-John Taylor Gatto The Underground History of American Education

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm


- http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/

The Timeline: http://www.arc.org/erase/j_timeline.html

NCLB http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb

The other side: http://nochildleft.com/

Questions to debate:

1.) What is the model of Americas Public School System based on.

2.) What role does capitalism play in Public Education?

3.) What is the overall effect of the NCLB legislation in Public Education?

OK, 80 views and no takers. I'll answer my own questions then.

1.) What is the model of Americas Public School System based on.

It's based on an assembly line factory business model. Students = products, passed on from teacher to teacher, year after year. In the end they will be functional working units for the workforce. Superintendanc = CEO. School Board = BOD and so on and so on. Standards = quotas.


2.) What role does capitalism play in Public Education?

It is the driving force behind the testing industry. The more tests they can make, the more money they get. It is the driving force behind the publishing industry. They are certainly looking to profit.

Somehow, teachers are left out, with little means to rise above their moderate wage and earn more.


3.) What is the overall effect of the NCLB legislation in Public Education?

Wealthier test making companies. More stressed out teachers, unhappily teaching rote methods to try and get kids to pass these rediculous tests. More Rote, and lower level thinking stills, and less attention to creativity and the more critical humane characteristics of education

There, now maybe someone can dispute me...

To answer your questions:

1.) What is the model of Americas Public School System based on.

I agree with your assessment that it resembles an assembly line business model, but with one qualification: it is based on a socialist model in which there is no profit motive, and no measurable standards except the quota. The quality of the product does not matter, only the quantity.

2.) What role does capitalism play in Public Education?

Right now, not much. Capitalism implies being free to make business decisions that lead to the greatest amount of profit for the shareholders. There is none of that. The testing industry itself falls somewhat under the capitalism model, but since its only customer is the Department of Education, a monopoly, it is hamstrung by the fact that one is selected and the rest are out of luck.

3.) What is the overall effect of the NCLB legislation in Public Education?

Can't dispute you on this. I don't think the legislation has helped any. It's just added more red tape to an already hamstrung government program.

_______________________________________________________________

I think there should be measurable standards for students, and I think teachers' pay should be based upon those measurements. I don't think, however, that these standards should be set on the federal level, or even on the state level. They should, at worst, be on the community level.

Better yet, privatize the entire education industry. Sell all public school properties to willing investors, and open the door for new entrants into the industry. At that point, you don't need any government legislation of standards. Free market principles would force each Education Company to adopt a standards model that would satisfy their clients, the parents of the children whom they are educating. You would find that the quality of education goes up quickly.

In addition, teachers would be paid exactly what they are worth. Good quality teachers would find themselves making good money. The lousy teachers would find themselves no longer protected by the Teachers Unions, and would be out of a job pretty quickly. The unnecessary and top-heavy administrators would be trimmed down as well.

Have faith in the free market. It's what has made America wealthy and strong. It wasn't socialism.

I don’t think you have thought this one through. Students differ widely in IQ and ability. Typically, honors or advanced placement classes are made up of brighter students. So, you set measurable standards for students. What adjustments do you make in pay for teachers who get less capable students? What you are saying has appeal to some people, but filling in the details becomes a little more difficult.



What do you base this bold assumption on other than blind faith in the free market system? I have some questions. If school districts sold off all their property, (1)would funding for the private schools still come from public funding, that is would local/state/federal governments merely contract with the new private schools? (2)Would the parents pay for their own children’s education? If so, what would happen to those kids whose parent’s couldn’t afford to pay? If you are talking about the second option, then you are not only advocating the end of public education, but the end of free, universal education through high school. Again you don’t seem to be offering anything workable and provide little details and no support for your position.

I actually have thought it through. What I failed to do was explain my arguments clearly and back them up with sufficient reason and/or credible sources. Let me try again.



I wouldn't even try to create a compensation program without doing serious research into what incentives we are trying to provide teachers and what exactly we should require from each course. That wasn't my point. My point was that there should be some kind of measurable standards. Every class should have objectives that students can be measured against. Advanced placement courses, filled with the brighter students, should have higher standards, and should provide higher pay for teachers whose students meet the standards. Remedial courses, filled with struggling students, should have lower standards, and should provide lower pay for meeting the standards.

This is all just a suggestion, though. My absolute point is this: Implement standards of measurement, provide incentives to meet the standard (the carrot), and hold teachers accountable (the stick). If there is no accountability in education, what can we hope for it to produce?

I might hasten to re-affirm my earlier point, that if the standards are set on the federal level (or by you or me), they are going to be too broad to meet the needs of every school district. The farther down the hierarchy you set the standards, the more useful they will be. And if education is privatized, as I discuss below, then the standards that are set by each "education firm" will be exactly what their customers want. If they aren't, parents will take their money and their children elsewhere. That's a basic law of economics.



