with
a summer vacation in July and August and a winter vacation in January and February. Urban primary schools typically divided the school week into
twenty-four to twenty-seven classes of forty-five minutes each, but in the rural areas, the norm was half-day schooling, more flexible schedules,
and itinerant teachers. Most primary schools had a five-year course, except in such cities as Beijing and Shanghai, and later other major cities,
which had reintroduced six-year primary schools and accepted children at six and one-half years rather than seven.

So they go half a day per week longer and half a month per year longer in most cases. Also note that Chinese and mathematics accounted for about 60 percent of the scheduled class time.

So what about Japan? They also dominate us scholastically.


The school year in Japan begins in April and classes are held from Monday to either Friday or Saturday, depending on the school. The school year consists of three terms, which are separated by short holidays in spring and winter, and a one month long summer break.

Early childhood education begins at home, and there are numerous books and television shows aimed at helping mothers and fathers of preschool children to educate their children and to "parent" more effectively. Much of the home training is devoted to teaching manners, proper social behavior, and structured play, although verbal and number skills are also popular themes. Parents are strongly committed to early education and frequently enroll their children in preschools.


But like I said to AD, the longer school year isn't meant to be THE solution to fixing all of the problems, only one step towards it. Obviously there's a lot more that needs to be done to improve the system. With that said, I don't see how extending classroom time hurts a child. Spend more time studying something and you know more about it, pretty simple. Getting the kids to "want to" is a job for the parents and our society. That's a tough fix but we gotta start somewhere.

.

[rank is dumb]

Schools have also changed alot since most of us were there.. I remeber learning maths in high school they now learn in 6th grade.. The human brain develops mainly when your younger.. I feel the key is to develop greater and more developed learning at younger ages.. Of course parents have to do their part before theit kids starts school..

My buddys kids 1 in first and 1 in preschool are so advanced they are not even learning anything. Because she did a great job before they started.. THey both read very well.. I was actualy supprised when the 4 year old read back my txt message I just typed word for word like she had been reading for years already lol

[theanalogkid]

Quantity isn't the same as quality.

In fact I better you would learn more in 30 minutes of quality educating than you would in 1hr 30 minutes of organized boredom. If the child doesn't want to learn, then keeping him there longer isn't going to change anything.

I can't imagine people wouldn't be zoning out if they made the school day longer. You can only take so much even if you wanted to be educated.

I won't take a 3 hour night class as a result, because I'd doze off after about 45 minutes.

I also think a lot of the problems stem from parents who believe Johnny is going to be a rocket scientist, and when he isn't classified as a gifted student, the parent flips out at the school. Not every student is a genius, there's nothing wrong with being a carpenter or a plumber, rather than an executive on wall street or President of the United States. In fact you can make quite a bit of money as a plumber.

Classes are getting watered down, what was a regular class is now considered an honors level class.

Trying to force things like intelligent design into science class rooms, and to 'teach the controversy' where no exists isn't helping either.

[JoeJGibbs]

Want better teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a teacher.
Want better existing teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a better teacher.

It's nice to want to help people but if the job doesn't pay the bills noone is going to want to do it.
The people that actually want to help youth can't afford to do so.


"No bad students, only bad teach-ah." - Mr. Miyagi

One of the perks teaching has going for it now, is that they get Summers off. Take that away and I think even less people will want to become teachers.

[conviction]

To answer Rico real quick about just talking "off the cuff" - I have 20 y.o. twins who just finished the whole K-12 thing a couple years ago. I'm kinda familiar with how the school system works still. I've dealt with it at ground zero.

Conviction ~ those are great points and you are dead on, i totally agree with you. But I look at how Asians perform scholastically (absolutely blow our kids out of the water) and wonder why that is. They don't like school any more than any other kid - kids are kids, they all hate school no matter where they are. Of course there's always the few who like school but that's everywhere as well. But Asians do better across the board - why? Do they have better schools? Do they have better teachers? Is it better parenting? Is it a better society for education?

A search to check out chian's education revealed:



So they go half a day per week longer and half a month per year longer in most cases. Also note that Chinese and mathematics accounted for about 60 percent of the scheduled class time.

So what about Japan? They also dominate us scholastically.




But like I said to AD, the longer school year isn't meant to be THE solution to fixing all of the problems, only one step towards it. Obviously there's a lot more that needs to be done to improve the system. With that said, I don't see how extending classroom time hurts a child. Spend more time studying something and you know more about it, pretty simple. Getting the kids to "want to" is a job for the parents and our society. That's a tough fix but we gotta start somewhere.

.

You know I'm all for year round school. Like say the kids get the same amount of days off but its cut into several smaller breaks. So like a month for summer, a month for christmas holidays, a month in the spring. I think the large summer break really inhibits kids the ability to keep building on the blocks given.

I'm still not on board for longer class weeks, days. I don't think time is that big of a factor, quality is the first step imo.

I think Analog nailed it. Classes are extremely watered down. Our curriculum is aimed to help every single person to achieve at the expense of higher learning.

[conviction]

Want better teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a teacher.
Want better existing teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a better teacher.

It's nice to want to help people but if the job doesn't pay the bills noone is going to want to do it.
The people that actually want to help youth can't afford to do so.


"No bad students, only bad teach-ah." - Mr. Miyagi

One of the perks teaching has going for it now, is that they get Summers off. Take that away and I think even less people will want to become teachers.

our smartest men and women should be teachers, that is not the case now and never will be unless there is money incentives, sadly. As we know public school systems pay on seniority

[sideoutshu]

Want better teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a teacher.
Want better existing teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a better teacher.

It's nice to want to help people but if the job doesn't pay the bills noone is going to want to do it.
The people that actually want to help youth can't afford to do so.


"No bad students, only bad teach-ah." - Mr. Miyagi

One of the perks teaching has going for it now, is that they get Summers off. Take that away and I think even less people will want to become teachers.

There is no way we are going to be able to get better teachers without eliminating the stranglehold the teacher's union has on the democratic party.

[Nevada_Ballin]

our smartest men and women should be teachers, that is not the case now and never will be unless there is money incentives, sadly. As we know public school systems pay on seniority

The whole teacher thing is a tough topic. I think we all agree they deserve to be paid more. But with great money comes great mediocrity sometimes. What I mean by that is, say a teacher's starting salary becomes $40k a year. Does that create a situation some people decide they want to be teachers for the money and not because they want to be educators? Does it become a intellectual dillution in an area that's already suffering from a certain level of incompetence?

I understand the other side of the coin too, more money would bring in more people qualified to teach because it becomes worth their while financially.

There's a certain aspect to teaching that goes beyond the knowledge and ability of a person to teach a class. There's also a personality & appearence thing going on. If a teacher doesn't have that "it" that connects them with students, then he/she is going to have a rough time with the pushback from students. Kids make fun of the dumbest shiet and it turns them off, makes the teacher no credible in their eyes, even though that teacher may have the ability and knowledge to take their brains to places it may never realize with another teacher they simply think is "cool". This may be the toughest challenge of all to overcome - getting kids to respect the teacher for what they are trying to teach.


.

[conviction]

The whole teacher thing is a tough topic. I think we all agree they deserve to be paid more. But with great money comes great mediocrity sometimes. What I mean by that is, say a teacher's starting salary becomes $40k a year. Does that create a situation some people decide they want to be teachers for the money and not because they want to be educators? Does it become a intellectual dillution in an area that's already suffering from a certain level of incompetence?

I understand the other side of the coin too, more money would bring in more people qualified to teach because it becomes worth their while financially.

