Steve Jobs and public schools

[John Adams]

Who cares about Steve Jobs's opinion? Not me particularly, but this article brings up an interesting point. How much blame should the teacher's unions get for the sad state of public education?

 

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72754-...ml?tw=rss.index

The solution, Jobs believes, is to treat schools like businesses: empower the principal to fire bad teachers like a CEO.

 

"What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he said.

 

The issues are many and complex, and yes, there is a problem with firing incompetent or indifferent teachers, but it is not the number one reason schools are failing. It's not even in the top 10.

 

In California, the most pressing problems are schools that are the too big, too bureaucratic and chronically under funded. Teachers are criminally low paid and under trained. Education -- and school funding -- has become solely about test scores.

 

Hiring only insanely great employees and firing the bozos has been one of Jobs' longest held managerial principals.

 

In California, where the author is, the average teacher salary in 2003-4 was 57K/year, which isn't bad for a job that gets summers off and a million holidays and with many breaks during the workday. As far as the training, I'm not sure how things are in CA, but there are so many GD training sessions available here in PA that it's dazzling. The issue isn't a lack of available training--the issue is that most teachers don't take advantage of the available resources.

 

The quoted article is hard to follow but the point is something like this: Unions aren't really much to blame for school woes. Seems to me that with good salaries and benefits in place, plenty of bad and lazy teachers who bloat the salary statistics because they are hard to fire, and students who aren't doing well, the Unions are certainly a large part of the problem.

[KD in CA]

It's mind boggling that anyone would support the idea of unions being allowed to protect incompetent people in ANY job, much less the job if EDUCATING CHILDREN.

 

And as for teachers being "underpaid", most people forget to prorate their pay over the # of days they actually work. 180 v. 240 for most people makes a big difference.

[GG]

In California, the most pressing problems are schools that are the too big, too bureaucratic and chronically under funded.

 

By what standards? CA is in the top 10 in US public education funding/capita, while US spends about 50% more per capita than the industrialized world.

[John Adams]

By what standards? CA is in the top 10 in US public education funding/capita, while US spends about 50% more per capita than the industrialized world.

 

You're not talking to me right?

[GG]

You're not talking to me right?

 

Nope. Just wanted to do my part in dispelling urban myths.

[Orton's Arm]

Unions generally do what's best for the union. Typically, the teachers' unions have lobbied for solutions which involve more teachers, and more bureaucrats. (The National Educators Association represents both teachers and education bureaucrats.) More employees means the union gets more dues, and it gives the union a larger membership base with which to lobby.

 

But if the education system in this country were to ever be fixed, it would be much harder for the teachers' unions to make the case for this constant expansion in headcount and spending. Back in the 1970s, textbooks were dumbed down in ways which made them less challenging for students of average intelligence, let alone the gifted. Public schools teach to the level of the slowest student, while demonstrating extreme reluctance to separate students on the basis of ability. This ensures that teachers' unions will continue to benefit from the combination of high spending/poor results.

 

The solution to this problem is to abandon today's bureaucrat-choice education model, and to adopt a parent-choice model instead. Let's say that the federal, state, and local governments have decided to spend $5000 this year educating your child. If you as a parent want that money (and your child) to go to a unionized and ineffective public school, that's up to you. But if instead you want that money to be spent effectively, you should be able to choose a private school that may be much more challenging and useful to your child than the public school would have been.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And as for teachers being "underpaid", most people forget to prorate their pay over the # of days they actually work. 180 v. 240 for most people makes a big difference.

 

I raise this point all the time. I get paid less than my wife does, who's a teacher, and yet I work a full TWO MONTHS more per year. No teacher has any right to B word about their pay.

 

Oh, did I mention, their "workday" includes a 3:30 end time? 3:30...LOL

[John Adams]

Public schools teach to the level of the slowest student, while demonstrating extreme reluctance to separate students on the basis of ability.

 

Thread hijack in 3...2...

[jjamie12]

No teacher has any right to B word about their pay.

As is the same with anything in a capitalist society, you get what you pay for.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

As is the same with anything in a capitalist society, you get what you pay for.

 

LMAO...Take a look at a teacher's pay scale sometime. Just for showing up the minimum hours every day, a teacher will get a GUARANTEED pay raise every year.

[John Adams]

As is the same with anything in a capitalist society, you get what you pay for.

 

Where's this capitalist society?

