Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
State’s schoolchildren are suffering
Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 | 2:06 a.m.
“It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of a lack of funding,” Gov. Jim Gibbons said in his State of the State address last week. “We need to quit throwing money at programs that haven’t worked and don’t work for our children.”
What hasn’t worked and doesn’t work for our children is throwing cliches and ideology at problems.
This question is not as complicated as it seems. What is a reasonable cost to educate a child? Most of the other states in our nation believe that it costs more than what we spend in Nevada. How do these other states pay for the generous investments they make to educate their children?
Forty-five states in our country have an effective state-level corporate tax rate of at least 5 percent. How long have zealous ideologues proclaimed that businesses would flee if we even considered any taxes on corporations? These corporations pay taxes almost everywhere else in the United States. How long have our children suffered some of the largest class sizes in the nation and parades of long-term substitutes in vital courses such as mathematics because of this outrageous lie?
The state of Nevada is not making a good-faith effort to provide quality education for its children. Apparently our children have no voice or heroes to stand up for them and say enough is enough. The greatest sins in Sin City are committed against its children.
The writer is a public school teacher.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Morning Patrick.
Self Respect. Nevada has none. It prostitutes itself to business and mining. Of course self respecting businesses choose to pay taxes in states which care for their families and employees.
Nevada politicians don't get this. We don't even need to pretend to give gibbons credit .
Well, some common sense is about to be attacked by every right wing kook that knows how to type in Nevada. True words, heartfelt sentiment, and unfortunately this person will be abused throughout the day,
Mr. Christenson. I truly believe you earn your paycheck. God Bless the teachers of Nevada.
Yes, it is the perfect time to tax businesses even more.
Those citizens that work in the private area just need to learn to be on unemployment.
Well said by an "on the battle line educator"; that is, a classroom teacher and not an administrator.
Too many people blame the woes of education entirely on teachers; "...it's too expensive, there are too many of them, we can't afford to give them a raise"...Carolyn Edwards; "We are proud of him (Walt Rulffes)...Carolyn Edwards;
Where has your money gone? As your trustees and Walt Rulffes...it is not for students, textbooks, paper supplies or for full time certified and licensed teachers...As your Trustees why and how they are spending your tax dollars.... Can you get a straight answser from any of them?
The first thing a prospective teacher learns when he starts college and takes Education 1A is to always chant the educators mantra, More money, more money, more money!
No one has ever established any correlation between educational spending and student achievment. The highest spending states, New York, New Jersey and Washington D.C. have some of the worst test scores and education results in the country. Utah is right at the bottom in per capata spending but has one of the best outcomes in education. Maybe Mr Christensen could write a few words and explain that to us.
Mr. Christensen questions what is the right amount to spend per student for education? According to the CCSD it is about $7600 per year, but according to other sources it is about $13,000 per year. If it were in fact $7600 per year, a class with 25 students would receive $190,000 per school year. Assuming $75,000 for teachers salary and benefits where is that other $115,000 going. Schools do not pay rent nor do they take depreciation on the buildings. The fact is the school district has too many people doing things unrelated to education. About 1/2 don't work in the classroom.
Mr. Christensen if they schools need more money they should justify where it will go and don't just parrot that drivvel you learned in Education 1A.
What is the order of school cuts:
1. Stop providing transportation. Let the parents get their kids to school.
2. Stop all athletics and sell off all the real estate that has football, baseball, soccer, track and field, etc.
3. Charge the teachers for parking their cars in the parking lots.
4. Charge rental fees similar to what businesses get charged for meeting rooms for various after school activities like robotics, chess club, etc.
5. Charge students for locker rental.
6. Close the cafeteria's at all schools. Let the kids brown bag it.
7. Double class sizes, layoff half the teachers.
8. Watch Las Vegas become a ghost town.
Of course Wailer Jeremy is a school teacher. He is worried that the union will be able to fully fund his pension.
Of course, the wailer's answer is to raise taxes on somebody else but don't cut expenses.
So Wailer Jeremy, what are the State's schoolchildren are suffering from?
Funding cuts are not about hurting children. The only ones whining are the teachers that will have to take pay cuts just like those who are paying the taxes to support them.
I may not ever again agree with anything jlb101 has to say, but I'm in accord with him here. The U.S. spends more on educating each and every student than nearly any country on Earth (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sp...). Where are the results of all this spending? NV ranks in the middle of all states when it comes to per student spending, but ranks dead last in graduation rates. Explain that. And please explain how pouring more money onto the problem is going to cure, or even ameliorate, the abject failure that is the Nevada education system.
God I hate it when I agree with nutjobs like Gibbons..
By the way, here is the left-leaning Roger Ebert's wise take on education in America: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/...
The above comments remind us that ignorance is so very blissful. A BALM for our Neo-Nut pals.
Turrialba;
Have no fear. Pat is whippin' up a whopper for us right this minute, deep inside the confines of his think tank. It's free for you and me, because Sheldon Adelson already paid for it.
If and when the citizens of Nevada abandon this state to move to other states to because they do not like the education and health care systems.
There loss will be our gain...
Hey, don't forget to write when you find work...
US Department of Education figures on per pupil spending, by state in nominal and real dollar figures from 1959 to 2007
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/t...
Every state has increased funding much higher than inflation. Have the results changed? No
You can check the results here: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
For more reasons why read here:
http://npri.org/blog/does-more-spending-...
http://npri.org/blog/what-if-we-increase...
The first article shows that spending and student achievement are not correlated. The second shows that even if it was correlated the relationship that exists would require Nevada to drastically increase spending just to reach the median achievement level in 4th grade reading.
Here is the better way: http://npri.org/publications/failure-is-...
Major education reforms like what Florida tried.
More on Florida's results:
http://npri.org/publications/frivolous-i...
To put it in perspective, Florida's low-income Hispanic students now outperform Nevada's statewide average of all students on the NAEP 4th grade ENGLISH reading exam.
At some point you all have to start asking yourself "what has funding the status quo done for our community"
http://npri.org/publications/a-voice-for...
"Spending more money and reducing class sizes only funds a broken education system," says Colon. "If you want to reform education you have to have an open mind. You have to think outside the box."
You don't have to take my word for it:
Black Alliance for Educational Options
http://www.baeo.org/
Hispanic Council for Reform and Education Options
http://www.hcreo.org/
Democrats for Education Reform
http://www.dfer.org/
DC Parents for School Choice
http://saveschoolchoice.com/
Step Up For Students (Florida's low-income tuition scholarship program)
http://www.stepupforstudents.org/
Alliance for School Choice
http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/
The Foundation for Education Choice
http://www.edchoice.org/Welcome.do
Patrick: As usual you are using statistics to push your agenda.
Here are the questions that need to be addressed, not the solution driven by studies you are always throwing around. They are useful, those studies, but do not tell but a small percentage of the overall picture.
1. Do we pay enough to our teachers (in all ways - climate, cost of living, ability to increase pay, etc) enough to attract the most creative and talented teachers the country has to offer?
2. Do we have a way for our system to deal with the new large annual influx of Non-English speaking students?
Des Moines Iowa has a problem with this too, but nowhere near the size of our problem.
3. If we are going to have a zero tax on corporations that means we have to have a way of financing education that is immune to political fever and the "hot potato" disturbance it has become.
There are more, but they require people to suspend their idiotology and behave like adults. So I will stop wasting my time now...