Hardly blind faith. When the objective in any venture is to maximize quality and minimize cost, the free market is the most effective. Americans are the wealthiest people on Earth, per capita, and as a nation, not because of socialistic programs, but because of the lack of them. Read the works of Walter E. Williams, world-renowned economist, and chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University for a good crash course on economics. Many of his articles can be found at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.archives.asp.



Before I answer your questions, let me first make this point: Education is not a Constitutionally mandated program. Congress has no more duty to provide us education than it does to provide us cars, houses, or televisions. But because universal public education has been widespread throughout most of this last century, most Americans have come to believe that they are entitled to free education from the government. We aren't. The Constitution makes it clear that if it isn't in the Constitution, Congress can't do it.

Naturally, there would be some rough going for a little while if we do make my proposed reform. Americans, when it comes to education, are like seagulls who have learned to eat by taking the fish from well-meaning fishermen. But when the fishermen stop offering the fish, many seagulls will starve in sight of an ocean full of fish, because they no longer know how to feed themselves. I do not propose completely dropping all public education in one shot, but I do propose gradually but steadily maneuvering government out of it.

Now:

1) No it would not come from public funding. Why should I pay to educate your kids? Why should you pay to educate mine? I suggest reading The Proper Role of Government, by Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture for President Eisenhower. It can be found, among other places, at http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm. In it, he argues that government is our creature. It is created by us, and can have only those powers delegated to it, which we ourselves individually have. If I have no power to reach into your pocket, take your money, and spend it on someone else's education, how can I grant that power to my agent, the government? Even if everyone in America wishes for you to spend your money that way, we still, even collectively, do not have the authority to make you do so. We cannot grant that power to the government. If it seizes that authority, it is tyranny.

2) Yes parents would pay for their own children's education. Same point as #1. Yes, I am advocating the end of free, universal education. Will some parents be in a tight spot? Yeah. But think about it. Those parents who don't have the money for education would be in no different a situation as those who don't have the money for a car or house. They will have to find an affordable alternative. Unless you are proposing that we start publicly funding cars and houses for everyone as well? You can see what good socialistic ideas like that did the USSR.

But before you complain that now these poor families won't get an education, let me point this out: First, homeschooling and neighborhood education coalitions (where a few families pool together to educate their own and each others children) would still be options. Those cost no more to the beneficiary than free universal education does now. Second, since taxpayers will no longer have to pay for public education, and private schools don't have to compete with an education establishment that has unlimited revenue (Rich Uncle Sam), the market will be open to new education entrants, and the cost of education will go down (I don't know how much, but this is a basic law of economics). Third, with multiple "education firms" competing for business, parents can make their own choices regarding cost, quality, and curriculum.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone can show up and in less than 10 posts assume people on this board know little or nothing about the Constitution of the United States. While there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing education the way freedoms are bestowed in the “Bill of Rights,” the “Preamble" does talk about “promote[ing] the General Welfare.” Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 provides for spending for the "general welfare" which I think might, just might, include funding for public education. It's a court interpretation thing you know. Even John Locke, the theorist many conservatives like to quote, wrote about the common good.

All this means little. Education has been and is still largely a function of state and local governments--Texas alone has more than 1100 independent school districts. In Amendment X to The Constitution of the United States we find these words “The powers not delegated to United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively.” Surely, you would not argue that state supported public schools are unconstitutional. Further, the history of federal funding for public schools has been a gradual thing.

http://www.osba.org/hotopics/funding/history.htm

I think you can argue that with increased federal funding has come federal control. Oddly, the biggest amount of funding and the most controlling program “No Child Left Behind” has come from the self-proclaimed “conservative” Republican Bush administration. Yet NCLB has not and will not completely fund the mandates it has ordered.

Here’s a statement from the “National Association of School Boards.”



http://www.nsba.org/site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&...D=892&DID=35292




I don’t have any kids and I’m retired, but this is a spurious argument against public education. Society as a whole benefits from an educated populace. Many of us pay taxes for things we don’t use, at least directly. Should the ninety-year-old person who can no longer obtain a driver’s license still have to pay taxes to support highways. Yes, because highways—like public education—are for the common good.




We have a long history of public education on the state level, one that predates the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Your equating of public education to socialism is an emotional appeal that’s completely detached from reality. In short, it like many radical notions from the right, is a red herring.



I still think you are taking much on blind faith in the free market system. At the end of Bush’s governorship in Texas we deregulated electricity in Texas. Price per KWH was supposed to go down, but guess what? It’s gone up five times in the last two years. The idea that educational costs would be no more than current ones is another flimsy argument. Moreover, how does one assume that taxes would go down just because we no longer funded public education?



Now this is a really “wonderful” proposal. The quality of a child’s education would be directly linked to the parents' ability to pay.

I guess someone would benefit from your proposal, but off hand I really can’t imagine who it would be in the long run. I’m sixty-two-years-old jaellon. I don’t know how old you are, but the beauty of your proposal is that it ain’t gonna happen--not in my lifetime and not in yours.