There's a certain aspect to teaching that goes beyond the knowledge and ability of a person to teach a class. There's also a personality & appearence thing going on. If a teacher doesn't have that "it" that connects them with students, then he/she is going to have a rough time with the pushback from students. Kids make fun of the dumbest shiet and it turns them off, makes the teacher no credible in their eyes, even though that teacher may have the ability and knowledge to take their brains to places it may never realize with another teacher they simply think is "cool". This may be the toughest challenge of all to overcome - getting kids to respect the teacher for what they are trying to teach.


.

Lol dude I had a teacher at my school that I thought should have had to go through high school 2 more times, that is how stupid she was... and to think i had a "good" school.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Lol dude I had a teacher at my school that I thought should have had to go through high school 2 more times, that is how stupid she was... and to think i had a "good" school.


lol... i had a couple teachers like that, so did my kids. Makes ya wonder what is really needed to be qualified as a "teacher".


.

[A Disciple]

But like I said to AD, the longer school year isn't meant to be THE solution to fixing all of the problems, only one step towards it. Obviously there's a lot more that needs to be done to improve the system. With that said, I don't see how extending classroom time hurts a child. Spend more time studying something and you know more about it, pretty simple. Getting the kids to "want to" is a job for the parents and our society. That's a tough fix but we gotta start somewhere.

.
i see what you saying now.

There is no incentive currently (especially in terrible schools) to want to be a "good" or "excellent" teacher.

Why?

Because the system doesn't reward good teachers with higher pay, better schools, or more opportunities. Schools don't negotiate with teachers on an individualized basis, they negotiate with their UNION and the only way of advancement (wages, what I said above, etc.) is through seniority.

Institute competitive learning (have schools compete for students...through vouchers maybe...hmmm) and then schools will be forced to only want the BEST teachers at their schools while getting rid of the ones that just down right don't give a damn. I can already think of a bunch of variables for making teachers more performance based. However, none of this happens while the teachers union is still in place...it restricts competition and as a result...we have teachers that don't have the incentives in place for them to want to do their job effectively.


Want better teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a teacher.
Want better existing teachers? Create motivation for someone to become a better teacher.

It's nice to want to help people but if the job doesn't pay the bills noone is going to want to do it.
The people that actually want to help youth can't afford to do so.


"No bad students, only bad teach-ah." - Mr. Miyagi

One of the perks teaching has going for it now, is that they get Summers off. Take that away and I think even less people will want to become teachers.
both realist and gibbs make EXCELLENT points.

also, idk if its like this everywhere, but here a student can only be held back once. so if they fail the 6th grade... NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO THEY WILL BE PASSED ALONG IN THE UPCOMING YEARS. i have a friend that teaches 9th grade and she says i would be AMAZED at how many of her kids are not even reading/doing math at a 6th grade level. :eek::eek::eek:

real talk... if that doesnt scare you... i dont know what will.

There is no way we are going to be able to get better teachers without eliminating the stranglehold the teacher's union has on the democratic party.
tell us more side.

[RicoVacilon]

Rico are you a teacher?

Yes sir. 9 years teaching elementary school.

[RicoVacilon]

did you attend public school in America?

Yes sir. Other than 2 years in a private university (The U baby!) all 19 years of my education have been public.

[RicoVacilon]

There is no incentive currently (especially in terrible schools) to want to be a "good" or "excellent" teacher.

Why?

Because the system doesn't reward good teachers with higher pay, better schools, or more opportunities. Schools don't negotiate with teachers on an individualized basis, they negotiate with their UNION and the only way of advancement (wages, what I said above, etc.) is through seniority.

Institute competitive learning (have schools compete for students...through vouchers maybe...hmmm) and then schools will be forced to only want the BEST teachers at their schools while getting rid of the ones that just down right don't give a damn. I can already think of a bunch of variables for making teachers more performance based. However, none of this happens while the teachers union is still in place...it restricts competition and as a result...we have teachers that don't have the incentives in place for them to want to do their job effectively.

This sort of opinion is informed by the shoddy "data" and sound bites I was talking about. It is not very "realistic." It is the sort of thing you hear from people who have never been in a classroom outside of the time they spent as a student. It'd be like me trying to fix what's wrong with GM based solely on my experience as the owner of a lemon Saturn.

[RicoVacilon]

To answer Rico real quick about just talking "off the cuff" - I have 20 y.o. twins who just finished the whole K-12 thing a couple years ago. I'm kinda familiar with how the school system works still. I've dealt with it at ground zero.

I'm sorry, but that gives you no experience in how education works. Everyone on here was a student as well. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to education.


But I look at how Asians perform scholastically (absolutely blow our kids out of the water) and wonder why that is.

Didn't someone just complain about how US curricula only train kids to give a specific answer (which isn't true)? Well that's what happens in many Asian countries. So linking the two as desirable is a bit paradoxical.


They don't like school any more than any other kid - kids are kids, they all hate school no matter where they are.

Hmm. . . yet another assumption that I would challenge.


But Asians do better across the board - why?

That's simply not true either. Sure, you could find something to cite to prove your point, but the data in its entirety doesn't necessarily support that.

[levdgg]

Yes sir. 9 years teaching elementary school.

I'm the man. You sound the same way I do when defending law enforcement.

[TheRealist]

This sort of opinion is informed by the shoddy "data" and sound bites I was talking about. It is not very "realistic." It is the sort of thing you hear from people who have never been in a classroom outside of the time they spent as a student. It'd be like me trying to fix what's wrong with GM based solely on my experience as the owner of a lemon Saturn.

Ok, you were a teacher and I still am a student. (21) I cease to see how my opinion is based on "shoddy" data especially when we're going opinion for opinion.

I have 3 close relatives who are teachers (one whom is a president of the teachers' union) in predominantly urban regions.

They knew that they weren't getting into professions that would be paying them millions of dollars, but they sure as hell have told me stories about incompetent teachers who couldn't hack it sticking around for 1 to 2 yrs. too long at the expense of their students.

I'm not assessing blame solely on teachers, I'm simply offering a solution for ONE of the multitude of current problems in education.

Some "shoddy" data to analyze:

http://econ.ucsd.edu/~kamurali/teacher%20performance%20pay.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904072843.htm

It's not 100% student performance based. Actual pay and increases should be determined objectively (results oriented) and by use of a 360 degree approach. (anonymous performance (based on behavior/interaction) reports by bosses, colleagues, students, parents, etc.)

Edit:

And obviously if you were the owner of a Saturn that sucked and you went online to find that other users were having the same problems, you could make the assumption that them losing billions of dollars last might at least IN PART been from their sh1tty manufacturing of cars. Again...in part...it's not a freakin' blanket statement.

[RicoVacilon]

Ok, you were a teacher and I still am a student. (21) I cease to see how my opinion is based on "shoddy" data especially when we're going opinion for opinion.

Except your opinion is informed on shoddy data that you've come across in casual conversations, skimming of news articles, and such. I've come across mine in formal research. Doesn't make me right. Just that if one of us has a more accurately informed opinion, it's probably me.


I'm not assessing blame solely on teachers, I'm simply offering a solution for ONE of the multitude of current problems in education.

I shouldn't have made it sound like I'm absolutely against merit based pay. But there is a problem with it that will probably never be overcome--and which is why I am against it at this point. That problem being how do you assess a teacher's merit?

Let me check out these links then I'll get back to you. . .

[RicoVacilon]

http://econ.ucsd.edu/~kamurali/teacher%20performance%20pay.pdf

OK I only read the abstract (I don't think even you read all 47 pages. . . ) and I can say that this sort of thing is already happening in the US. I don't think it's an accurate assessment of a teacher's merit, though.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904072843.htm

This is complete and utter bunk. Please explain to me how it's fair to judge a teacher's merit based on their student's performance when not all students are equal? How is a teacher of students whose parents are minimally involved compete with a teacher of students whose parents are actively involved? Which teacher's students will show better performance? Is the better teacher accurately identified?

[conviction]

lol... i had a couple teachers like that, so did my kids. Makes ya wonder what is really needed to be qualified as a "teacher".