I see many of the right-wing "I don't want to spend a single penny on education" nuts are out in full force this morning....no surprise there.
Several on this board would have you believe that, with out exception, those states who spend the most on education have the worst test scores.
They also point to Utah, who spends next to nothing on education, and they maintain that what Utah does, every state should & can do....
States such as Massachusetts, spend more on education than the national average, & are near the top in test scores......that's not by accident! Contrary to what some people believe, you get what you pay for when it comes to education..
Utah, on the other hand, is an exception to the rule. States such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, & Oklahoma are down near the bottom of the list when it comes to both test scores and money spent... No surprise there....
I'm surprised we haven't heard Gibby's rant on education as yet. Of course several of his buddies are attempting to "hold down the fort" until Gibby arrives...
The easy thing to do is knock public education and complain that school already spend too much money. A much more difficult thing to do is to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem...
In other words, public schools are just that...public schools. They are available to all students regardless of race, gender or ethnic background. They represent what is good & what is not so good about a democratic-republic.
It's up to each individual student, and that student's parents, to decide if they wish to do what is necessary in order to receive a good education.
A majority of the public school students across this country benefit from a public school education......some do not for various reasons and some of those students probably shouldn't even be in school.
That being said, parents who wish to enroll their children in a private school have the option of doing so....That's called choice! Right-wingers love to talk about choice but many times it's just talk...
I repeat what I have said many times before.......go volunteer at a school near you. If you have kids attending a school in your neighborhood, become involved in their education.....The more interest you have in their education, the more interest and the more positive out look they will have toward learning.....
More to come.....
Is there a shortage of teachers anywhere?
Patrick--if there is not statistically signficant relationship between spending and scores as you assert, then your graph showing the increase in spending on scores in NV has no meaning. Any change in score would be random, and we have an equal chance of landing on the observed scores.
More.....
In short, many of those who are complaining about public education haven't been in a public school since before the great flood...Yet they will try to tell you what is wrong with the system...
They believe that teachers are over-paid and under worked. They believe such silly things as teachers getting paid for 12 months of work but only working 9 months. They also believe that teachers are paid for numerous holiday's such as President's Day, Thanksgiving, Veterans Day, Martin Luther King Day, & Christmas. The false beliefs go on and on....
I think you get the drift...Those that talk the loudest and complain the most, know the least....
@gmag39:
He did not disappoint--so many links to studies today.
Turri,
That is right, an increase would likely occur at random or because of something else. I mention that. I'm very careful to say that there is no relationship but if there was one - (which people on the "spend more" side clearly believe there is one) what would the result be.
Spending over $20,000 per pupil would net us a Reading score of 216 - hardly any better than what we score now. Of course this wouldn't happen because the relationship is not statistically significant. That was merely a thought exercise based on the existing evidence.
Alternatively, any score would be equally probable if funding were cut by one-half, or three-quarters.
Jeff,
You're using statistics too but I think you've focused on the wrong ones. You're looking at inputs not results. We need to fund what works, not simply fund inputs.
But as for your input concerns, teacher pay in Nevada is not bad, ranking 17th when controlling for pensions, experience, and cost of living http://www.johnlocke.org/spotlights/disp... Both major teacher unions also rank Nevada's teacher pay favorably.
Not that it matters when it comes to student achievement or the quality of the teacher. The book "Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality" has shown that paying teachers more money does not result in better teachers, we simply pay more to recruit from the same pool of applicants. To get better teachers we need a major overhaul of the education of teachers and certainly some more alternative teacher programs (competition never hurts).
As for Hispanic students, as my link above shows, Florida does just fine with a large Hispanic population. Their Hispanic students outperform the statewide average of all students in 15 states on the NAEP English reading exam.
Corporate taxes are highly volatile so they make a bad stable funding source for any government activity. All taxes are going to have some volatility -- we have good times and bad times. We need a financing system that works with that business cycle and that means schools need to be free to control their own budgets and save for the future.
Turri,
Maybe, maybe not. Based on the data available and assuming the relationship exists where it does not, lost funding would result in a very minor loss in test scores just as it showed a very minor increase in test scores.
We know schools did just fine in 1959 for about $3,000 per pupil. We also know that Estonia educates its students for about $3,000 adjusted for PPP and Estonia's students score better on math and science on the PISA than American students (and Nevada's students are already below average there).
Jeremy is saying exactly what Barbara Buckley and other legislators have for a while--we must invest in education if our state is going to prosper.
PS Turri,
Dropping education funding to $0 would not result in 0 education. It would mean a budget cut of $2.5 billion for the biennium which is almost half of all taxes. Meaning the private sector would have a lot of money and that would most likely mean higher wages and disposable income. With no public funded education, and a need for education still, it is quite obvious that a private sector would grow to provide education.
(and considering private schools are being set up in Africa costing very, very little and even outscoring the public schools there we can also assume that the poor would have their own schools to attend). Competition for 420,000 students statewide would also drive down the cost of private school tuition in the state).
This is not a solution I'm suggesting at the moment, however, just a note that funding education at $0 won't result in no education as some might argue.
LarryVegas said...
"Is there a shortage of teachers anywhere?"
I would say no due to the present recession. Of course, before the arrival of our present recession, the Clark Country School District always opened the school year with a shortage of teachers....... Some years as many as 400-500 teachers short across the district...
Permanent subs, increasing class size, and convincing teachers to teach an extra class was normally the way the district attempted to solve the problem...
Patrick:
That last statement no sense and doesn't follow the previous.
If there is no statistically signficant relationship between spending and scores, then there is an equal probability that any change in spending could result in an increase or a decrease in scores.
I have serious reservations regarding comparisons of Nevada to Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania on any topic including the weather.
kevjohn said "The U.S. spends more on educating each and every student than nearly any country on Earth" and we are slipping in results compared to the rest of the world. It occurs to me that I hear the same regarding health care, we spend more than anyone else but don't deliver a very good performance there either.
My question is WHY??? What is the common denominator? Is is government, politics, personal accountability? Seems to me that something is fundamentally wrong. Identify that, fix that and expect progress.
Turri,
Doesn't matter, The United States spends more on education than most nations on the planet yet it is still behind on results. If Nevada was its own European nation we too would be at the top of the list on spending and the bottom of results. Sure there are problems with controlling for certain variables, but even when you do that you still come up with no statistically significant correlation between spending on public education and results.
Patrick--Your postscript makes no sense.
"competition for 420,000 students statewide would drive down the cost of private school."
If the quantity demanded for private schools exceeds that supplied, then prices will rise. You need to have more seats than students.
By providing a voucher to a student, we would see a change in demand where prices would rise simply because the cost of school has fallen because of the voucher (less out of pocket $$$ needed to attend private school).
Patrick--you are making even less sense than usual.
According to your own statements, spending is not a reliabile predictor of test scores--therefore (other things equal) I can reduce spending and I have no idea what will happen to test scores (could go up, could go down).
If we went to $0 in funds today, price would initially rise until the supply could meet the demand. After that competition between the private schools, as competition does between other goods, would keep prices down and may even push them lower. If we never had public schools to begin with, a private school education in Nevada would be fairly cheap already.
Prices for tuition at private schools in Nevada are higher than they otherwise would be if they had 420,000 customers to tap into rather than the very low amount it is now (less than 20,000 I believe).