BTW: Since the beginning of Bush’s tenure of Governor of Texas in 1994, our state has experimented with a form of privatization called Charter Schools. Texas Education Agency figures for the latest school year indicate that 10% of charter schools as opposed to one percent of public schools failed to meet minimal standards. This is hardly an auspicious endorsement for further privatization.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...atesummary.html

By "privitize", do you mean that people could just "privately" eucate their children about what they thought was important to know in the comfort of their own communities?

Or do you mean where huge money making industries could manipulate and extort the good working people of America using corporate ethics to increase their profit margins and market shares?

I will have to agree with you in the constitutionality of the Federal government's involvement. The establishment of curricula should be, and prominently is, at the descretion of the states. Each state has a different criteria set of measurable standards. The NCLB legislation essentially mandates progress and good grades on the standards set by the states in order to recieve funding. The status of the education in the states should be left up to the states. In fact, I'd like to see it more focused in individual cities or counties myself.

Certainly not in the hands of international corporate conglomerates. I suspect, however that it's exactly what would happen if it were "privatized". Is that synonymous with "corporatized"? Or could we leave it up to the states and counties and cities?

Problem is, the poor schools are the ones who tend to have their funding withheld (because their grades are usually not as good on tests) They are the districts that really need the funding. They are also the ones that would fall victim to the "privatized" education you are talking about.

It's hard to judge a teacher's value based on any test results. The test results themselves aren't all that valuable as assessment tools. For example, it is arguable the case that "emotional intelligence" and "social skills" are more important in success than is the basic academic skills curriucula that is heavily mandated. Employers report that teamwork, motivation, attitude, relationship skills, etc are the most desireable attributes. They are certainly important skills that get neglected in the educational system in favor of cramming rote information and standards down the kids throats. And yet the testing can't assess any of those skills. Consequently, those areas of need are neglected because of the mandate of standards and tests, that may in large percentages be irrelevant to the child's future skills needs.

http://www.businessballs.com/eq.htm "emotional intelligence"

Assessment could most adequately be handled at the immediate level. Teachers maintaining portfolios of student work over time is probably the best assessment tool. Either the children are improving or not.

A one time high stakes attitude about testing is not good for the kids, and yet, more and more it is the way we assess then, track them, and process them in the education system.

A "free market" as opposed to a "fair market" is right. Free for the Established Elite to control it. That is certainly the agenda of the "free market". I'm a "fair market" advocate myself.

I do however think that right now Capitalism is completely in control of education in the final evolution of capitalism. One corporation controls everything. Who controls the DoE? Oh right, the same group that controls the White House, and both houses of Congress. I guess maybe it's the Republican corporation. We are all their clients, like it or not.

Two parts to my arguments:
1 Constitutionality



I apologize if I sounded patronizing. My intent was not to preach, but to cite a source. I would, however, request that you not demean

my ideas simply because I have not been sharing them in this forum for very long.



What court interpretation? This is what I found, from Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in 1905:



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...ol=197&invol=11

and this, from Joseph Story, Associate Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court, written in 1833:



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...reambles21.html

This is an interesting read as well, by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to one Albert Gallatin in 1817.



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do.../a1_8_1s25.html

So what has changed since these were written? I maintain that there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government providing for the education of Americans. The preamble cannot grant this authority, and the main body of the constitution does not.

But if we accept your interpretation, where lies the boundary? If the General Welfare clause grants authority, there is nothing that is forbidden to Congress so long as they can claim it is for the common good, and can muster a majority to see it done. I don't know if that scares you, but that kind of thinking scares me.

Two parts to my arguments:
2 Privatization



Yes my choice of words was deliberate, and my point was, in fact, to compare public education with socialism in Russia, regardless of whether it predated the Bolshevik Revolution. Here is what socialism is:



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Consider how that definition applied to the USSR, and then take a step back and see if that definition applies in any way to public education. I am not trying to divert your attention with shallow emotional appeals; I am trying to put into perspective exactly what kind of problem public education is.



I agree with you here. The U.S. Constitution grants no authority to govern the States in matters of education, so the U.S. government could not mandate that the education system be privatized. My suggestions earlier made no argument as to who should reform education, only that it should be done. That would have to be done by the people of Texas, in your case, and by the people of Idaho, in mine, once the federal government withdraws.



I voted for Bush, but I don't support NCLB.



No he shouldn't if he does not benefit from them. Unfortunately, since it is impossible to measure how much benefit each person receives from having a highway (tollbooths at every highway access point?), and since the cost of attempting to do so would be enormous, we resort to a somewhat socialistic approach to minimize the burden on everyone. I can live with that, because I see no better alternative. In the case of education, sure society benefits from having an educated populace, but society also benefits from people brushing their teeth, exercising regularly, and eating healthy. Shall we also regulate and evenly distribute the costs of all those activities? I maintain that the populace as a whole would be better educated under a privatized system, and the cost can be more fairly distributed among those that directly benefit. See further down for some sources.