.

That's exactly what I'm saying. there has to be someone of higher quality who can beat her for the job, you know?

[JoeJGibbs]

our smartest men and women should be teachers, that is not the case now and never will be unless there is money incentives, sadly. As we know public school systems pay on seniority

I agree. I'm not sure if it's based on IQ, but based around actually wanting to educate, and being good at the art itself. In a nutshell, you have to get 30 young people to retain information that is inside of your head and/or a cirriculum.

I also think that the best teachers are people that want to be teachers . The people that understand that they aren't getting a lot of money to do it, but truly enjoy educating. That group is slowly getting phased out because it's not cost effective to go to College and become a teacher.

lol, My wife, who lovvvvves teaching can't because it "don't pay the bills". She's working a job that she hates, that pays double what she would make as a teacher and she stands to increase her salary even more if she stays. Keep in mind, she has a Masters in Education from UPenn.:rolleyes:

Makes no sense. The really good public school teaching jobs nevvvvver are available because the teachers never leave and rightfully so. She taught at a private charter school in North Carolina that paid beans teaching kids named Ashley Wellington III and Carter W Roganstern. lol and I'm not even kidding.

In the US, something has to be done to create demand for people going to College to want to become teachers and good ones. Why come out of College with a $h!tload of loans, and make $35K a year?

You can not go to college and make that or more, being someone's admin. (No offense to admins out there)

[levdgg]

I agree. I'm not sure if it's based on IQ, but based around actually wanting to educate, and being good at the art itself. In a nutshell, you have to get 30 young people to retain information that is inside of your head and/or a cirriculum.

I also think that the best teachers are people that want to be teachers . The people that understand that they aren't getting a lot of money to do it, but truly enjoy educating. That group is slowly getting phased out because it's not cost effective to go to College and become a teacher.

lol, My wife, who lovvvvves teaching can't because it "don't pay the bills". She's working a job that she hates, that pays double what she would make as a teacher and she stands to increase her salary even more if she stays. Keep in mind, she has a Masters in Education from UPenn.:rolleyes:

Makes no sense. The really good public school teaching jobs nevvvvver are available because the teachers never leave and rightfully so. She taught at a private charter school in North Carolina that paid beans teaching kids named Ashley Wellington III and Carter W Roganstern. lol and I'm not even kidding.

In the US, something has to be done to create demand for people going to College to want to become teachers and good ones. Why come out of College with a $h!tload of loans, and make $35K a year?

You can not go to college and make that or more, being someone's admin. (No offense to admins out there)



This is always going to be an issue in society. The smartest people have the highest paying jobs -- engineers, CEOs, Doctors, LAwyers etc.

Imagine if it switched around to cops, teachers, politicians etc.

[levdgg]

I agree. I'm not sure if it's based on IQ, but based around actually wanting to educate, and being good at the art itself. In a nutshell, you have to get 30 young people to retain information that is inside of your head and/or a cirriculum.

I also think that the best teachers are people that want to be teachers . The people that understand that they aren't getting a lot of money to do it, but truly enjoy educating. That group is slowly getting phased out because it's not cost effective to go to College and become a teacher.

lol, My wife, who lovvvvves teaching can't because it "don't pay the bills". She's working a job that she hates, that pays double what she would make as a teacher and she stands to increase her salary even more if she stays. Keep in mind, she has a Masters in Education from UPenn.:rolleyes:

Makes no sense. The really good public school teaching jobs nevvvvver are available because the teachers never leave and rightfully so. She taught at a private charter school in North Carolina that paid beans teaching kids named Ashley Wellington III and Carter W Roganstern. lol and I'm not even kidding.

In the US, something has to be done to create demand for people going to College to want to become teachers and good ones. Why come out of College with a $h!tload of loans, and make $35K a year?

You can not go to college and make that or more, being someone's admin. (No offense to admins out there)


To your last point, consider this. I moved back to NY for a year after college and was considering becoming a teacher. On top of the 30 k I had in loans, I would have had to delay another 1.5-2 years in the workforce and create more debt to get my masters. Not what I call incentive. Though I could have taken a city job where they reimburse me for my education. But you get my point, which leads to another point: Joe suburb does not always want to teach at a rundown city school where the kids are a complete nightmare. May just as soon push him out of the profession.

[conviction]

To your last point, consider this. I moved back to NY for a year after college and was considering becoming a teacher. On top of the 30 k I had in loans, I would have had to delay another 1.5-2 years in the workforce and create more debt to get my masters. Not what I call incentive. Though I could have taken a city job where they reimburse me for my education. But you get my point, which leads to another point: Joe suburb does not always want to teach at a rundown city school where the kids are a complete nightmare. May just as soon push him out of the profession.

Even if you do increase the pay of all teachers we know that the suburbs would get the higher quality teaching compared to inner city schools but if pay is somehow increased then I think we'd see jumps in the right directions in both cities and outside cities.

[RicoVacilon]

Even if you do increase the pay of all teachers we know that the suburbs would get the higher quality teaching compared to inner city schools but if pay is somehow increased then I think we'd see jumps in the right directions in both cities and outside cities.

Increasing teacher pay would definitely result in better teachers overall. But it is only one problem out of many. And it isn't even one of the main problems. As I've said before--teachers (or bad teachers) are not one of the main problems in American education. That said, if you're a student and you get stuck with a bad teacher, it becomes your biggest problem for the next 10 months though. :(

[conviction]

Increasing teacher pay would definitely result in better teachers overall. But it is only one problem out of many. And it isn't even one of the main problems. As I've said before--teachers (or bad teachers) are not one of the main problems in American education. That said, if you're a student and you get stuck with a bad teacher, it becomes your biggest problem for the next 10 months though. :(

Other point just being the culture of our society? What other problems do you think there are?

[RicoVacilon]

Other point just being the culture of our society? What other problems do you think there are?

The main problem is what kids do with the 17 hours a day they aren't in school. And parents have a lot to do with that. Yes, it's a societal problem--but the onus is on the parents mainly. With high school kids I think they're old enough to be accountable for themselves. But it's a lot easier to make a good student than fix a bad one.

[kevin21boston]

I've been in public schools my entire life.

-2 elementary schools
-1 middle school
-1 high school

-3 junior colleges
-2 universities and a new one in january


to say the least, ive been around. and the common thing in all of them is that the students who care, get educated. the students who don't care, get left behind.

it's up to the students. its not the teachers. and lets remember, most teachers are your basic liberal arts degree having C average average student type of person. they werent the people getting a 4.0 and double majoring in physics and biochemistry. were talking about about average people and these average people dont want to work longer hours babbysitting little douchebags.

you have to be self motivated to succeed and these kids that im competing with generally dont give a sh1t, so to hell with them. making them go to school for 2 hours or 22 hours isnt going to make a difference. its when you go home on a tuesday afternoon and do your homework or play halo. thats the difference between the cal state fullerton and the UC Davis students.



-as for the 10am-2pm thing nevada said, im pretty sure it was a exagerration, but just for comparison my high school academic schedule was 750am to 240pm. some students had a 50 minute period off from made their day start at 850 or end at 140, but it was never close to 4 hours.

[Nevada_Ballin]

This has turned into a great thread, good job guys


My 4 hour comment wasn't much of an exagerration - there are some seniors (not all) in high schools who have that. It's all based on how many credits you need to graduate. If a kid got a ton of them the first 3 years they may only have 4 classes their senior year, maybe an Algebra, a Lit and 2 electives.

Others may only have a 5 or 6 hour day.

I wanna backtrack to something - credits. Is this a legit way to decide if a kid should graduate high school? I've always thought there should be one final test - the big one. The one that covers everything you ever learned during K-12. One that would take 2 class weeks of 8 hour days to complete. the monster of all tests. If you pass that, then you graduate.