Most voucher programs are set up in a way that sets a maximum price with schools not allowed to charge more to the student if they accept the voucher. I prefer tax credits because they do a better job controlling costs. Even still, vouchers are cheaper than existing public schools.
Simply put, why do you think private schools area already cheaper than public schools?
I guess I have to ask this question. How many home-schooled students failed the mandatory tests? What is the pass percentage compared to those educated in public schools? That's the comparison I want to see. Our education system lags because our family support structure is deficient. We can burn hundred dollar bills to heat the schools and it won't change a thing until the family support system works better.
Gibby....
I had to laugh when I read your post. Your statement saying that:
"Meaning the private sector would have a lot of money and that would most likely mean higher wages and disposable income. With no public funded education, and a need for education still, it is quite obvious that a private sector would grow to provide education"
is the biggest bunch of "horse hockey" that I have read in a long, long time.
First of all, more money in the private sector does not mean that everyone will receive higher salaries.....there's no proof of that...
The Gilded Age says just the opposite...."the rich simply got richer..."
Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Hill, etc....
Also, if one checks our history, going back to the colonial period, it's quite evident that the absence of public schools did not encourage massive growth in private school education.
Look at the ante-bellum South. It had NO public education system in the years before the Civil War. The rich sent their children to boarding schools in the North or brought private tutors to plantations to educate their children.
The average Southern family often tried to teach their children at home, but the literacy rate in the southern states before the Civil War was some where around 15-20%.
The average confederate soldier could not read or write. In other words, the absence of a public school system in the South DID NOT encourage the rise of a private school system...
The mistake that you ALWAYS make is that you think that competition and a "free market" will solve all problems...
If everything was that simple...Wow! Wow!
El Lobo,
You're historical interpretation is way off. The so called gilded age saw one of the most rapid expansions of wealth in the world up to that time. The middle class exploded. The socialist stories we hear today exist only becuase their became such a sharp contrast between the haves and have nots.
We went from 90% of the country being have nots to less than half. You don't pull half your country out of poverty and suggest it was a horrible period unless you totally screw up your understanding of history.
PS, free markets and capitalism don't solve everything. Free markets and capitalism are just the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resources to their most valued uses - that in turn has resulted in an explosion in wealth across the world.
Patrick--
You are confusing cost with price. The price for a student to attend a public school is zero. Costs are paid by the body of taxpayers
The price of private schools is whatever the tuition is. (a parent pays both tuition for the school) The parent pay school taxes not matter what. A public school is always cheaper under this scenario.
Gibby said:
"We know schools did just fine in 1959 for about $3,000 per pupil."
Are you going to tell me that figure is based on today's dollars? In other words, inflation has been factored in....Do I have that right?
Do you have a link or two to back-up what you're saying?
Turri,
I'm not confusing cost and price I know the difference. Cost or price, private schools are cheaper on average.
Cost btw, is the labor, resources, buildings etc. THe price is the tution or the taxes taxpayers pay. Taxes are not a cost, but tax collection is - that is another story.
Let me ask you a question for once. What are your ideas for education?
EL Lobo,
I do have the figures: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/t...
As you can see there has been an inrease of more than 160% PER PUPIL after adjusting for inflation (without inflation it has been about a 1,800% increase in per pupil spending).
For this particular chart it is 2008 dollars.
Patrick--I am struggling with your statistics and history today.
What is the basis for concluding that 90 percent of the US was living in poverty prior to the guilded age?
Ghost, yes but there is no statistical relationship.
Turri, it seems to be well understood that the average American was poor in the 17th, 18th and 19th century. Large sums of Americans engaged in sustenance farming and most of the private sector was dedicated to farming. I don't think anyone would argue that Americans got rich and then became poor again because of industrialization. The fact is 1) industrialization created wealth moving many out of poverty which in turn A) showed the disparity between haves and have nots and B) created enough wealth (like food) that allowed more poor to live where they otherwise would have died out before).
Industrialization didn't create more poor, it created a more visible poor.
Are you suggesting that poverty increased during industrialization?
Turri are you going to talk about your ideas on how we can improve education? I'd like to hear them.
Gibby....
Your interpretation of history is funny at best. Your statement that:
"The so called gilded age saw one of the most rapid expansions of wealth in the world up to that time. The middle class exploded. The socialist stories we hear today exist only because their became such a sharp contrast between the haves and have not's"
is "cherry picking" the facts and making up the rest...
The middle class did not explode. Far from it....Yes, the wealth of the United States increased ten fold but the average American did not share in the increasing wealth. That's one reason labor unions started to become part of the landscape....
To say that the "socialist stories of today" are fabricated is total nonsense... Your knowledge of history is scary at best....
Hmm.....it appears you have been watching too much FOX NEWS!
During the Gilded Age, less than 1% of the population controlled 95% of the nation's wealth. The "Captains of Industry" such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Hill, and Frick, called the shots.
Contrary to what you believe, the average American worker lived in abstract poverty and the working and living conditions that they and their families lived in was horrendous at best.
Wages did not stay-up with inflation and the nations' new wealth was not passed on to the people who were mainly responsible for creating that wealth. The average worker put in 12-14 hours a day & the work week was always six days.
No workman's benefits (health insurance or retirement) and a worker who became sick, injured or died on the job was simply and quickly replaced...
I believe you're the guy who told me that Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist....Right? That really sums you up!
Your statement saying that "free markets and capitalism don't solve everything" is simply amazing, coming from you. I must say, however, that you don't really believe that....
This is why we need to limit the centralization of government power. Your interpretation of history is exactly the opposite of what happened. Wages did not fall and unions did not rush in to save the day. Unions protected their own high skilled labor. Unions did not protect the poor.
We need to go back to state based experiments. That way Californians can sink California without sinking everyone else. Better yet, further decentralization will allow El Lobo and people who think like him, to have their own policies fulfilled without forcing me to pay for ideas which I think are fundamentally flawed and illogical. Let the best idea win.
PS, the private sector came up with health insurance as a result of the government tax code. It was not created by unions. Unemployment insurance was also run by the private sector until the early 20th century.
Government created the 40 hour work week when the average American already worked 38. They created the minimum wage when workers were already earning that and incomes had already been on the rise. They outlawed child labor when the market had almost completely done away with child labor already. And yes, safety had been improving for some time before government intervention (though you get some nice anecdotes).
And I don't watch Fox News, in fact, I don't watch TV.
Gibby....
The "enclosure movement" in England is what drove many Englishmen from farming the land into the cities....They had lost their ability to make a living from the land due to a change in government policy. They flocked to the cities looking for jobs, despite the fact that many of the jobs that they found, forced them to live in abstract poverty....
The Industrial Revolution started in England and later spread to the United States. Samuel Slater was the one person most responsible for bringing the industrial revolution to this country. Of course, Slater brought the "know-how" to this country. and Moses Brown had the money needed to get the ball rolling....
We actually have had two industrial revolutions.....one that started in the 1830's & another one right after the Civil War.
As a rule industrial (growth) progress leaps far ahead of economic, political or social progress in terms of the working population. That was true in not only England but the United States as well.
When I say economic progress, I'm talking about the increase in worker's wages and benefits staying up with the industrial growth and the increased wealth of the country as a whole...
The Captains of Industry would NEVER have increased the wages of their workers if they had not been forced to do so...
That was why the establishment of labor unions was so important...That's one reason the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt was so important. He was the first president to recognize that labor unions were a good thing for America...