I don't know the situation in Texas, but I'm guessing that, like in Idaho, the power company there holds a monopoly on the electricity supply, and it's extremely difficult for new providers to enter the market. You won't see prices go down and quality go up; just the opposite. This situation doesn't apply to education. Startup costs for a new education organization are minimal, and new entrants can quickly become profitable.



For those that are used to living off their neighbor's dollar, no this doesn't seem like a great idea. I can see how the poor would be opposed to this idea, because it would mean they would have to provide for themselves.



These are not private schools. They are public schools run by the State of Texas:



http://www.tea.state.tx.us/charter/

How are these private schools if they are still run by the State of Texas? This isn't even close to what I had in mind when I proposed privatization.

These are the statistics from real private schools already in place across America (slightly out of date, but still highly relevant):

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

You will notice in the charts that Public Schools are consistently at the bottom of the pile in terms of student performance, despite having 1) more teachers, 2) higher paid teachers/principals, 3) better qualified/experienced teachers/principals, and 4) more money to spend.

Oh, and it's not because the "smart" kids are all going to the private schools.

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/policy/1998_12.HTM

jaellon,

You don't even address the major part of my post, that is, that public education is largely a state effort for which the Constitutional authority is the reserve power enunciated in Amendment X. Power is decentralized even more through local school districts where day-to-day operational decisions are made. There are 1100 of these in Texas alone. My suggestion is that you start your quest to destroy public education by addressing Idaho's state legislature. I'm sure the members will be all ears.

Isn't it ironic that a "conservative" Republican President and Congress have enacted the most ambitious power grabbing federal program ever devised in public education--No Child Left Behind. Even this has come down in the form of underfunded mandates.

Federal funding has always been a supplement rather than the prime mover of public education.

About all you have illustrated is that you don't want to pay taxes to support public education. Unfortunately there is no shortage on short sigthtedness and that extends all the way to the White House and the emphasis on vouchers and charter schools.

The bottom line is that public education isn't going away anytime soon.

Let the free market determine. For the most part, what we see in Idaho are locally-owned-and-operated community schools. Idahoans for the most part don't like the idea of sending our kids off to large mega-corporate education establishments, so none thrive.

I'm not certain what you mean by "manipulate and extort the good working people of America...". Certainly there are corporations that are lacking in decency and ethics, and others that are not. Those that break the law are punished, and those that treat their customers poorly find they have no customers. Those that treat their employees poorly find their employees moving on to better jobs. The employees that stay do so because they have found their best opportunity. I suspect some bitterness on your part, but don't know the source.



Well said. Here, here.



Again, if people were willing to send their kids to "international corporate conglomerates" we would see such institutions. However, I suspect that this kind of operation would not thrive, because Widgets-Per-Dollar is not the driving concern in education; giving our kids a safe learning environment is.



This may sound harsh, but in the free market, schools that couldn't make a profit would go out of business...and be replaced by schools that could. If it matters to parents to educate their kids, entrepreneurs will find a way to offer that service. That is the nature of any industry, and we've seen the marvelous advances in technology and wealth, for everyone, that have resulted from free markets operating in other industries.



I agree that it's a lot easier to test reading, writing, and arithmetic, than social skills and emotional intelligence. That's a problem we face no matter what education system we use. I definitely agree that it is important to evaluate these characteristics, and that there is no easy way to do it. It is my opinion, though, that free market forces would allow for more personal and relevant evaluations, because you don't necessarily have the ignorant, if well-meaning, mandates coming down from corporate headquarters.




I guess I don't understand the difference. If the economy is a "free market", and I'm wanting to sell my car, I imagine I could sell it for it's "fair market" value. Can you elaborate for me?



That's the major problem to deal with right now. Remove control from the federal government and return it to the States. (Although I don't necessarily agree with the term "Republican Corporation"...when the Democrats had control, we had the same problems, so I guess it could have been called the "Democrat Corporation" then).

I thought I made myself perfectly clear, that 1) I agree Amendment X is supposed to prevent Congress from governing such things as education, 2) it is supposed to be within the States control, and 3) there are even better options to consider.



Speaking of red herrings



You might be interested to know that I am doing just that.




I may have pulled that paragraph out due to space limitations, but what I had said was, I do not support NCLB. Bush may be conservative, but this policy is not. It is reminiscent of most power grabs that come out of the Democratic party. I may have voted for him, but that doesn't mean I support everything he does.



You're right, I don't want to pay taxes so I can watch it be frittered away on programs that get worse every year, and cost more besides. Is that short-sighted?



We'll see what happens.

Now you’ve really lost me. I’m not going to argue for or against federal funding, especially under the guise of a public fraud like “No Child Left Behind.”

On the other hand, completely removing all federal funds and all federal control of public education won’t bring about privatization. It will just mean raising state and local taxes to make up the shortfall.