.

[RicoVacilon]

My 4 hour comment wasn't much of an exagerration - there are some seniors (not all) in high schools who have that.

Given the fact that everyone has questioned that assumption and no one has offered any proof that it's anywhere near common--can you just withdraw it from the record? ;)

[RicoVacilon]

lets remember, most teachers are your basic liberal arts degree having C average average student type of person.


That's just asinine. Most teachers don't graduate with a liberal arts degree--they graduate with an education degree. Most of them do NOT have a C average. But I guarantee you that ALL of them would offer their license and registratiob to a cop without asking if it's entrapment--you dimwitted JC dropping out fool.

[JoeJGibbs]

it's up to the students. its not the teachers. and lets remember, most teachers are your basic liberal arts degree having C average average student type of person. they werent the people getting a 4.0 and double majoring in physics and biochemistry. were talking about about average people and these average people dont want to work longer hours babbysitting little douchebags.


lol Kevin do you get your information from late night informercials? You sound like the C average, average student, average person you mentioned. :p


But I guarantee you that ALL of them would offer their license and registration to a cop without asking if it's entrapment--you dimwitted JC dropping out fool.

lmao I forgot he said that.

[YoungVito]

The quality of education isn't the problem either. Trying to fix this from a supply end will merely result in wasted dollars. This is a SOCIAL issue, not a teacher/principla/district/school issue. Until society as a whole is ready to step up, nothing will get better.

Step up how exactly? A social issue?

I'm not being sarcastic, just looking for some clarity.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I'm sure this has been said somewhere before but I think it has more to do with the parents than anything. I have said many times on here that I have tutored young black males in some form or fashion since I started college and there is one common thread I see in most kids who do well and that is an involved parent. There is nothing that a teacher or tutor can do in the couple of hours they see a kid each week that can't be undone by a really bad parent.

It also needs to start very very young and at home. Reading books on a daily basis. Buying mental puzzels and flash cards when the child is as young as 2-years old. Many people don't realize the time parents spend with their kids trying to develop them mentally. I can walk into a toddler's house and tell almost immediately if their parents are focused on building the child's intellect (especially if I walk in the kids room). You walk into the house you see books, wall maps, an abacas, posters with letters, numbers and colors, puzzles and all types of educational toys. Also, the TV isn't turned on. You ask the parent what is their "bedtime routine" and you hear "reading time", "puzzzle time", "we sing XYZ educational song". You also see the parent making every effort to praise the child when show creativity or some intellectual accomplishment.

I have also realized that by the time these kids get to middle/highschool it is practically too late. If they have been slowly falling behind since pre-k (yes pre-k) then most of the time they are so far behind that catching up would require a lot of time and money.

I have seen so many kids that it is to the point now where I can tell almost immediately whose parents actually give a damn about their education at almost any age.

-TS

[conviction]

I'm sure this has been said somewhere before but I think it has more to do with the parents than anything. I have said many times on here that I have tutored young black males in some form or fashion since I started college and there is one common thread I see in most kids who do well and that is an involved parent. There is nothing that a teacher or tutor can do in the couple of hours they see a kid each week that can't be undone by a really bad parent.

It also needs to start very very young and at home. Reading books on a daily basis. Buying mental puzzels and flash cards when the child is as young as 2-years old. Many people don't realize the time parents spend with their kids trying to develop them mentally. I can walk into a toddler's house and tell almost immediately if their parents are focused on building the child's intellect (especially if I walk in the kids room). You walk into the house you see books, wall maps, an abacas, posters with letters, numbers and colors, puzzles and all types of educational toys. Also, the TV isn't turned on. You ask the parent what is their "bedtime routine" and you hear "reading time", "puzzzle time", "we sing XYZ educational song". You also see the parent making every effort to praise the child when show creativity or some intellectual accomplishment.

I have also realized that by the time these kids get to middle/highschool it is practically too late. If they have been slowly falling behind since pre-k (yes pre-k) then most of the time they are so far behind that catching up would require a lot of time and money.

I have seen so many kids that it is to the point now where I can tell almost immediately whose parents actually give a damn about their education at almost any age.

-TS

Good post and I agree

[Nevada_Ballin]

Given the fact that everyone has questioned that assumption and no one has offered any proof that it's anywhere near common--can you just withdraw it from the record? ;)

No, i will not. Just a couple of the many examples I found. You can google for more if you wish. One from a school and one from a student:

Full time students at Glacier Valley are required to spend a minimum of 25 hours per week in instructional activities. For those with 9+ credits, this includes 12 hours in class (minimum of 3 hours per day) and 13 hours of personal study at home as per each student’s individual learning plan.

http://www.chelanschools.org/Glacier/GVHS%20Program%20Handbook%200809.htm


I'm only 18. I have it so easy right now; I'm a senior in high school and I only have one class (4 and a half hours a week)............

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090125000744AAcSC36



.

[RicoVacilon]

Step up how exactly? A social issue?

I'm not being sarcastic, just looking for some clarity.

It's mainly the parents that need to step up. That said, there are some parents who simply can't spend the time they need to with their kids because they've got to work 2-3 jobs to keep their heads above water. That said, some of those parents need to work 2-3 jobs because they bought a 300k house or drive an Escalade. But you get what I'm saying.

[RicoVacilon]

I'm sure this has been said somewhere before but I think it has more to do with the parents than anything.

100% agree for elementary school kids. As they get older we need to shift the accountability little by little from the parents to the students though. But I'm with you.


It also needs to start very very young and at home.

Yup, it's easier to build a good student that it is to fix a bad one.

[RicoVacilon]

No, i will not. Just a couple of the many examples I found. You can google for more if you wish.

Congratulations on Googling exceptions to the rule. That does not, however, make the practice commonplace.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Congratulations on Googling exceptions to the rule. That does not, however, make the practice commonplace.

I never said it was "commonplace", but it is the case more often than you are assuming. My kids have friends who are seniors that also have 4-5 hour school days. Bottom line = it happens.

Not my fault if you do not wish to recognize the reality of it, even when it's presented to you in fact. Now you can do one of two things, continue to deny fact or just say "my bad, i didn't realize it was really like that these days". Up to you :)

.

[RicoVacilon]

I never said it was "commonplace", but it is the case more often than you are assuming. My kids have friends who are seniors that also have 4-5 hour school days. Bottom line = it happens.

Not my fault if you do not wish to recognize the reality of it, even when it's presented to you in fact. Now you can do one of two things, continue to deny fact or just say "my bad, i didn't realize it was really like that these days". Up to you :)

.

And _I_ never said it might not happen. I just refuse to get my panties in a wad over a few exceptions here or there. I mean, face it, there's kids that completely drop out of school. No one's even mentioned them but yet you're ridin' the jocks of some kids that are in school 4.5 hours a day (none of your examples were 4 hours by the way--which is what you said originally. just sayin ;)). I just hope that none of those 4.5 hours are considered "lunch."

[Nevada_Ballin]

And _I_ never said it might not happen. I just refuse to get my panties in a wad over a few exceptions here or there. I mean, face it, there's kids that completely drop out of school. No one's even mentioned them but yet you're ridin' the jocks of some kids that are in school 4.5 hours a day (none of your examples were 4 hours by the way--which is what you said originally. just sayin ;)). I just hope that none of those 4.5 hours are considered "lunch."

You wanted proof, i provided it. Even showed you a SCHOOL that lists it. It's not some "exception", it's something that happens everywhere.

Not sure why you said "none of your example were 4 hours by the way" - I showed you examples that were even LESS..... just sayin'

Accept it or deny it, up to you. I don't need to prove anything more or argue this point, I've proven it. Whether you accept it as a reality or not isn't my problem :)


.