My guess is that you don't agree with anything that I have said but what's new?
Gibby.....
Sorry but my take on history & your take on history are far, far apart......
I disagree with most of what you said about labor unions and unemployment insurance. To my knowledge, unemployment insurance didn't exist until labor unions and the government got involved.
You said:
"They (government) created the minimum wage when workers were already earning that and incomes had already been on the rise. They outlawed child labor when the market had almost completely done away with child labor already."
Sorry but I don't agree.... Many workers were not earning more than what the minimum wage was when the government stepped in and created a minimum wage law......far from it!
Child labor had not disappeared when government legislation stepped in to out law it... That's simply "free market" ranting by you....
Labor unions didn't jump in when wages fell....the wages had never been there in the first place. Yes, early labor unions tended to worry and work for only skilled workers, but that changed as time went on...
Look at the United Mine Workers of America. Look at the National Labor Union.....they both included skilled and unskilled workers in their ranks... both were organized before 1900.
Yep, its not hard to figure out what you're going to say ahead of time...Your blinded love for a complete "free market system" and your disdain for government is predictable, but sad!
Lobby....
Are you saying that government intervention created a problem for the English?
You make unwarranted statements like "the captains of industry would never have increased the wages of workers if they ha not been forced to do so.."
Who do you consider the captains?
Really businessmen created empires like Henry Ford. He didn't need the union strong arming his operations. He increased pay because turnover was too high. That free market principle is how you raise wages, not through business crushing union activity.
Not every job is worth $50k but let real economic principles fix problems instead of government manipulation that usually ends in disaster.
El Lobo,
Disagree if you will, but the private sector had unemployment insurance before government and unions. Unions do not help the poor, this is why the successful unions worked with high skilled people and often worked to keep low-skilled people out. It is also why unions started out with fairly xenophobic and racist policies.
Child labor declined rapidly without government intervention for good reason. It made more sense for students to get an education than work and help sustain the family. Mom and dad were able to make enough money to feed the family and kids could get a better return on their future income by getting an education. Child labor was at its peak when many Americans were subsistence living, just as it is today with parts of the developing world.
I could say you have a blind love for big government and unions, but that wouldn't be a reasoned argument -- no matter how unwilling you are to shake off old tired myths.
Ghost it was a 62% to 38% margin and the campaign was paid almost entirely by out-of-state unions who didn't want the people of Utah to see the benefits. As with that statistic, most of your other points are without merit.
The Milwaukee Voucher program is less expensive to educate a student than the traditional public school.
Charter schools are public schools and therefore attending a public school doesn't mean you attend a private school.
Most studies on charter schools that use randomization and compare apples to apples (charter schools to public schools in the district) find that charter school students do marginally better at a lower cost. Even if Rand said there is no difference you get the same results for less money. Still sounds like a win-win.
I'd have to say, Pat has taken a beat-down today!
I just came back from Phoenix, Arizona, where I heard all about their "wonderful" charter schools. HA!
In addition to their academic shortcomings, there is a LOT of corruption and graft in the Charter School business.
p.s....
Arizona not only has a state tax, Phoenix's SALES TAX is going up to 10%. OUCH. That 10%, by the way, is on EVERYTHING. Food & clothing included.
Too many students arrive at college lacking the most basic reading, writing and math skills. The good news is that for some reason these skills can be imparted rapidly to these students, accomplishing in one or two semesters what was not in 12 years.
1. Real Standards (" I can fail every test and still get a passing grade");
2. Lousy Teachers (the women's rights movement sapped a major source of talent from the schools--(prior to this movement women had two choices--become a nurse or become a teacher, before becoming a mom)--good help was had on the cheap. Now we have to pay to get real talent and expand the pool workers.
3. Lousy Teachers--Too much time is spent in the education departments on the theory of how kids learn and not enough on what the kids learn. If these theories and practices are so great, why don't the kids learn. Maybe because the teachers are not teaching anything. The teachers need a product to sell (math, English, history, etc.)The education departments in colleges should be held accountable--close them down and start anew.
4. Lousy Parents--Many parent don't respect the teachers and so why should their children? Wake up mom and dad. Your kids should work hard at school just as you do at work and not mouth off to the boss.
5. Ethos of education--Kids are not stupid. They see through the cheap and phony attempts to build self-esteem among students through meaningless rewards of bs tests. Kids will respond through real achievement from work as is the case in the workforce.
6. Limit multiple choice tests. Yeah, I know the standardized tests are all multiple choice. They are stupid tests which have more to do with confidence and knowledge of how to defeat the format (not cheat, defeat). Make the kid better than the test.
7. Make kids read actual books--too many go through school without having read a real book--textbooks are not real books--sorry. I managed to conquer Shakespeare, Hemingway, Twain, Steinbeck and others in high school. The reason why is that we were introduced to real books in 4th and 5th grade--Treasure Island. If a parent had a problem with a book, they could go to the library and choose another--lots of books in the library.
8. Make the kids do real math--learn the multiplication tables, learn how to make change, learn how to do fractions. Solve the stuff on paper. Screw multiple choice in a math class.
9. Essays, reports, and term papers are fine. Yeah, they are subjective, So is life (get over it)
10. Better work environment teachers--smaller classes; no excuses for too many essays to grade.
11. Focus resources--keep the scope of education narrow and limited. As is the true in war, concentrate resources on the point of attack (reading, writing, math, history).
12. A clean well-lit workplace with adequate resources.
I am getting really reactionary in my old age
El Lobo said "The mistake that you ALWAYS make is that you think that competition and a "free market" will solve all problems...
If everything was that simple...Wow! Wow!"
I'll give that a big AMEN!
Ghostcommander said " A thousand bloggers could refute all their lies, but they would continue on posting the same old twisted and distorted junk."
I'll give that a big AMEN!
Patrick says "Most studies on charter schools that use randomization and compare apples to apples (charter schools to public schools in the district) find that charter school students do marginally better at a lower cost. Even if Rand said there is no difference you get the same results for less money. Still sounds like a win-win."
You are losing your grip, there, Pat. Does the pole that you slide down deep into your think tank on have grease all over it? I'm starting to hear an echo effect...
jr99....
What are we going to do with you?
Yes, government policy in England during the 18th century encouraged a change in the way public land was being used....
Small plots of government land, that had been traditionally used by individuals as farm land, was consolidated into larger parcels and sheep raising became the benefactors of this change. The wool industry became big, big business....
The government could make more money by allowing the land to be used as grazing land for sheep than it ever made by allowing the land to be used as farm land...
Historians often call this change the "Enclosure Movement." It changed the make-up of English society for ever....
Driven off the land, many farmers were forced to move to the cities and seek jobs in the many factories that had sprung up due to the industrial revolution...
The jobs created by the industrial revolution were often dirty, dangerous and almost always low paying, but a low paying job was better than no job at all.
After a few years, the labor movement started with workers attempting to band together for better pay, better working conditions, and shorter work days..
The government, for the most part, refused to give the unions a fair shake and management treated workers who joined unions as the scum of the earth...Join a union and you lost your job! The owners of the factories often used "strike breakers" to crush the unions and force workers to go back to work.
As time went on, however, the Liberal/Labor Party in the House of Commons took up the cause of the workers and little by little, laws were passed that favored the rights of the workers... One of the first areas to see change was the laws dealing with child labor.