Edited to add:

The one thing nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to do is get between a school superintendent and the restroom door when someone informs he/she that federal funding for the district has been cut.

I say he/she because I'm pleased to announce that Fort Worth ISD hired it's first ever female superintendent today.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/10972306.htm

You're right, that by itself won't. It is simply the first step to take in getting to privatization. I think we both agree that NCLB is wrong and should be done away with (Am I right?). Once that is accomplished, then we can move onto the next step, whatever that turns out to be.



That's great. May she have a successful career.

We are in partial agreement. I prefer a program Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, favored called "One Child at a Time," which I outlined on this thread:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8648

I do not believe in privatization of education. Withdrawing of federal funding would create nothing but havock in public education. On the other hand, ridding ourselves of the millstone "No Child Left Behind" would create few, if any, problems. Federal funds could be used for more useful programs.

Nahh, let's call it the Republocrat corporation.

I'm intrigued by your positions, Jaellon. I'd like to know more about the Idahoan goings on. Obviously I'm in TX, and things are pretty screwed up here. My jaded attitude to towards privitazation and fre market stem from watching those established wealthy find ways to negate the competition and create an environment in which they can get away with whatever they want. It's not exactly "fair" to let the "free market" call all the shots. As if socioeconomic factors don't effect education enough as is, by allowing privitization to take over, that would be amplified. Who's going to make quality schools for poor areas? There's no profit in it. Those parents can't pay like wealthy ones can. It seems that we would be creating an even harsher system of making sure the poor stay poor.

I don't see why ending federal funding would hurt finances.

The ONLY argument I could say is that the Federal government spends more than it raises in taxes, while state budgets must generally be balanced. The fed spends $2.4T while raising $2.0T. $56B of that goes to education, which is a small portion of what state & local governments pay for education.

Removing the Federal money, and the Federal mandates, allow 51 separate state school systems to innovate. Those programs that work will likely be copied elsewhere.

The more I investigate it, the more I tend to like privately run schools. The idea that such schooling would further exacerbate the wealth gap seems pointless in the face of atrocious, but well-funded public school systems in areas like Baltimore, NJ, and DC. If each public school student were turned loose with an $8000 / year scholarship, I can't imagine how their education would be worse.

The trouble with this SWM is that most school districts don’t get $8000.00 per student per year.

The quote below concerns what Fort Worth’s new superintendent inherits.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/10979647.htm

Based on the information above, Fort Worth ISD currently spends $6287.50 per student. That amount includes everything from repair and maintenance, supplies ranging from toilet paper to light bulbs an electricity to power lighting and air conditioning, police protection and other services.

Edited to add:

The budget includes higher expenses incurred in some special education classes where the teacher/student ratio is much lower.


Spending $8000.00 per student would be a luxury.

State and local governments are strapped as it is. State governors are apparently upset at a portion of Bush’s proposed budget that tries to curb Medicaid spending.



http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7763666

Spending more on Medicaid and other programs slashed under Bush’s budget would mean less to spend on other programs like education. What is cut in federal funding for education would put even more of a burden on the state and local govenments. What doesn't come fom Washington has to be made up a the state and locaL level.

A Tale of Two Children

There were two children..not doing well in public school. These two children were being subjected to bad influences. The parents of one child could afford the $240 a month a private school charged. The parents of the second child could not. The first child was my son. Ain't gonna brag on him too much yet, but he ain't a burden to society. The second child is not a burden to society either. He lies in a cemetery..another victim of gang violence. I will never forget his mother telling me at the time I removed my son from the public school system how much she wishes she could have done the same thing. $240 a month was more than that single mother of three could afford.

How do you know that the son of the single mother of three wouldn't have been a victim of gang violence had he been enrolled in a private school.

Was he killed at school or out in the community?

There’s a quantum leap here somewhere.

All I know is that mother came to the same conclusion I did; that she desperately needed an alternative to the public school system for her child. All I know is that mother was denied, thanks to liberals and the NEA, of any choice in her child's education. All I know is that once children start acting up in school, they are sent to something like a charter school with all the other kids in the area who act up. In other words they are placed in an environment where peer pressure is even greater to act out.

I can't say her child is dead because vouchers did not exist back then. I can say that poor mother still grieves for her child and wishes her child had the same opportunity mine did.

That last line is the key: the money doesn't come FROM Washington, it comes THROUGH Washington, it comes from the incomes if individuals and profits from companies across the country. The exception is the deficit spent now and paid for later (with more taxes).

I don't want to seem like an 'anything but taxes' guy, I'm not. But what taxes for education are raised in Maryland should be spent in Maryland, rather than sent downtown and returned with a mandate to do as the Feds say.

As for $8000 a student, I know DC & Baltimore spend more per student. They 'spend' more if you were to include the property taxes NOT recieved from their school buildings, which is not insignificant.

If public school systems 'hemorrage' students to private schools, more than likely they will change their teaching tactics. Also, in most cases, vouchers are not for the full cost per student, so any that leave mean more per student can be spent for those who remain.