[RicoVacilon]

Accept it or deny it, up to you. I don't need to prove anything more or argue this point, I've proven it. Whether you accept it as a reality or not isn't my problem :)

But if I accept it then it would mean this would be the first thread in forever that ended in some sort of concensus. :p

[Nevada_Ballin]

But if I accept it then it would mean this would be the first thread in forever that ended in some sort of concensus. :p

lol.. the thread doesn't have to end, just move on to the other good subtopics within it - people are bringing up a lot of issues we have with our educational system... from the teachers to the parents right down to the students themselves. There's a lot of fixing that needs to be done.


.

[levdgg]

lol.. the thread doesn't have to end, just move on to the other good subtopics within it - people are bringing up a lot of issues we have with our educational system... from the teachers to the parents right down to the students themselves. There's a lot of fixing that needs to be done.


.

A big problem with the education system is mediocre elementary school teachers deflecting all the blame on others.

Rico, I'm ****ing with you.

[RicoVacilon]

A big problem with the education system is mediocre elementary school teachers deflecting all the blame on others.

Rico, I'm ****ing with you.

Why you little. . . . :P

[dsteve]

can someone explain the point of giving tenure to crappy early child hood through high school teachers tenure? why is it so hard to fire bad teachers? hmm



can someone tell me why states that spend the most per student perform at about the same rate, in concurence with test scores, as the states that spend the least per student?


can someone tell me why government and teachers are against voucher programs that would only increase comp between school and actually might make public school try to earn their customers with better service ie teachers that dont suck?


explain these for me and then we can talk about making the school year longer. I vote for de-federalizing the schools. a stupid population ignorant of history is easy to control and thats exactly what our elected represenatives have done, dem and repub.

[RicoVacilon]

can someone explain the point of giving tenure to crappy early child hood through high school teachers tenure? why is it so hard to fire bad teachers? hmm

My district does not have "tenure." We have a "continuing contract." But that doesn't start til your fourth year of employment. In my experience, crappy teachers are identifiable prior to their fourth year of employment. I do think this is a problem though--that more bad teachers aren't guided into another line of work earlier.


can someone tell me why states that spend the most per student perform at about the same rate, in concurence with test scores, as the states that spend the least per student?

Sounds like you've got your hands on some empirical data that led to your assertion. Could you link it please?


can someone tell me why government and teachers are against voucher programs that would only increase comp between school and actually might make public school try to earn their customers with better service ie teachers that dont suck?

Can someone tell me why "charter schools" who suck funding out of public schools like a parasite perform worse than public schools?


explain these for me and then we can talk about making the school year longer. I vote for de-federalizing the schools.

The fact that schools aren't federalized to begin with makes everything you've said so far a bit suspect. I mean that's a pretty huge mistake to be making. . . as if kids graduated from the United States School District or something. . .

[levdgg]

Can someone tell me why "charter schools" who suck funding out of public schools like a parasite perform worse than public schools?



The fact that schools aren't federalized to begin with makes everything you've said so far a bit suspect. I mean that's a pretty huge mistake to be making. . . as if kids graduated from the United States School District or something. . .

-Exactly. Voucher program is a disaster.

and

-Ha. Dsteve's post was one big wiki search gone wrong.

Follow-up question: Where did dsteve receive his education, and what is the school's policy on refunds?

[conviction]

-Exactly. Voucher program is a disaster.

and

-Ha. Dsteve's post was one big wiki search gone wrong.

Follow-up question: Where did dsteve receive his education, and what is the school's policy on refunds?

I would like you to explain the disaster of privatizing the education market.

You can't tell me that public schools are censored and induce poor thinking patterns, particularly that widely accepted concepts should not be questions. Its in front of your eyes man, the system creates sheep, just take a closer look. I promote variety and individual ideas no matter whether I agree with them or not but the school curriculum's build upon a foundation that everything they say is correct when that is not necessarily the case and even if it is the case kids need to develop mental patterns that can confirm what their taught.

If everyone had always thought the way we are being educated then we would still think the world is flat.

[levdgg]

I would like you to explain the disaster of privatizing the education market.

You can't tell me that public schools are censored and induce poor thinking patterns, particularly that widely accepted concepts should not be questions. Its in front of your eyes man, the system creates sheep, just take a closer look. I promote variety and individual ideas no matter whether I agree with them or not but the school curriculum's build upon a foundation that everything they say is correct when that is not necessarily the case and even if it is the case kids need to develop mental patterns that can confirm what their taught.

If everyone had always thought the way we are being educated then we would still think the world is flat.

Before I answer I need to know the following:

What did you get on your SATs and did you to private or public high school?

Also, I spoke of the voucher program, not this Utopian free market of which you speak. You wasted too much energy on that post.

[conviction]

Before I answer I need to know the following:

What did you get on your SATs and did you to private or public high school?

Also, I spoke of the voucher program, not this Utopian free market of which you speak. You wasted too much energy on that post.

I got 1180 traditional scoring (math and comprehension) I got a pretty poor score on my writing. I took those 2 years ago
I went to a public school, one of top educations in the county (statistically)

edit: I think I got like a 500 on writing?

[levdgg]

I got 1180 traditional scoring (math and comprehension) I got a pretty poor score on my writing. I took those 2 years ago
I went to a public school, one of top educations in the county (statistically)

Ok so you did farely well.. went to a public school. Statistics show there is minimal difference in tests scores, college placement etc., between private and public educated

School vouchers is not the system of which you speak. It had a very noble cause -- allowing public school parents to send their kids to a private school through a voucher equal to the cost of what it would take to provide a public education (best of my recollection). This is a GOVERNMENT program. The idea was school choice. But it wasn't really a choice. There's no guarantee that a private school will accept someone, and the vouchers are not offered to everyone. Like I said, the problems that have arisen a plentiful, specifically that it created a huge social gap between private and public schools in certain areas. Go to any major metropolis and you will see the private schools full of rich kids and those who are fortunate enough to dunk a basketball or throw a football. Also, Rico can better answer this, but I believe school vouchers are only offered for private/charter education and don't give someone the choice to, for instance, go to a better public school.

Well intentioned. Poorly executed.

[conviction]

Ok so you did farely well.. went to a public school. Statistics show there is minimal difference in tests scores, college placement etc., between private and public educated

School vouchers is not the system of which you speak. It had a very noble cause -- allowing public school parents to send their kids to a private school through a voucher equal to the cost of what it would take to provide a public education (best of my recollection). This is a GOVERNMENT program. The idea was school choice. But it wasn't really a choice. There's no guarantee that a private school will accept someone, and the vouchers are not offered to everyone. Like I said, the problems that have arisen a plentiful, specifically that it created a huge social gap between private and public schools in certain areas. Go to any major metropolis and you will see the private schools full of rich kids and those who are fortunate enough to dunk a basketball or throw a football. Also, Rico can better answer this, but I believe school vouchers are only offered for private/charter education and don't give someone the choice to, for instance, go to a better public school.

Well intentioned. Poorly executed.

I don't know much about vouchers, I'll have to look into it.

But I would like to point out that you assume that SAT's are an accurate indicator of intellect and that I would disagree with, they give you a broad sense of one's intellect. Defining what makes someone intellectual is difficult but I don't believe being able to recall information is intellect. I think true intellect is when you given information (not based on memory) and you can create accurate conclusions and hypothesis's. We know schools are geared for test scores but are they really expanding people's minds? My answer is no, they cram information into your head (memory) and the more info you retain the smarter you are, in their standards. Memory is the lowest form of intellect in my opinion.

[levdgg]

I don't know much about vouchers, I'll have to look into it.