Much of this scenario was repeated once the Industrial Revolution came to the United States... The National Labor Union and the Knights of Labor were early labor unions that fought for their members and little by little brought about reform.....
America's middle class, as we know it, owes a great deal to the many labor unions that have been organized in this country......Conservatives hate to admit that, but what's new?
jr99 said.....
"Who do you consider the captains?
Really businessmen created empires like Henry Ford. He didn't need the union strong arming his operations. He increased pay because turnover was too high. That free market principle is how you raise wages, not through business crushing union activity."
First off, historians normally consider "Captains of Industry" to be such people as Vanderbilt, Carnegie. Rockefeller, Hill, Morgan, Frick, and Ford. There's others...
Matter of fact, some historians call them something other than "Captains of Industry." They refer to them as "Robber Barons." That is, in some ways, a better description...
I guess I would have to say that they were a necessary evil....Ha! Ha! Actually they did much good for this country (and themselves...) but they often got out of control. Teddy Roosevelt saw that early on...
Actually Henry Ford did not increase the wages of his workers because of high turn-over....simply not true. There was always a long line of workers ready to step in if one of Henry's workers quit or got fired.... They seldom did. Working at a Ford plant was considered a great, great job!
Henry paid his workers a very good wage knowing that they wouldn't dare join a union and maybe get fired. He also knew that he could get a lot out of them when push came to shove and he did...
Henry was ahead of his time in some respects. He realized early on that if he was going sell millions and millions of his cars, he needed to pay his workers a good enough wage that they could buy the cars that they were making. He was also a master at cutting production costs.
Henry was paying his workers $5.00 a day when the average wage of other similar factory workers was $2.50 a day...
During the early days of the Ford Motor Company, Henry had his way with everything, but competition caught-up with Henry, and his refusal to change directions and move forward caused him much grief...
His anti-Semitic beliefs and his out spoken opinions hurt him from a business stand point. The Jewish community started to look upon Henry as someone that they had rather not do business with....
El Lobo:
If memory serves me, with respect to Ford, the competition introduced different colored cars--all of Ford's were black.
Very good history.
Turrialb......
Yes, you are correct! The story goes that the Ford Motor Company said that a buyer of a Ford automobile could order a new car in any color they chose as long as the color was black... Ha! Ha! Ha!
Henry also refused to include such things as wind-shield wipers; brake lights; and new safety brakes on all of his models.....his competitors were doing just that. The older Henry got, the more stubborn he became.
He went to Europe for a small vacation and his chief engineers literally built a new car while he was gone. It was a "state of the art" vehicle and would have moved the company to the head of the line once it was put into full production.
Henry returned from Europe and went into a rage once he saw the car. He took a sledge hammer and literally destroyed the car. He also fired one or more of the engineers who designed the car....
I just look at CA and NY which spend more than most states yet has little to show for it. But is never mentioned in these discussions is how much of the money actually reaches the class room and the teacher? Often very little. We don't need more money for more district managers, mid level bureaucrats or administrative people. We don't need fancier offices, or executive trips, we don't need bigger bonuses for school district officers.
Any new revenue needs to go right to the class room and no where else.
Sadly, this rarely happens. And spending more makes many do gooders feel better and it's an easy answer to always say all our problems will go away with enough taxes. Honestly, it really means little if most of the money is spent before it reaches the students, and even then it means nothing if you think the kids will do better if we just replace everything with high tech gear.
Mostly we need to let teachers teach and get out of their way, we need to get our kids and parents back to a place where every person does not get awards for showing up and red pens are not the enemy. Students need to be held accountable and teachers need authority. We need to get all the PC crap out of the classroom and stop trying to use our students as political pawns.
We need to stop buying books based on political ideology and instead focus on if the content is fair and neutral. We need to allow for the fact that most schools are about warehousing kids stop pretending that we are teaching then to be free thinkers while at the same time forcing them to loose creativity and into conformity.
And we need to accept than not everyone learns the same, thinks the same or has the same beliefs and that is a good thing.
Hey Patrick, don't go bringing facts with citations into this discussion with NSEA members. That really annoys them when you have these "tables" and "charts" showing how much money they blow while returning near nothing if anything in performance for that cash.
The state's schoolchildren ARE suffering, but it's not from lack of funding. It is from the status quo garbage and our "for profit" public schools.
BTW... if you REALLY want to see a ghost town (save casinos and whorehouses), just go ahead with that business tax.
"The writer is a public school teacher"
> Oh... it all makes sense now. What an idiot.
"Forty-five states in our country have an effective state-level corporate tax rate of at least 5 percent."
> Yes, and they are all broke as are their school systems. The states with the least taxes are not broke - are you making the connection? As a CCSD employee, I don't figure you are because it's way over your head. Since you don't understand this simple concept, realize that businesses don't pay taxes anyway. You instantiate a 5% tax, they raise their prices by 10% (to cover the tax plus administration fees, etc.) - (and 10% is pretty optomistic) and they pass it on to everyone. If you paid $20 for dinner tonight, then you'll pay $2 more with a business tax.
"Most of the other states in our nation believe that it costs more than what we spend in Nevada."
> Well Utah spends a lot less and gets a lot more - perhaps YOU are part of the problem.
"We need to quit throwing money at programs that haven't worked and don't work for our children."
> Jeremy, you seem to me like the kind of guy that watches the Superbowl over and over on your TIVO thinking that the Colts are going to win "this time" (ROFL) Let's give the CCSD another blank check, SURELY it's got to work THIS TIME.
The best part of this whole article is that even if the CCSD, NSEA and the other thugs succeeded in sticking us with every tax in the world, Jeremy would still be making the same amount not realizing that they had the money to pay him more all along, but found that the best way to ask for more money every 2 years was to pay him less and use him to write boo hoo newspaper editorials.
carbonware,
I agree, I have two boys. My oldest is in kindergarten and was reading before he started and can already add (as man digits as he wants), subtract, multiply, and use variables. My preschooler reads many words and can add small numbers and both of them were easy to teach. I agree that increased funding will solve nothing but I strongly believe that parents are the key. Not parents that think the schools need to do all the work but the parents that take a little time to teach.
NO NEW TAXES!!!!! Once grades improve and kids in Nevada are excelling, THAN WE CAN TALK MONEY!!! Isn't that how it works in the real world?
However, we need to help our children by helping our children.
Parental involvement is very important when talking about children receiving a good education.
One of my friends, who teaches, says that he greatly dislikes the Open House that his school has each year.....
His take on the Open House is the fact that he always sees the parents of his kids that are doing very well in his class, and seldom, if ever, sees the parents of the kids that are struggling in his class....
He says it's nice to talk with the parents who show-up, but more times than not, he has talked with them several times previously....
That in a nut shell says it all....Educating a young student is a two-way street. The teacher is only 1/2 of the equation... The other half is the parent!
Too many parents believe that they have done their job once they see their kid get on the bus each morning, headed for school...
Many of those same parents believe that if their kid is failing or doing poorly in school, then it must be the fault of the school... It can't be anything that they have or have not done....
El_Lobo,
you are so right.
Lack of parental involvement is EPIDEMIC in Las Vegas. What a shame.
Blaming "the system" is just silly. Yes, there are a few bad apples, but in general, teachers work hard and CARE about all of their kids.