The pro argument on this is that the federal government has a larger tax base than state or local governments and povides for some equalization. The argument that what comes from Maryland should be spent in Maryland is an opinion. should the same be true for highway funds?

Actually, I have more compassion for a state like West Virginia, where funds are limited and the state's ability to raise revenue is limited, than I do for my home state of Texas. Poorer states is where some equalization is needed. Texas has a "cheap" educational system because it hasn't chosen to pay for anything better.

The con argument for federal funding is that programs lkie "No Child Left Behind" have been under funded and over mandated.

I think we agree on the mandate part.

I disagree on the idea of equalization.

Providing education in WV should be cheaper than providing education in MD, and should be paid for out of WV's revenue.

The 'equalization' should be from people moving out of WV and into some place that has jobs...until the population of WV drops to the point that WV's resources can support it's population. Interestingly, many people in the DC area are moving into west virginia for the low real estate costs and low taxes, and commuting 1.5h back into DC. Recipe for sprawl.

Another possibility for equalization that I'd support would be to disburse the revenue from Federal natural resources as a dividend, in equal shares, to all US Citizens, with perhaps a half share going to minor citizens. This would be similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, where all Alaskans receive a dividend from oil on state grounds. I have no idea how much such a Federal Dividend would be, maybe $1000. But $1000 goes alot further in Buckeye, WV than it does in Bethesda, MD.

Works for me


Idaho is no doubt quite a bit different from Texas, so I can understand our having different perspectives. Most cities and towns in Idaho are small, with the exceptions (from my perspective) of Boise (~180k), Nampa, Pocatello, and Idaho Falls (~50k), and maybe half a dozen others that have more than 20k.

Most schools here serve small communities, and the monetary waste is high. There are any number of schools here that have less than 100 students in them, and I'd say most have less than 300. Financially, it would make a lot of sense to me to combine school districts here and have some of the students be bussed in to their new school (within reasonable limits of distance), but when the State is paying for all education costs, nobody wants to give up their school, and without a profit motive for each school district, there's no incentive.

Privatization would take care of all that. Communities can keep their school if they want, but the costs of running it would be enormous. Or they can close the school, attend the next one over, and save a bunch on overhead costs per student.

This, I know, is only looking at the macro-economic view of things. The micro-economic view changes a few things. For the poor in Idaho/Texas, I wouldn't want to be put in the position where school went from costing maybe $100 (for supplies, etc.) to several thousand. I wouldn't be able to afford it for my kids, and I'm in Idaho's middle-class range. Even assuming prices dropped drastically due to economic forces, it wouldn't be enough to relieve the financial burden.

What would I do? I mentioned earlier the ideas of homeschooling, neighborhood education coalitions, etc. I think one of the biggest hurdles to overcome would be the mindset that it has to be done by trained professionals in a public environment if it's to be done right. But what I've seen here in Idaho is any number of conservative parents who are tired of the negative social issues that are permeating our school system, and have pulled out their kids to homeschool them. Surprisingly (maybe), these kids end up just as well educated and socially adjusted as their public-school counterparts.

As far as "watching those established wealthy find ways to negate the competition and create an environment in which they can get away with whatever they want", I guess I haven't really seen any of that, except maybe in the technology industries, where if it's going to work, it has to conform to established standards, and yeah, the wealthiest set the standards. Technology, by and large, is a comparatively difficult industry for new entrants to establish a viable business. I don't see education as being this way. Anyone with the time, the motivation, and a few resources could set up a small, but profitable, tutoring program, and scale it up as the profits come in. I really can't see any way for the established wealthy to drive out competition, except by lobbying for protectionist legislation, and that's a whole separate can of worms.

I will tell you, as a member of public education, that the NCLB has completely corrupted and warped the educational system. It provides more funding that the state uses to publish standardized tests and enforce their use. NCLB has committed kids of all ages to take a test yearly to (in my opinion) inaccuratley measure wether or not teachers are doing their job. That money could give teachers a salary they deserve. The starting salary in my district ranges from 36 to 43 thousand dollars a year. It is horrible and everyone knows it, they DESERVE more. It has also been shown that the amount of money used for NCLB's advertisement could put 3 teachers in every school in the country. That is too much money for something that shouldn't even be there. The federal government has no right to control teaching in 50 different areas of the country. Everyone learns differntly. NCLB is trying to force everyone to learn the same way and it is not going to happen. It's just not. I sincerely hope that someone in congress or politics can figure this out before it robs every child in the country of their birthright to learn.

I hate to go against the grain....but...

As You said yourself, starting salaries in San Antonio for teachers are $36K-43K. Think about this in terms of a 12 month year, where as most teachers work 10. That would mean if they worked all year long, they'd make $43.2K-51.6K in terms of a full work year.

That rivals starting salaries in many career paths here in Texas. I would venture that an income such as that is relatively strong in comparison to the economy of San Antonio.