But I would like to point out that you assume that SAT's are an accurate indicator of intellect and that I would disagree with, they give you a broad sense of one's intellect. Defining what makes someone intellectual is difficult but I don't believe being able to recall information is intellect. I think true intellect is when you given information (not based on memory) and you can create accurate conclusions and hypothesis's. We know schools are geared for test scores but are they really expanding people's minds? My answer is no, they cram information into your head (memory) and the more info you retain the smarter you are, in their standards. Memory is the lowest form of intellect in my opinion.

i understand what you're saying. You're talking about a complete, systemic overhaul to educational institution in this country. That's a separate issue.

Either way, I was just trying to make a point. I'm also talking about all standardied tests (i.e. in NY our finals were statewide and called the Regents test). And while it should not define you as a student, there is merit in SAT scores. I didn't have the writing portion, but the math and reading comprehension portions do say a pretty good deal about how intelligent you are, in my opinion. I saw a lot of dummies who worked hard and received good grades perform poorly on the SATs, while underachievers who otherwise displayed sound logic performed well on the SATs. Like I said, I don't think such tests should make or break you and erase a lifetime of being a good student, but they do hold merit.

[conviction]

i understand what you're saying. You're talking about a complete, systemic overhaul to educational institution in this country. That's a separate issue.

Either way, I was just trying to make a point. I'm also talking about all standardied tests (i.e. in NY our finals were statewide and called the Regents test). And while it should not define you as a student, there is merit in SAT scores. I didn't have the writing portion, but the math and reading comprehension portions do say a pretty good deal about how intelligent you are, in my opinion. I saw a lot of dummies who worked hard and received good grades perform poorly on the SATs, while underachievers who otherwise displayed sound logic performed well on the SATs. Like I said, I don't think such tests should make or break you and erase a lifetime of being a good student, but they do hold merit.

When comparing schools statistically they look at the results of standardized tests. All schools are geared for the tests so the school looks good not for the kids to be good thinkers. I do acknowledge the merit of the tests but shouldn't be taken as the only indicator of intellect and that is what the schools are shooting for which is high test scores.

[RicoVacilon]

I would like you to explain the disaster of privatizing the education market.

Because they don't perform better than public schools but cost more money.

Can I have a cookie now?

[RicoVacilon]

You can't tell me that public schools are censored and induce poor thinking patterns, particularly that widely accepted concepts should not be questions. Its in front of your eyes man, the system creates sheep, just take a closer look. I promote variety and individual ideas no matter whether I agree with them or not but the school curriculum's build upon a foundation that everything they say is correct when that is not necessarily the case and even if it is the case kids need to develop mental patterns that can confirm what their taught.

OK, you're idea of what is in public school curricula is way off base. They do NOT produce "sheep" or unified thinking. Critical thinking always has and always will be a large part of US education. That is a fact.

[RicoVacilon]

But I would like to point out that you assume that SAT's are an accurate indicator of intellect and that I would disagree with, they give you a broad sense of one's intellect. Defining what makes someone intellectual is difficult but I don't believe being able to recall information is intellect. I think true intellect is when you given information (not based on memory) and you can create accurate conclusions and hypothesis's. We know schools are geared for test scores but are they really expanding people's minds? My answer is no, they cram information into your head (memory) and the more info you retain the smarter you are, in their standards. Memory is the lowest form of intellect in my opinion.

Your elaboration has provided me with a bit more insight into your complaints about "sheep" etc. . . and it's a point I am more willing to agree with. You are referring to what we educators call "teaching to the test." It is a rather recent phenomenon and has its basis in the plethora of standardized testing that students are expected to take and schools are judged on. And I'm not talking about SATs and ACTs, i'm also talking about Kingergartners taking standardized tests. This problem was exacerbated by NCLB which placed even MORE of an emphasis on tests. This problem is NOT curriculum based though--it is all part of this school accountability crap. Holding schools accountable is not the crap part. Basing it all on how students perform on bubbling in circles is.

[RicoVacilon]

Either way, I was just trying to make a point. I'm also talking about all standardied tests (i.e. in NY our finals were statewide and called the Regents test). And while it should not define you as a student, there is merit in SAT scores. I didn't have the writing portion, but the math and reading comprehension portions do say a pretty good deal about how intelligent you are, in my opinion. I saw a lot of dummies who worked hard and received good grades perform poorly on the SATs, while underachievers who otherwise displayed sound logic performed well on the SATs. Like I said, I don't think such tests should make or break you and erase a lifetime of being a good student, but they do hold merit.

Actually a new study just showed the best indicator of performance in college is grades in High School. Period. Interesting. . .

[conviction]

Your elaboration has provided me with a bit more insight into your complaints about "sheep" etc. . . and it's a point I am more willing to agree with. You are referring to what we educators call "teaching to the test." It is a rather recent phenomenon and has its basis in the plethora of standardized testing that students are expected to take and schools are judged on. And I'm not talking about SATs and ACTs, i'm also talking about Kingergartners taking standardized tests. This problem was exacerbated by NCLB which placed even MORE of an emphasis on tests. This problem is NOT curriculum based though--it is all part of this school accountability crap. Holding schools accountable is not the crap part. Basing it all on how students perform on bubbling in circles is.

Exactly, we take a lot standardized tests. I had them throughout my whole education

[dsteve]

-Exactly. Voucher program is a disaster.

and

-Ha. Dsteve's post was one big wiki search gone wrong.

Follow-up question: Where did dsteve receive his education, and what is the school's policy on refunds?




how are voucher programs a disaster? kinda like the school in the DC area huh? maybe you should go look into the voucher programs there obama shut down because they were working while public school were failing. good job providing no facts and insulting me though...moron.

[dsteve]

My district does not have "tenure." We have a "continuing contract." But that doesn't start til your fourth year of employment. In my experience, crappy teachers are identifiable prior to their fourth year of employment. I do think this is a problem though--that more bad teachers aren't guided into another line of work earlier.



Sounds like you've got your hands on some empirical data that led to your assertion. Could you link it please?



Can someone tell me why "charter schools" who suck funding out of public schools like a parasite perform worse than public schools?



The fact that schools aren't federalized to begin with makes everything you've said so far a bit suspect. I mean that's a pretty huge mistake to be making. . . as if kids graduated from the United States School District or something. . .



first off, why do you always feel the need to defend what the government does?

second, the stats I mentioned were from an actual book so i dont have a link ready for you. I know you have a hard time reading things that arent from moveon.org or some other liberal site but you could always look up the information yourself and then compare their test scores. heres a start, the two highest states I belive are NY and NJ.


again, the amount of money put into a school has no bearing on how well the school performs, theyre all horrible. atleast the ones run by the government. if you compare the average test scores with the amount of money spent per student, the results show no bearing on how much the schools spend per student. so charter schools arent sucking any funds out of anything that would have worked, even if you think the said schools are horrible, which they arent. there are plenty of private schools that work with voucher programs that perform much better than any public school could ever dream of. again, look up the story about the dc voucher program your buddy obama is shutting down.

um, im pretty sure we have a department of education and the public schools are controled by the federal government. if not, then who runs them because last i checked its the tax payer, which prob isnt any of you liberals anyway.


all im gonna say about tenure and getting rid of bad teachers is this, if you can read, thank a teacher....if you cant read thank a teachers union. defending some of these moron teachers unions, who contribute 99 of their political contributions to the dems, is down right moronic. look where all the failing schools are. bet youd find a corelation with the politics being liberal. keep them deaf blind and dumb so they cant find their guns seems to be the moto of the liberals if you ask me.

[dsteve]

Because they don't perform better than public schools but cost more money.

Can I have a cookie now?



false. no cookie.

[dsteve]

two seconds of searching produced this nifty chart.

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/spent-student-and-sat-scores#

[RicoVacilon]

second, the stats I mentioned were from an actual book so i dont have a link ready for you.

OK, I'll take the bibliographic info then. Wait--let me translate that for you--the author and title please.


again, the amount of money put into a school has no bearing on how well the school performs, theyre all horrible. atleast the ones run by the government.