Parents also are very transient in Las Vegas, moving around the district, dragging their kids with them to different schools; there is no continuity and it is very difficult on the children to have to adjust, and consequently, they are always behind. Yep, it takes a village, and it all starts in the home. Or not.
go to the KIA dealer in town and look at their cheapest car. then go to the LEXUS dealer and look at any model. are you smart enough to pick out the car that represents your school system? you get what you pay for and as long as the state of nevada is populated by cheap bastards, your school ststem is in the toilet.
Actually there dippy, I would go to neither. I would go to a Ford, GM or Chrysler dealership.
Is some ways you are correct. We have been paying for a Lexus but end up with a KIA.
Hey dippy, what are doing up so early? Or did you just get in from a hard night out???
Turri,
Good to see you have some reasonable reforms.
The education departments have done a terrible job educating future teachers. That needs reform. Good strong standards area always a plus.
More reading and math learning sounds good. But how do we get it?
How do you make better parents?
How do you ensure resources are used effectivly?
Saying "what you pay for is what you get" doesn't apply to government.
Government isn't subjected to the competition and pressure that encourages companies in the private sector to improve their products and keep prices low.
Often times with government we just pay more for the same results. The proper analogy is this:
"Paying $100,000 for a Kia won't make it do the quarter mile in 10 seconds. You just have a $100,000 Kia and lost $90,000 worth of other goods and services"
Spending more does not mean a better education will result.
Public schools are an OPTION and parents can place their kids in another school if they so choose. Expecting tax payers to fund everything is unfair.
Cut public education spending, and lower taxes. With the additional money parents can have more money to spend where they choose.
Many kids are failing because of home life. Expensive schools will not change that.
Patrick:
Did you really think I would have unreasonable list of reforms?
If you can read, write and do math, you can do anything--most of all you can retool and new tools for rest of your life. This is the 21st century and the world is way too competitive of a place.
How is it that a community college can accompish with modest resources in one year, what a public school cannot in 12?
Nick, parents can't pick another public school unless 1) the buy a new house and get a new zone 2) the school fails to make AYP 3 years in a row and the parents send in the variance request in time or 3) they're lucky enough to get a variance request approved (more common up north than down here from what I here).
Open enrollment will be a nice feature to have. We don't have that yet.
Turri,
It is always possible. But how do we improve math and reading? We can create tougher standards and get better teachers, but is that enough?
How can community colleges do in 1 year what K-12 cannot? That is a good question and I think I may have an answer. What do you think it is?
Pat, I meant they can choose a private school. If we spent less on public and they saved on taxes, they would have more money to make a private decision.
And yes, when you buy a house or rent a place look at the school. Dont expect to rent in a cheap place and use expensive schools funded by property tax of the people who made an informed choice.
We can't fix the social problems which the schools are only a symptom.
In terms of the community college question, two things happen. The student finds out that the grades he/she received in HS don't matter if you can't get past the placement exam. Frequently, it demonstrate that the kid doesn't know squat and this is new to the kid.
The student then makes a conscious decision to succeed or fail. Show up for class. The writing and math labs are open for business. Real simple--man up or drop out.
As the parent of an eighth grader and twelfth grader, and a recent transplant to Las Vegas, the problem I see with student achievement (or lack thereof) mostly lies with the parents. Parents have to be involved and be an advocate for their childrens education. Teachers are stymied by their students lack of discipline and student/parental disinterest. You can't make a student want to learn and succeed; it has to be reinforced at home. I have encountered great teachers in the CCSD and cutting teacher's salaries in this economy may tip the scales and force our best and brightest into other fields or even relocation to other states where they are better compensated. To lower the educational budget, they should look into increased employee contributions to healthcare, slight reductions to pension contributions, reduced administrative staff, reduced salaries/benefit packages to the CCSD senior administrative staff.
The school system is not a symptom of our social problems it is one of the ailments.
Nick, I have a major problem with how we zone for schools. It is unfair and unjust. I also have a problem with taxing people for public education and then making them pay for a private school as an option (which is left only for middle and upper class students with exceptions for the religious schools you hate so much (Catholic schools) which use congregation funds to subsidize the schooling of many urban low-income kids...not necessarily here in Nevada, but abroad.
Open enrollment would be a fair way of creating some choice, especially if there are alternatives like charter schools or empowerment schools.
Patrick R. Gibbons, WRONG again.
"The school system is not a symptom of our social problems it is one of the ailments."
Do you even know what that means, Pat?
Let me assure you, young man. Societal problems reflected in the school system are EXTRAORDINARY.
Ever heard of socioeconomics, Pat? Of course you have.
Bad parenting. Peer pressure. Family problems. Working children. Health care. Nutrition. Gangs. I could go on and on. Shall I?
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/socio...
Larry Vegas says your loss will be our gain. Just exactly, what gain are you talking about? A 16 percent unemployment rate, eight Hundred Million dollar deficit, high crime,bad education, healthcare!! Larry Vegas must be some Californian investor that is scared that people will be scared off and he will lose his investments. Really, Larry, print something with substance, because this story says that nevada is at the bottom of education. How can you refute that?? Quit being a troll and give someone a good reason to move their family here besides the cliche' weather excuse. That one is getting old really fast.
close all the schools and let the kids compete with the illegals on getting a job.
Interesting findings in Nevada.
Eureka High School- Money spent per pupil = $24,914
NCLB - High Achieving School
Cresent Valley Elementary School - Per Pupil = $39,899
NCLB - High Achieving School
Eureka Elementary School - Per Pupil = $22,169
NCLB- High Achieving School
West Wendover Elementary School- Per Pupil = $8,823
NCLB- Year 6 In Need of Improvement
About the lowest rating possible!
Stats available from Nevada Schools Accountability Website.
Patrick- you should become a teacher or a school administrator! Your ability to solve every problem known to mankind could be put to good use! We need you Patrick!
Save us from our collective stupidity! Children, parents, teachers, legislators, governors, presidents and maybe even God will bow at your feet!
What are you waiting for?
Here we go... we fund our schools at $5k per child, and as far as test scores go.... every state has its own test- UNTIL there is a national test, comparing states makes NO sense! FYI: the test will be here soon... then we'll see how we TRULY compare.... and above all- we have taught our children HOW to test... that is really IT- since that is what politicians believe is the most important thing... sorry to all kinesthetic learners, to all musically talented, to all children who are amazingly creative- but struggle with bubble tests... kids are tired of tests, teachers are tired of giving them... and how about the transiency of families? It happens, people move... but the test score belongs to the school no matter if the child has been enrolled for one day or day 120. I had to test a child once without knowing she had a serious eye problem and needed dark transparency to go over the test... AND turn vertically to read... can you imagine? It had to be scored... also, our children are grouped by special codes... even though they take one test... their results are counted up to 3 times... these special groups are the special education (Gifted and Talented not included, but included as Special Ed... how does that work?), it includes children of Limited English Proficient and our Free and Reduced Lunch... which has soared due to the economic times. All of this... such a shame.
I think I have a sensible answer, make the parents pay for part of the education. If a single or married couple decide not to have their own children, why are they forced to contribute to educate some other persons children. If you want to control how our kids are educated, make the parents pay. If they can't pay, make sure they have to do so many hours of service at the school every week. (cooking, custodial, grounds whatever). I have my own children and don't feel it is right to make others pay for their education. If you breed em, you feed them and educate them. This also would get parents involved again. If they have their own "skin" in it, they will put the effort back into the children. If the kids don't make the cut, than the blame will be put back where it should be put in the first place, the parents. I know I will hear, what about single parents? That is too bad, they will have to find a way. No one put them in that situation but themselves.