 

As is the same with our socialist society here in USA public schools, pay and performance have little relation to one another.

[John Adams]

LMAO...Take a look at a teacher's pay scale sometime. Just for showing up the minimum hours every day, a teacher will get a GUARANTEED pay raise every year.

 

Right, a teacher I know worked hard preparing her lesson plans the first year. Now she works from 830-3 everyday--leaves right at 3 (no coaching or after school responsibilities). She doesn't appreciably change her lessons from year to year. During that 6.5 hour "workday," she gets a 1 hour lunch and two periods a day where her kids are off in other classes. So she really "works" for about 3.5-4 hours a day, plus some grading here and there. All this for 79K/year (average in the district), summers off, every holiday you can imagine, a pension, full medical, and guaranteed job security. Give me a !@#$ing break. What's her incentive to improve her lesson plan?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Right, a teacher I know worked hard preparing her lesson plans the first year. Now she works from 830-3 everyday--leaves right at 3 (no coaching or after school responsibilities). She doesn't appreciably change her lessons from year to year. During that 6.5 hour "workday," she gets a 1 hour lunch and two periods a day where her kids are off in other classes. So she really "works" for about 3.5-4 hours a day, plus some grading here and there. All this for 79K/year (average in the district), summers off, every holiday you can imagine, a pension, full medical, and guaranteed job security. Give me a !@#$ing break. What's her incentive to improve her lesson plan?

 

It's hard to tell whether you're bing facetious or not, but I can attest to the fact that the reason teachers HATE NCLB is that they had to alter their tried-and true (and mostly failing) methods of instruction. In short, they were forced to WORK.

 

I'm contemplating going back to school to become a gym teacher. That's got to be THE easiest job on earth AND you're a union-protected leech of the teat of the state.

[VABills]

It's hard to tell whether you're bing facetious or not, but I can attest to the fact that the reason teachers HATE NCLB is that they had to alter their tried-and true (and mostly failing) methods of instruction. In short, they were forced to WORK.

 

I'm contemplating going back to school to become a gym teacher. That's got to be THE easiest job on earth AND you're a union-protected leech of the teat of the state.

I think NCLB can hurt some of the better teachers out there. I believe there are some (10%) who do work with the kids and teach their ass off. I think NCLB can hold them back because they are forced to teach to ensurethe kids pass the testing required. However I don't thin NCLB was meant for them. I think it was for the other 90% who live off lesson plans they prepared years before or worse yet handed down from the teachers before them. They were teaching drones and really didn't understand the subject matter, just repeated what was on the whiteboard. hence not only does NCLB force the kids to take certain standard tests to ensure they understand the basics of their class levels, but it also required the teachers to show that they are qualified to actually teach, understand and answer questions on their area of teching. That is the bigger issue that I have heard rom teachers is that they have too many of their brother and sisters who cannot/will not do what is necessary to become the expert in the subject. They don't like the government telling them that they actually have to know math, science, english in order to teach it.

[OCinBuffalo]

The solution to this problem is to abandon today's bureaucrat-choice education model, and to adopt a parent-choice model instead. Let's say that the federal, state, and local governments have decided to spend $5000 this year educating your child. If you as a parent want that money (and your child) to go to a unionized and ineffective public school, that's up to you. But if instead you want that money to be spent effectively, you should be able to choose a private school that may be much more challenging and useful to your child than the public school would have been.

This is Milton Friedman 101. I tend to agree, but here's the thing: this entire theory is based on parents giving a schit what happens to their kids.

 

I think we can all agree that there is a significant percentage of parents(crack addicts, alcoholics, Anna Nicole, and other people who can't seem to think about anything but themselves), about 20-30% that simply can't/don't care what happens. It is then left to the rest of us "villagers" to deal with the consequences of this selfish behavior->pay higher taxes for juvey, prisons, welfare, medicaid, social security, extra police, social workers, psychiatrists, etc.

 

Of course these are all symptoms. The disease is the selfish behavior of the parents coupled with not teaching their kids the importance of education. If the parents don't care, why should the kids? This means that the teachers are the only positive influence in the kid's life. It's hard(in some cases impossible) to do that and get through a curriculum as well. My mom does this in her alternative middle school every day. She has to use unorthodox methods, but it seems to work about half the time. The bottom line is she is teaching the kids the proper behavior of adults(the kids soon figure out for themselves that their parent aren't adults); so the kids decide that they have to be adults - starting now. Like I said, this seems to be working about 50% of the time. Unfortunately that leaves 50% that doesn't work.