So now a school district, which exists outside of a "government," is part of what? The federal government? The state government? What exactly?


um, im pretty sure we have a department of education and the public schools are controled by the federal government.

They are NOT. That's a basic fact. I'm sorry, but I can't help you if you chose to ignore simple facts like that. :( You can continue to bury your head in the sand though. I'll support you.

[RicoVacilon]

two seconds of searching produced this nifty chart.

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/spent-student-and-sat-scores#

Grats on your two second search. I've been working, researching, and reading on this for 10 years now. But your two seconds. . . man. . . that changed my life.

[fatbaby52]

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the solution to the problem seems so simple. Teachers aren't paid enough money, and it's not tied to their performance. For those of you who argue that the best teachers are those who love to teach and would do it for any price, that may be true. But the fact is we need a lot of teachers, a lot more than there are people who love to teach. As it is now, there are the teachers who love to teach, and then a bunch of middle-of-the-pack people from middle-of-the-pack schools who realized that $40k for 180 days of work is better than they could do elsewhere.

Think how great our educational system would be if the kids at the top of their class at Harvard were skipping parties to study for their state's credentialing tests instead of the MCATs or LSATs. If all of the high mental horsepower mercenaries were drawn to teaching, instead of to medicine, or the law, or business? Not only would the schools be better, but teachers would be better respected (another problem). Yes, it would obviously cost more money to pay teachers more, but I can't think of a better long-term investment for our country.

An issue with performance-based pay for teachers is that not all students are created equal, and it would also create an incentive for teachers to help students cheat. To that, I say that it should be easy enough to come up with a formula for pay that's based on the change in performance. Then, teachers would be fighting for the low kids instead of the high kids. (which I guess is another problem, but you could say that teaching an advanced class is more relaxing than dealing with gang fights in the classroom.

Finally, I've forgotten who wrote it, but to the guy who said something about four hours- I think that everyone's issue with that statement is that you originally brought it up to compare with other countries. If I had no knowledge coming into this, I would have read your post to suggest that all (or most) students in the US are only at school for 4 hours. The vast majority of 4-hr. students here are 12th graders, and the vast majority of 12th graders aren't 4-hr. students. So you're talking about a few outliers.

[dsteve]

Grats on your two second search. I've been working, researching, and reading on this for 10 years now. But your two seconds. . . man. . . that changed my life.


yeah, so it shows that money spent per student doesnt change test scores and that states with less money spent actually perform better.


school are run by the government. isnt that the fact? they hand out the money, they decide whats taught....

[dsteve]

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the solution to the problem seems so simple. Teachers aren't paid enough money, and it's not tied to their performance. For those of you who argue that the best teachers are those who love to teach and would do it for any price, that may be true. But the fact is we need a lot of teachers, a lot more than there are people who love to teach. As it is now, there are the teachers who love to teach, and then a bunch of middle-of-the-pack people from middle-of-the-pack schools who realized that $40k for 180 days of work is better than they could do elsewhere.

Think how great our educational system would be if the kids at the top of their class at Harvard were skipping parties to study for their state's credentialing tests instead of the MCATs or LSATs. If all of the high mental horsepower mercenaries were drawn to teaching, instead of to medicine, or the law, or business? Not only would the schools be better, but teachers would be better respected (another problem). Yes, it would obviously cost more money to pay teachers more, but I can't think of a better long-term investment for our country.

An issue with performance-based pay for teachers is that not all students are created equal, and it would also create an incentive for teachers to help students cheat. To that, I say that it should be easy enough to come up with a formula for pay that's based on the change in performance. Then, teachers would be fighting for the low kids instead of the high kids. (which I guess is another problem, but you could say that teaching an advanced class is more relaxing than dealing with gang fights in the classroom.

Finally, I've forgotten who wrote it, but to the guy who said something about four hours- I think that everyone's issue with that statement is that you originally brought it up to compare with other countries. If I had no knowledge coming into this, I would have read your post to suggest that all (or most) students in the US are only at school for 4 hours. The vast majority of 4-hr. students here are 12th graders, and the vast majority of 12th graders aren't 4-hr. students. So you're talking about a few outliers.




yeeeeah they get summers off, all major holidays and do a lot less work than any of the other options you mentioned. they dont deserve to make any more money then they do. My gfs mom is a teacher and they make about 25-30 an hour when you average it all out. I dont think they should make more than cops or fire fighters, also employed by the government and make around 25-30 an hour depending on rank, because they actually do something with their day in comparison to some of these teachers. If theyre that concerned about money, work another part time job during youre 3-4months of vaccation they get every year.

[fatbaby52]

yeeeeah they get summers off, all major holidays and do a lot less work than any of the other options you mentioned. they dont deserve to make any more money then they do. My gfs mom is a teacher and they make about 25-30 an hour when you average it all out. I dont think they should make more than cops or fire fighters, also employed by the government and make around 25-30 an hour depending on rank, because they actually do something with their day in comparison to some of these teachers. If theyre that concerned about money, work another part time job during youre 3-4months of vaccation they get every year.

I wasn't totally clear in what I wrote, but I think that you inadvertently have demonstrated my point. (and not just b/c you might have a different point of view if you had better teachers.) A teacher's salary is right in line (per hour) with a police officer, except that doesn't count the time spent out of school developing lesson plans, grading papers, etc; so it's arguably quite a bit less. When you consider that an education typically opens doors and leads to higher pay, the fact that a job requiring only a CC degree pays as well as a job requiring at least a BA means that the BA is relatively underpaid. Yes, they get the summers off, but they aren't paid for them, so calculating the hourly rate and then saying summers off is a perk is double-counting.

The point I was trying to make is that I doubt you would say such a thing about your doctor. For the most part, the salary of a job determines what type of person wants to take it. Sure, there are exceptions (the humble NFL player, the teacher who just loves kids, etc...), but for the most part smart overachievers want to be doctors, lazy adults work at the mall, and everybody else falls someplace in between. By deciding that we, as a society, will pay teachers somewhere between 50-80k, our pool of teachers includes your girlfriend's mother. If we paid 80-125k, then the pool would include people with enough sense to keep their daughters away from you. This second group would have more success teaching our kids than the current group, because this second group has more mental horsepower.

(obviously, I'm using some huge generalizations here. There are some geniuses who are teachers and dummies who are doctors. I don't, however, know anyone who works at the mall who's not a lazy sob.)

[ballaman]

As a high school senior, I think I can accurately reflect what goes on in high schools.

At my high school, the first 3 years I was there, juniors and seniors go "early outs or late-ins." Basically what that is was you get an option of how many periods you want to take. We have 7 periods in our school of 48 minutes each. The early out options were to go 1-5, 1-6, 2-6 or take 0 period. 0 period means you have to come into school 55 minutes before everyone else and take one of the classes that is taught at that time. The reward for this was you get out earlier. You could take 0-4, 0-5, 0-6 and if you really wanted to overachieve, you could take 0-7.

The late-in option is you come in after everyone else, but leave the same time as everyone else. Those options were, 2-6, 2-7 or 3-7. Our 5th period lasts 2 full periods because that is our lunch and homeroom as well as a class.

They got rid of some of those options this year, but now only seniors can get out early or come in late. I currently go 1-5 so I start school at 7:45 and get out at 12:01. The reason we had the early outs and late-ins implemented was due to overcrowding at the high school. We had over 2300 kids the last 3 years in a building meant for 1600. This year we have about 1500-1600 kids because we had a new high school built. We have 3 high schools in the area with about 1500 kids in each. The new high school has no seniors because the district didnt split up the senior class.

I am not sure if they will keep these late-ins and early outs next year because next year's senior class drops significantly in numbers per high school. Our current senior class has 512 kids.