Turrialba:
After a long day at school, I don't really have the energy to do more than just make a few comments regarding each of the points you made on February 16.
With regard to #1 Real Standards:
This is true. Schools do not want to double the cost of a failing student who should be retained or placed elsewhere. It is a nightmare trying to retain a student. It is a nightmare trying to get a student to qualify for services if they have a learning disability. Teachers are bogged down in paperwork, data, and documentation that takes hours upon hours after a day of teaching just to satisfy the minimum requirement to get a psych to even "observe" the student or be discussed by a "team" (a joke). This paper trail and back-and-forth ping pong match is exhausting. It took myself, two special ed teachers, a special "psych" from the district, a counselor, and an administrator to get a student of mine in a self-contained classroom. This student exhibited violent behavior, threatened students, and had a host of other behavioral/academic issues. There were parent letters of concern. Some parents came to me and said that they wanted to keep their kids in my classroom, however, if the situation did not change, they would ask for their children to be placed elsewhere (I don't blame them). Even with all of us at the same consensus, we had to get this approved by another "team" from the district. Eventually the disturbed student was placed in self-contained. It took 6 months.
Sorry, that was a little longer than I planned.
#2 Lousy Teachers:
I'm not sure what you meant by this. We're not all lousy. Some are lousy, just as every single profession you can think of has lousy employees. Are you saying the profession became tainted because of women entering the work force? On the cheap? Are you saying that the influx of women entering the work force (or teaching profession) pushed the "good teachers" out because the women were willing to work cheap? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Education has never paid well...so I don't understand your point.
To be continued...
Turrialba:
#3 Lousy Teachers (Wow, two in a row...I have my work cut out for me.):
As far as theory versus content, I agree with you. But this shouldn't be blamed on teachers. People are under the impression that we as teachers (and professionals) actually get to make our own educational decisions on how and what to teach in the classroom. My sides hurt from laughing. That was true over 25 years ago, but not today. I did not design the current curriculum; in fact, I disagree with many things in our curriculum. Some standards are completely superfluous, others are developmentally inappropriate. Our curriculum is a mile wide and an inch thick. We do not have the time to focus on any one standard long enough for students to really thoroughly understand its concept. Whether they get it or not, I have to move on to the next standard within that particular trimester. I would do it differently if I could, however, I am held hostage by a district that lacks foresight and one who refuses to learn from other successful districts on how to be innovative.
Back to theory and content: Differentiated instruction, modified instruction, small groups...etc., etc. How to teach the different types of students, different learning styles, personalities, IQ levels, emotional intelligence, self-esteem and confidence building, and it goes on...ad nauseam. I GET IT! I AGREE WITH YOU! I am one person, yet I am somehow supposed to split myself into all of these "titles," which basically means I'm not teaching anymore, I'm tutoring. Tutoring means individual attention. It means 2-3 in a group (ideally only 1, but whatever). How do you tutor 18, 25, 40 students at once? We can't, and we're doing a disservice to our students. There are many teachers who AGREE with you, they just don't admit it because they would be admonished for it. Crucified. Treated as uncaring, selfish, kid-hating, in-it-for-the-summer-vacation-only type whose butt should be kicked out of education. For good! So...we try to do all of these things and be everything to every student...and it works extremely poorly. Really, it's a disaster.
I no longer have kids in school but I continue to pay taxes to support the schools.....I'm very happy to do that. It's one of my responsibilities as an American citizen.
Education is the great "leveler" in our society... The old saying that "the hope of democracy depends upon the diffusion of knowledge" was true when Thomas Jefferson said it over 250 years ago and it's still true today.....
Over the long haul, our educational system has been a major part of why we are, who we are....
Our educational system isn't perfect, but it has traditionally gotten the job done... Far too often we hear about what is wrong with American education, and we don't hear about what is right with the system....
American education continues to turn out bright, often brilliant, well educated students who end up doing amazing things and contributing to the continued prosperity of this country...
Yes, I have no qualms about paying taxes to support American education....It's an honor to do that...
Turrialba:
Continued from above...
#4 Lousy Parents:
Enough said.
#5 Ethos of education:
Again, I agree with you. And again, not a teacher choice. Too many rewards for things that should be expectations. Rewards for mediocrity. Rewards for just simply "showing up." Rewards and ceremonies for graduating Kindergarten? Harvard, here they come! Have we all gone insane? Gee, maybe we should have every Kindergartener write their autobiography. I mean, they just graduated Kindergarten! I'm sure they can be in inspiration to all! Please. And people with Kindergarteners, don't reply with threats...I'm sure your kid is the most brilliant one out of all. I know this, because every parent tells me so. (Ok, I should end here, I'm kind of having a little too much fun with this.)
Building self-esteem, self-confidence. Sigh. You know, criminals think very highly of themselves. In fact, criminals have enough confidence to actually go out and commit crimes. Some even brag about it afterward. The students who have the lowest self-esteem and self-confidence actually had the higher test scores...if anyone cares. I'm not making this up, it was in a study I read.
#6 Limit multiple choice tests:
Agreed. Being able to communicate ideas effectively while having to provide proof of the answer or conclusion is better than narrowing down an answer by process of elimination. It's better for retention and can show a student's true understanding (or not) of the content.
#7 Make kids read actual books:
What can I say? Agreed. I'm a lover of books. So was my mother, a(now retired)junior high school teacher. Now if I could get the district to actually buy class novels for my class, I'd be in teacher heaven. I teach primary elementary, and my average personal expenditure for a year is approximately between $500 and $1,200. My personal spending includes books, supplemental teacher educational materials/books, educational posters, and supplies. I've been spending this amount out of my own pocket for almost 10 years. So, the minimum I have spent in that time is approximately $5,000; the maximum is $12,000...so I'm guessing the real amount is around $8,000. (Gee, I am only a stupid teacher, so I hope I did the math right...god knows, enough people don't think I'm qualified enough and never will be to do anything but teach these kids all the wrong things.)
Turrialba:
Continued from above....
#8 Make the kids do real math:
Agreed. On paper, agreed. Multiplication, division, fractions, money, etc., AGREED. Now, if the students would just put a little effort into learning those multiplication tables our jobs (and theirs!) would be much easier. I'm not being facetious here...I've taught third grade and it's a real problem. I knew my multiplication tables by the middle of third grade. I'm sure you did, too. I'm sure any adult reading this did as well. So what's the problem with this generation of kids? The answer: I WISH I KNEW. Maybe learning the tables is too boring. Maybe I'm not teaching them right. Maybe I don't give enough timed tests (every week!), maybe they don't bother to practice them at home, maybe their parents really don't give a crap. Maybe I don't give enough rewards, or buttons, or certificates, or ribbons, or licorice sticks! Maybe I didn't work hard enough on their self-esteem. Maybe I don't send enough notes home that say: Students must know their multiplication tables by "this date." Please practice 10-15 minutes a day at home. Only 3 students know their tables...this is UNACCEPTABLE. I have sent home notes such as this. And you know what? By the end of the year, I might have 5 students that know their multiplication tables. Believe me, there isn't a day that goes by, that I don't just want to yank myself bald caused by the sheer frustration of this.