Frankly, I believe where teachers don't get paid enough, is 5 or 10 years into their careers. Experienced teachers who've shown loyalty and dedication to their careers should be paid like the tenured professionals they are....

However, to discuss standardized testing, specifically in Texas, it is a necessary evil to act as a barometer of our school's success. How else can we tell how well our educators have done? All other jobs in the world have performance evaluations, and schools should have an objective and measurable means by which to do so.

If the state of Texas said that you could make $10K extra for meeting/exceeding standardized testing goals, don't you think that you'd change your mind??? I'm sure that there could be a means by which to improve the education of our children while keeping professional teachers.

I highly doubt that they could convince me to do this especially with money that just proves my point that they are blowing countless millions even billions of dollars on nonsense. NCLB needs to be dismembered and destroyed.

Does this argument ever get old. Just as the Constitution of the United States makes non-free persons 3/5s a person, so has tradition given teachers a part-time (5/6) job. Originally, teachers worked nine months a year. The three month summer vacation was originally designed so that kids would be available to work the family farm. The ten months teaches now work is a result of added student and worthless professional development days. I say "worthless," because I attended many of these where the captives not only didn't want to be there, but the presenters acted like they might fall into a deep sleep at any moment. I remember one assistant director of special education actually quoting multiple scriptures and practically teaching a Sunday School lesson during her hour or so general session time. Some of us complained to the union. The union reported her and she was told by higher administrators to knock it off.

Now getting back to teachers. Sorry aevans176 but teachers don't work "9 to 5" as Dolly Parton put it, nor is there a "Five O'Clock World" awaiting teachers "where no one owns a piece of our time" that the Vogues sang about. I would suggest that grading papers and making lesson plans, attending crap like open house and any number of other imposed duties, more than makes up for the two months off that teachers get. I think the root of the observations you have made is that some people just can't stand seeing someone else not working, especially if they are flying under the illusion that that person is getting paid for it. Some years ago, I started avoiding a waitress in a restaurant I frequented because she consistently asked me when I had to “go back." Other people also asked that annoying question. Nothing ever gave me any greater pleasure than replying "NEVER" when someone asked me that the year I retired--2002.

Further, I might point out that many teachers work second jobs and summer school to make ends meet. Other's compete with students for entry level summer jobs.

School districts in many places are now air-conditioned. Year-around-school might be an option. There are, however some problems here. First, going to school all year long would require more funding from somewhere (local/state/federal?) and that would include energy to run the air-conditioning in hotter months.

Second, I'm not sure students would learn anymore in 12 months than they do in 10. With the high pressure environment TAAS and now TAKS provides us and the rather real prospect that "No Child Left Behind" will create the same environment nationwide, both students and teaches need some time outside the pressure cooker.

Although it usually applies to clock time, I think the saying “the mind can’t comprehend what the seat can’t endure” can be modified to cover the length of the school year.

Next myth, please.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but after my father retired from the military, he taught school. I was also previously engaged to a 3rd grade plano teacher, and I have a strong understanding of how the education system works.

The reality is that school teachers may take work home, they may have conferences, and may stay after for tutoring, etc. I applaud any educator's passion for what they do, and know how really important it is. However, what you're missing is that most Americans don't work 9-5. Professional Americans often times work 50-60 hour work weeks in order to succeed. I can't even tell you anyone that I know who really works 9-5 and makes a decent living.... more like 7:30-6:00 (all 12 months/year)! ! Also, we don't get off for "school related holidays like:
Spring Break
Thanksgiving Break
Mardi Gras (yes, I'm from Louisiana)
Christmas Break
Federal Holidays (etc, etc)

That all being said, there is no "myth". It's just plain fact. Teachers do work hard during the time that they're in school. However, hour-for-hour, I'd make a strong gamble that most teachers end up working roughly 15-20% less than their professional counterparts in the business realm over the course of 12 months.

Teachers may take work home, but they left work at 3:30. They may stay for conferences, but that's only 2 times/week, etc. Not to be condescending, but very few teachers complain about their scheduling situations. Most business related jobs only pay 10-14 vacation days and 3 or 4 paid holidays. Let's round that up 18 day off/year. Teachers in Texas get a week off around Spring Break, Christmas, and 3 days around Thanksgiving. They often times get Presidents day, Memorial day, etc. Let's just say 2 weeks for arguments sake + summer break, which turns out to be roughly 2.5 months. Lets round up to 3 months total... which is very conservative.

Ok- that being said, Teachers might work long hours in some people's eyes. Let's take off one of those months.... which still leaves 10/12 months. Point made.

Your arithmetic fails you. If teachers are already working a 10 month contract, how does adding an extra month still come out to 10 months.

Many of the extras teachers perform that you attribute to dedication are mandated by building principals or some other administrator.