[dsteve]

I wasn't totally clear in what I wrote, but I think that you inadvertently have demonstrated my point. (and not just b/c you might have a different point of view if you had better teachers.) A teacher's salary is right in line (per hour) with a police officer, except that doesn't count the time spent out of school developing lesson plans, grading papers, etc; so it's arguably quite a bit less. When you consider that an education typically opens doors and leads to higher pay, the fact that a job requiring only a CC degree pays as well as a job requiring at least a BA means that the BA is relatively underpaid. Yes, they get the summers off, but they aren't paid for them, so calculating the hourly rate and then saying summers off is a perk is double-counting.

The point I was trying to make is that I doubt you would say such a thing about your doctor. For the most part, the salary of a job determines what type of person wants to take it. Sure, there are exceptions (the humble NFL player, the teacher who just loves kids, etc...), but for the most part smart overachievers want to be doctors, lazy adults work at the mall, and everybody else falls someplace in between. By deciding that we, as a society, will pay teachers somewhere between 50-80k, our pool of teachers includes your girlfriend's mother. If we paid 80-125k, then the pool would include people with enough sense to keep their daughters away from you. This second group would have more success teaching our kids than the current group, because this second group has more mental horsepower.

(obviously, I'm using some huge generalizations here. There are some geniuses who are teachers and dummies who are doctors. I don't, however, know anyone who works at the mall who's not a lazy sob.)


actually, my girlfriends mother has more education than you, as she started out wanting to be a doctor and was going through clinical when she decided it was more important to have the hours off that teachers get than it was to make money. Doctors make more money because their job is more important, requires more school, both time and money.


with the way the system works with tenure and how hard it is 2 fire teachers, all increasing the pay does is waste money. public schools are broken. get rid of teachers unions and the government out of the education biz and you might see some results.

[fatbaby52]

1. actually, my girlfriends mother has more education than you, as she started out wanting to be a doctor and was going through clinical when she decided it was more important to have the hours off that teachers get than it was to make money.

2. Doctors make more money because their job is more important, requires more school, both time and money.


with the way the system works with tenure and how hard it is 2 fire teachers, 3.all increasing the pay does is waste money.

4.public schools are broken. get rid of teachers unions and the government out of the education biz and you might see some results.

1. She may or may not. I don't think comparing wiener sizes online solves a lot, but I have a JD. And, I don't have a daughter dating you, so I'd say I win that one pretty convincingly.

2. The feeling that doctors are more important is what I'm trying to say the problem is. Short term- yeah, maybe it is better to have more doctors than teachers, but those doctors all need to be educated in some way. I can see a credible argument being made that more money spent on teachers would lead to better critical thinking (better doctors in the long term), fewer jails, etc.

3. See if your jc offers an intro to econ class. Generally, you get what you pay for. Increasing teachers' salaries would attract more qualified people to the profession. It might not be next year, but maybe even within 5 years we'd see better teachers (as students in college would start shifting their focus to education, instead of medicine, etc...).

4. Public schools might be broken, but doubt anyone who has thought about it for more than 30 seconds really thinks a true free market is ideal for education. What happens if the government isn't involved at all? Kids born into poverty won't be able to go to school, b/c they won't be able to afford it.

[fatbaby52]

Oh, I didn't mean to overlook your point regarding tenure. Yes, it is hard to fire teachers. Tenure is a perk- that and typically good benefits appeal to some people, and it's possible that someone who would otherwise make 100k per year (or some number) decides that 60k + summers off + no risk of being fired + good benefits is a better situation, so the tenure lets the school district off the hook cheaper than making up for it with an increased salary. So, it's not like schools don't get anything out of the trade. However, I will agree that it messes up teachers' incentives- a lot of teachers end up just trying to not get fired. If you had performance-based pay (not an impossibility with a union, see the NFL), then tenure might not be such a negative.

[RicoVacilon]

A teacher's salary is right in line (per hour) with a police officer, except that doesn't count the time spent out of school developing lesson plans, grading papers, etc; so it's arguably quite a bit less.

That's something I'm telling my fellow teachers all the time--if we only worked the hours we were paid for I bet people would finally pay attention. But since most teachers are conscientious enough to get their work done no matter how long it takes, that will never happen. A cop spends an extra 2 hours doing paper work--he gets paid for it. Not true for a teacher.


Yes, they get the summers off, but they aren't paid for them, so calculating the hourly rate and then saying summers off is a perk is double-counting.

You are correct sir. I'm glad someone is able to see the blatantly obvious without my having to point it out. :D I mean, I wouldn't be totally against increasing the school year as long as I got paid for it. I just don't think it's an efficient solution.


By deciding that we, as a society, will pay teachers somewhere between 50-80k

WHERE DO YOU LIVE!?!?!?! I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!!! I've been teaching 9 years and make 39.5

[RicoVacilon]

1. She may or may not. I don't think comparing wiener sizes online solves a lot, but I have a JD. And, I don't have a daughter dating you, so I'd say I win that one pretty convincingly.

:eek:

BURN!!!!

[resnor]

That's something I'm telling my fellow teachers all the time--if we only worked the hours we were paid for I bet people would finally pay attention. But since most teachers are conscientious enough to get their work done no matter how long it takes, that will never happen. A cop spends an extra 2 hours doing paper work--he gets paid for it. Not true for a teacher.



You are correct sir. I'm glad someone is able to see the blatantly obvious without my having to point it out. :D I mean, I wouldn't be totally against increasing the school year as long as I got paid for it. I just don't think it's an efficient solution.



WHERE DO YOU LIVE!?!?!?! I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!!! I've been teaching 9 years and make 39.5

Good post.

There are many misnomers about teachers and pay. I just graduated with my bachelors in Childhood Studies. Good teachers don't get the summer off. They are working on their curriculum, taking courses at a local college to keep their certification up, or taking courses to better their education so that they are better prepared to teach their students. Teachers get paid d1ck. Average starting pay for a teacher in NH is $20k. Awesome. Try raising a family on that. In my experience, at Plymouth State Univeristy, which started out as a teachers college in 1871, and is still focused on the teaching profession, is that people who can't do anything else could go to school for teaching and graduate with a teaching degree. It was actually very enlightening about the state of our schools to see who the people were who were graduating to go into the teaching field.

At the end of the day, good teachers should be paid more. Without teaxhers you wouldn't have doctors, lawyers, scientists, or any of these highly paid professionals.

[fatbaby52]

WHERE DO YOU LIVE!?!?!?! I WANT TO MOVE THERE!!!! I've been teaching 9 years and make 39.5

I live in the central valley of CA. Most of the school districts around here start in the high 30s (my wife's is 38k right now), and then move up to 50 within the first four or five years. The district my wife teaches in pays 1.5k for a masters, 3.5k for a phd, and there are incremental raises for every 30 units or so of graduate level work. I think the very top (25 yrs. + MA + 30, or something like that) pays about 75k before any sort of stipend.

The schools up in the mountains (Tahoe, Redding, etc..) pay about 10k less.

[resnor]

Oh, and many teachers work summer jobs cause they get paid so well.

Fatboy, getting $35k in CA isn't saying much, even $50k isn't great. Expenses are crazy to live in CA. If you lived in Alabama and got $50k a year, that would be doing decently.

[fatbaby52]

Oh, and many teachers work summer jobs cause they get paid so well.

Fatboy, getting $35k in CA isn't saying much, even $50k isn't great. Expenses are crazy to live in CA. If you lived in Alabama and got $50k a year, that would be doing decently.

I agree. That was kind of my point from above.

[resnor]

I agree. That was kind of my point from above.

Oh, ok, I misunderstood.

[RicoVacilon]

I live in Miami. Which is admittedly not as expensive as parts of California. . . .but come on it's not like Wichita Falls either! 37 to start and you have to put in 13 years before you're to 47. What a wacky schedule.