#9 Essays, reports, are subjective:
Agreed. Get over it. Life is ranked...the hardest workers and the most intelligent get the most advantages during their life. It is an ugly truth. Notice how I said "hardest workers." You don't have to be an A student...but you do have to be driven, persistent, able to overcome obstacles and disappointment. Life is ranked, and it is sometimes not fair...this is a lesson best learned young.
There's a quote my friend has, I don't know who it came from: "Life's hard. Life is harder when you're stupid." I know "stupid" is a naughty word for a lot of people...but overlook the word for a moment and try to grasp the point of the quote.
Turrialba:
Continued from above....
#10 Better work environment:
Agreed. But not for the same reasons you mentioned. Many teachers are harassed by administrators. It is a huge problem in this district that many people (other than teachers themselves) don't know about. In fact, it's a problem in this country..."Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal Mistreatment of Teachers" by Joseph and Jo Blase. If any teachers are reading this, the book is enlightening.
Many talented new teachers are not mentored properly and leave the profession. Teachers don't get the proper support they need from administrators regarding discipline issues, academic issues, etc. Teaching is a very expensive profession (see #7). I will also be paying for the rest of my life, the student loans I obtained to go into this profession in the first place, added to the continuing education classes I must take and pay for just to keep my license.
#11 Focus resources:
Agreed. (See #3, #6, #7, #8)
Turrialba:
Continued....
#12 Clean, well-lit:
Agreed. Schools are designed improperly. They are not student-friendly. Classrooms are too small. Students should be able to actually move around, there should be enough room for a reading table, book shelves, a reading area, educational activities...etc. A classroom shouldn't look like a prison.
I'm going to add one extra...
to be continued...
Turrialbe:
Continued from above...
#13 Give kids their recess back and stop selling junk at lunch and at the student store!
I don't know how this district got away with taking away students' recess. This blows my mind. They get 10 minutes at lunch and barely 15 minutes to eat lunch by the time they get in, get their food, and sit down. Whoever had the bright idea to take away recess obviously didn't know anything about early childhood development. There are several studies regarding the value of recess...there are none that say recess is detrimental to academic time. Kids need a break. Most states REQUIRE adults to take a 15 minute break in the morning, a half hour to an hour lunch, and a 15 minute break in the afternoon. Although these adults work 8 hours...think about it. A child's perspective of time is different than ours. Don't you remember sitting in class when you were young, waiting for that recess bell? Didn't it feel like you were in school for 8 hours, even though it was only 6? Why do we expect so much more out of young children than we do of ourselves? Why do we get (well, not teachers, but other people) 2 15-minute breaks, while students get none? (And lining up for a bathroom break doesn't count, people).
Recess is an important part of early childhood development. It is important for health, exercise, social skills, and imaginative play. Imaginative play being the key...See "NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children" by Po Bronson & Ashley Merryman. You would think the "higher-ups" would realize this. I mean, they ARE in education, after all...I think.
As far as schools selling junkfood...do I really need to explain why this is absurd?
To be continued....
Turrialba:
Continued from above...
My closing remarks:
I am disgusted with where education is going. I don't agree with many educational decisions (that I DON'T make, by the way), I don't like our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan...he has spent no time in a classroom, I don't care if his parents were teachers and he volunteered to tutor...he is a know-nothing. I have spent thousands on a Masters Degree and currently pursuing my Doctorate (more thousands). I'm getting the Doctorate so I can get out of this district and out of lower public education. I plan on pursuing other things. I love teaching...absolutely love it. I do not encourage others to enter the profession. I discourage them. I don't like the system or the people who refuse to make any meaningful change...it is punitive, rigid, ineffective, inefficient, and inappropriate. I've had several other jobs before I began teaching, in small companies and large corporations. Education is the worst-run, most dollar-wasting institution I have ever seen. It is filled with favoritism, nepotism, and a "fraternity" that I don't want to be a part of or near. It is filled with unprofessionalism and unethical behavior. I know about "company politics." However--petty politics do not belong in a place where children are involved. That is a game that should be strictly reserved for adults only. That is my own quote.
Damn. I should have gone to law school.
If we want to know where the funds are going, go to the CCSD website and take a look at the financial statements for year end. Every bit of the money that is sent to them through the County and Cities is right there. This includes room taxes, gaming taxes and property taxes.
Maybe suggestions can be made to do something different with this money. Or maybe they are doing all they can with what they have. Everyone's opinion counts but without action, it is only an opinion.
What can we do differently to make the situation better instead of being part of the problem?
unions = bad products
teachers unions = bad students
stevem = really, really right wing.
Welcome to the Mississippi of the West, the late great state of nevada, where dinosaurs go to die and to their graves with the knowledge that they did the best they could.
"Apparently our children have no voice or heroes to stand up for them and say enough is enough"
That is because half of their parents dont speak english.
I will refrain from commenting any further on the educational needs needed here in Nevada,or the reason i havent seen a redhead or blond boy/girl in 4 years,other than summerlin,or green valley vicinity.
peace out
JulieA for teacher of the year...person of the year...heart of hearts.
she'll stand and deliver, see eye-to-eye, put it in idiot-friendly language, act it out, play it back and kids get it. She'll take her own lunch money and buy some drunkard's kid a meal while going hungry.
Why?
Actually because of something called autonomy. She wants to. She has mastered selfishness. She knows that her life is brief and chooses to do, not the money thing, but the satisfying thing - the GOOD thing.
JulieA knows purpose and mastery. In her understanding, life's joys emanate from getting the space between the ears to light up, not the bic and the bong. Making this moment in paradise have a personal meaning is a start to a pleasant life. Julie gets it, and her rewards are a flowing river of putting out the juice.
The tragedy is that so few kids are mentally prepared for this notion that life is NOT about piling up dough, driving fast cars and getting laid, drunk and loaded so you can blow off the opportunity to become yourself.
Julie A
Thank you for your comments. I didn{t mean to bash teachers, but Patrick invited me to comment. Teachers should get real money for real work.
Truth is when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, the quality of teachers was high. Woman didn{t go to law school. I know my remark sounds sexist, but very bright and motivated people were teaching in those days. They came to school as college graduates taught for a while, had a family and returned when their family was raised.
Lousy Teachers--I don{t blame the teachers but colleges and universities who graduate the teachers--if these theories are so cool, why is that little learning takes place.
Real books--textbooks are not real books. They are necessary for certain subjects, but I cannot believe that students can go through 12 years of school without reading a real book (one that can be purchased at a real book store). Most textbooks are designed to be uninspiring. Real books can change your life.
For someone who was so tired, you managed to write quite a bit.
Turri is correct that public education had virtually no competition on competent and highly intelligent individuals back in the 50s, 60s and before.
Back then women had three options really: teaching, nursing, stay-at-home mom. College educated women typically became teachers or nurses because there were few opportunities.
Naturally that meant public education had access to top tier talent.
With the economy open to talented women in all sorts of fields public education has to compete with engineering, medical doctors, lawyers etc. Frankly, women have better paying options than teaching.
Overtime, it has been found that the quality of the average teacher has diminished. Some evidence suggests the average teacher is now recruited out of the bottom 1/3rd of college graduates.
I should note that evidence finds that paying teachers more money doesn't attract better teachers. This is due to the fact that education training is very poor and the fact that unions have negotiated salary scales that discourage risk-takers (who tend to be attracted to high paying jobs elsewhere in the economy). Thus we pay more money to recruit from the same talent pool.