Other than your father and former fiance, I doubt you have had much contact with professional teachers--certainly not more militant models. (please don't tell me aevans176 that you had no idea that there were militant teachers. Proudly, I was one of them.) The example of your father is somewhat irrelevant. Someone with a military retirement can live off the income provided by a part time job easier than someone who doesn't already get a retirement check.

Attitudes like your would rip apart every thing teachers' unions have worked to achieve for decades.

If someone wanted to get off for all of these holidays then get a governmental job. These teachers may work less hour for hour but they also put forth the most effort in overtime and grading as well as making lesson plans, tests and essay sheets for students. They also form a very close and trustfilled relationship between them and their students adding to their conscience and workload. The amount of extra crap they deal with from superiors and punk kids thinking that they know everything + all the work they need to plan and grade and do, they work just as hard as proffesional jobs. They do in fact work 55-60 hours a week as well as no paid vacation or overtime. The amount of work they do is overwhelmingly more difficult and time consuming than almost any proffesional job.

Your argument in reference to pay lacks some objectivity. Yes, my father does earn a retirement check... heavy on the earn part. He's a retired Army Lt. Colonel w/ 26 years service. No one gave him that one... I've been in the Marine Reserves for nearly 4 years and know darn well that when I was activated that I was losing money. The military doesn't pay worth a darn either, take a look at http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/paytable2005-rev1.doc

These are military pay scales, of you will quickly see that an O-1 (a 2nd Lt) in the Army or Marines only makes $28116 as a base pay for the 1st two years. It's easy to understand that if they live on base you can also count that, and discounted meals, etc. However, it's surely not $43000. Go ask a Marine if he earns enough money... we chose the occupation, it didn't choose us.

However, my point resides in the fact that even if you argue a day or two (which most civilians don't get holidays in the fashion that teachers do), we still end up at the equation of 11/12 months. Realistically we could justify more, but why argue?

Let's take a median income of $40K for a starting teacher according to the figures used before. Under these guises, the same person working 12 months starting in the private sector would earn $43,636 the first year. Frankly, what you will find is that is very competitive to what people in the business sector earn right out of college. Look at Salary.com for re-assurance....

As I said before, what happens is that income doesn't change drastically as teachers become tenured. Someone that works hard for a company in the private sector for 10 years would ordinarily be compensated more generously than a teacher that had taught for the same period.

I wasn’t suggesting that your father hadn’t earned his military retirement. Only that it’s easier to make ends meet if you are already retired from another profession.

Further, the $43,000.00 figure is misleading.

Minimum teacher salaries in Texas are currently $24,240.00 and that rises to only $40,800.00 after twenty years experience. While San Antonio and other districts may pay more, many districts--particularly rural ones--don’t supplement salaries on a local basis. Hence, we see that the state average is below the beinning salary in San Antonio.

http://www.tcta.org/edmatters/salaries/salary.htm

Moreover, the average teacher salary in Texas is a couple of thousand dollars less than the figure for starting teachers in San Antonio.



http://texas.teachers.net/chatboard/topic7...5.09.18.17.html

Perry and those other Republicans in what Molly Ivins calls the “lege” seem to have put a lid on things.

That’s ok though. Those conservatives who whine (that word isn’t patented) about teachers’ salaries should listen to Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn:



http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/teachersalary04/

A few thoughts:

The Constitution does not provide for education, so it is clearly the purview of the States. However, argument could be made under "general welfare" for federal gov't to provide some resources... but this usually entails some sort of "hitch."

Private schools do exist, and most do a good job, although for a wide range of cost. Parents select schools based on what they can afford, and the school's performance, judged by college placement, standardized test scores, and private accrediting associations, which so far I haven't seen mentioned. These same agencies enforce standards on colleges, and accreditation can make or break a college's standing.

There is a danger in government imposed testing. Look at the controversy over the SAT. The same applies to gov't tests. Better to let parents choose their means of evaluation.

Most parents want the best for their kids and are capable of choosing a school. They already directly do so for college, and indirectly by choosing a school district. In fact, public school districting permits school choice already, but at much higher cost, since the parent must be able to afford to live in the right neighboorhood.

There is a public interest in a broad, well-educated citizenry that may justify some (gasp!) wealth redistribution. Get over it. The police are largely funded by weathy tax-payers, but do most of their work in poorer neighboorhoods, yet I don't think the wealthy would argue it is not in their interest to have them so employed. Similarly, everybody, esp business-oriented conservatives, benefit from a citizenry that is more employable and able to exercise better political judgements.

How could this manifest in an all-private school system? Vouchers. Every child receives some amount per year, limited for use on tuition or education materials for the home-schooled. Worst case, mom buys textbooks and sells them online... well, already different states have varying laws designed to make sure home-schooled kids are being educated.

This would help eliminate the vast gulf that currently exists between those who receive free, public education, and those wealthy enough to afford not only higher taxes but tuition for a private school. Not to mention the gulf between those in wealthier school districts and poorer districts.

The hardest part becomes managing the amount given per voucher. Something best managed by the state legislatures.