 

I am not simply gonna define the problem without providing a solution: tie everything that these parents receive in terms of government aid to their kid's classroom performance and health of the child. The classroom performance is judged by the teacher setting reachable goals for that individual kid - not based on a standard for the entire class or some test that everyone will cry "racism" over anyway. The health of the child is based on monthly evaluation with a nutritionist and at least a nurse practitioner(which is pretty much what is happening now).

 

Stop giving the parents on government aid cash outright. Give them points(chips, credits, whatever) that they can trade for social services/food. The points get spent on the kids first, parents second. Make them earn the right to get cash based on performance. This way if a parent wants to ever see any money to buy anything for themselves, they better make darn sure little Johnny is doing well in school. This will enable the Milton Friedman plan you have outlined, HA, to work because now the parents are compelled to care what happens to their kids. If that doesn't work, take the kid away, because there is nothing on this earth that will get that parent to care - and the kid is better off without them.

 

As far as the rest of us who aren't so selfish, and since we are paying into the system rather than taking out, we get tax breaks based on the same model. This way every kid has to see the nurse(PA) and every kid has to see the nutritionist so that we are not singling out poor kids(bad for self-esteem->one of my best friends was on the "free lunch" program and he tells me still feels embarrassed to this day) . Also every kid rich/middle/poor has a individualized plan/set of goals to reach->every parent has a real good reason to be at parent teacher conferences. Those things will turn into very important meetings that I guarantee will be attended both mentally and physically.

 

Bottom Line: Each and every kid gets the same level of service->it's dependent upon parents to use/reinforce that service, or the parents get kicked in the wallet. IT does not attempt to set some sweeping standard for all kids because this is ridiculous anyway. This will also help identify loser teachers in a flash because you will now have the eyes of every parent on each teacher their kid has. If the teacher is simply lowering the standard to "slide by" the parents will put a stop to that since they know that next year the kid will be behind, and conversely so will they $-wise. The principal will resolve most issues and serve as a mediator.

 

It is simple accountability and it works(I know because this is the kind of thing I do every day). No crazy 300 page laws, no endless evaluation process therefore no more sending oodles of money to DC just so they can Administer(take their 30% cut) it and send it back.

 

Edit: I forgot teachers get their base salary today plus a "completion of goal" bonus per kid, also parents get to serve(just like jury duty) on an oversight committee of teachers/principal to resolve issues.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Public education will continue to suck until education dollars are taken away from the school systems and given to the student, who can then decide where to spend them. That will force the school systems to improve so they compete for those dollars. Some socialist countries in Europe even do this, like the Netherlands IIRC.

[TheMadCap]

Want to improve education right away? Make the students accountable for thier behavior. Once the fear of stepping out of line at school vanished, so did the ability of the teachers to make a difference. Why should some spoiled brat follow directions when no one will do anything to them if they misbehave?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Public education will continue to suck until education dollars are taken away from the school systems and given to the student, who can then decide where to spend them. That will force the school systems to improve so they compete for those dollars. Some socialist countries in Europe even do this, like the Netherlands IIRC.

 

Stop making sense, damn you!

 

It's not a coincidence that the NEA HATES the idea of vouchers.

[jjamie12]

Public education will continue to suck until education dollars are taken away from the school systems and given to the student, who can then decide where to spend them. That will force the school systems to improve so they compete for those dollars. Some socialist countries in Europe even do this, like the Netherlands IIRC.

Except its not that easy. You can't ramp up production to meet the demand, fellas. For example, everybody wants to go to the best school, but everybody can't go to the best school. It has a certain capacity. How do you determine who gets to go to that school? How do you determine who gets to go to the next best school? And the next? And the next? What about rural school districts? What if there is only one school within a reasonable distance to your house? How does that work? What about how the tax dollars are assessed? Most people are paying taxes to already be in those good school districts. If I live in a cheaper property tax area, how can I ever hope to get into one of the 'better' schools?

 

School choice doesn't solve the problem. It might make it better, but I'm not sure.

[jjamie12]

It's not a coincidence that the NEA HATES the idea of vouchers.

I'm no fan of the NEA, but they hate the idea of vouchers because it would take the most money away from the districts that need it the most. While it is true that you don't necessarily have great schools when you have high funding; show me the worst schools, and I'll show you the schools with the least funding.