Friday, December 23, 2011
Sam Brownback and Kansas in the news
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
-
“The Leper,” by Lee Chang-dong1 hour ago
-
-
-
-
-
Cartoon: Jackass-in-the-box12 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pardons and Open Thread1 week ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
In Memorium1 year ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
8 comments:
In inflation-adjusted terms, we are spending far more on education than we used to. What are we getting for the extra?
What is the purpose of tenure for 2nd grade teachers? Why do they need even more job protection than other government workers?
Why should teacher's unions be able to scuttle new ideas that can help children succeed with fewer resources?
Well, first things first--welcome back. I trust you've been well.
Second, that may be, I don't know (that we pay more for education now in inflation-adjusted terms). I'll check it out.
That said, this man, Gov. Brownback is slashing education first, above nearly all else, to get to his budget balancing. And sure, states budgets have to be balanced and that makes sense. I'm certainly not against that. But I can tell you, beginning with school budgets is, I think, I colossal mistake and goes against the grain of the future of the state and of this children in that state.
As for tenure--I think we discussed teachers before and as I remember---I could easily be wrong--I'd swear you knew someone who was a teacher, whose insight you got. I hope so. That said, teachers having tenure is, I think, a good idea--if, in fact, they are a good teacher--so they aren't "played with" rather politically, as too often happens in schools particularly but with people, in general. Why you pick on and select out "2nd grade teachers" is anyone's guess. You think less of 2nd grade teachers than high school or college or something? Are the students less important or more irrelevant then? I can't tell. Finally, they need "more job protection than other government workers" because they are entrusted with the education of our children--no small feat or task.
On this last idea, you are far off base. Teacher's unions don't "scuttle new ideas", I can tell you. There are new programs that come through all the time. Sometimes the unions sponsor them themselves and other times, they pick them up either from the industry or from their own administrations. If the education industry has done anything in the last 50 years, it has been adopting new program after new program so this is really not an issue.
Again, welcome back. Good to hear from you. You haven't changed a bit, either. (And I swear I'm not being sarcastic).
My dad is a retired college teacher, Mom was briefly a junior high teacher.
A quick Google shows combined K-12 and college education is around 40% of state budgets. A meaningful set of cuts will have to include meaningful cuts to education. I believe cuts can be made without sacrificing quality of education.
Part of this would be to examine whether programs meet their stated goals, and cancel or modify the ones that don't--with measurable facts, rather than feelings. Is DARE even effective? Head Start? No Child Left Behind? Abstinence-only sex ed? I've seen credible claims that none of these programs have meaningful positive results.
Another part would be to prioritize the welfare of the students rather than that of the teachers. Unions are there to benefit the teachers. The reforms I've seen supported by the union all require more teachers. Unions have scuttled ideas like merit pay--even when offered on top of the wages already in the contract.
It is precisely because they are entrusted to educating our children that they should not get job protection if they fail to do that properly.
Right up front, I have to say, if cutting teacher's numbers is included so that teacher to student ratio is made worse (fewer teachers to more students), it's a recipe for failure of some sort.
Head Start has been proven effective, statistically. No Child Left Behind, however, is a nightmare--a bureaucratic, impossible, unrealistic nightmare, for sure. DARE? I don't know. I could research. I doubt it but don't know.
With the teachers from different school districts I speak with, the kids, the students are patently the first priority. It's what the teachers are there for, first and last. The paycheck is a lifeline, sure, and the unions important but the unions and their existence isn't the first reason the teachers I know are where they are and what they're doing.
While I support teachers and unions and teachers unions, all three, I've never, ever been for protecting a teacher or any group of teachers if they aren't doing their job properly so it's not like we disagree on that at all.
The (probably biased) source I read about Head Start said the gains were modest and temporary--the kids who didn't participate completely caught up within a few years. Despite the bias, this makes sense since I've seen other places where kids starting school quite late generally catch up surprisingly quickly. DARE delays average first use of drugs by mere months, and doesn't change eventual usage rates.
There are a lot of 'common sense' things that seem logical but aren't necessarily true. What we really need is competition. We need secular private schools that the poor and middle class can get to, schools that can try different ideas. Is there something that can substitute for low student to teacher ratios? Can we get good, dedicated teachers without tenure or paying a fortune? Does summer vacation make sense for non-farm families? Should we teach foreign language in high school or kindergarten--or at all? Does kindergarten itself provide lasting benefit, or would kids graduate high school with as much education if they started later? Does homework make sense?
There are ideas that I don't think are right for public schools, but that I think should be tried.
First, it's my opinion that there should only be public schools--you'll love this--because anything else is a system of "schools for the wealthy vs. everyone else" and it's patently slanted, biased, unfair and ugly. That perpetuates the wealthy get wealthier and everyone else get screwed.
And where do you get this "Can we get good, dedicated teachers without tenure or paying a fortune?" What an insult to every teacher in the country. There isn't one grade school teacher in the nation that makes more than a living wage. A fortune? How insulting, as I said, to teachers, let alone patently untrue.
What we do need to do in the country is stop trying to make all students perfect at everything. If a student is good at math or science or English or all 3, great, let them excel. If another student is lousy at those but is good at, say, electrical wiring or plumbing or woodworking or other technical skills, why not give them a minimum but good amount of reading and writing skills and then let them emphasize those things they're good at? That way they can make a good living, benefit themselves and society and still not have to jump all those hurdles they couldn't achieve anyway. We should stop assuming all children are and should be good--no, great---at everything. I'd think you'd agree on that.
Are you paid as much as you deserve? Almost nobody thinks they are.
Education is where I stray from the libertarian party line the most--we need mandatory education, and realistically there needs to be public funding. However, that doesn't mean that all these schools need to be *run* by the government--If the funding moves with the kids, then there is incentive to maximize benefits. Current levels of education funding could support a much more effective free market system--As you said, don't try to shove everyone into the 'college prep' box, rather have different schools doing different ideas.
Finland's schools, highly rated and get great results and all public:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
Post a Comment