Steve Jobs and public schools

[VABills]

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.

Except that isn't true. I just moved this past year to a county one north of where I was. The county I just left had a per student spending of just under 9000 per student per year. My current county is 8200 per student per year. That said I am one county closer to DC but the average teacher salary is only about 2000 more per year, so the incentive to teach there doesn't really exist. Yet for all that spending, the comparable salaries and everything that county had 1/3 of the schools fail the NCLB tests that are used in Virginia (SOLs). My current county had all but three schools get certified, two of which they probably felt was happening as the principles had already been fired even before the school scores were announced. Each school district has roughly the same number of schools 66 vs 80. Yet the one that spends 20% per student failed at a much higher rate.

 

Sometimes it isn't about money as in this case. The school administration, the good old boy hiring network and basically although illegal in VA, the almost like school unionization of the teachers there have ruined the schools.

[jjamie12]

If you look at what I said carefully, you'll see that I said, very clearly, that a higher funded school isn't always the best school. However, if you look at the worst schools, you'll notice that those are the ones that are funded at the lowest levels. I agree, it isn't all about the money. The best schools don't ALWAYS have the most money, but the worst schools, in general, have the least.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

You bring up excellent points. I agree schools should be doing more to hold loser parents accountable for their children's success. I feel something like that is worth doing regardless of whether a voucher program is instituted; just as a voucher program would be worth doing regardless of whether the accountability measures you've described are put into place. A voucher program without your accountability measures would clearly benefit the 70+% of students whose parents are at least somewhat concerned about their educations. As for the remaining 30%, their schools would be selected more or less at random. While that's far from ideal, those students would be no worse off than they are in the failing inner city public schools to which they are presently consigned.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

To answer your questions, individual schools themselves would decide which students to accept, and how many. In the case of a rural area only big enough for one school, the students would have exactly as much choice under a voucher plan as they have right now.

 

The size of voucher payments wouldn't necessarily be contingent on your level of property taxes.

[jjamie12]

To answer your questions, individual schools themselves would decide which students to accept, and how many. In the case of a rural area only big enough for one school, the students would have exactly as much choice under a voucher plan as they have right now.

 

The size of voucher payments wouldn't necessarily be contingent on your level of property taxes.

How would you determine the size of the voucher payments then? In your earlier example, you cited the sum total of education spending in one school district being transferred to another school district of your choice. In practice, most of the money for school funding comes from property taxes (in most states), so how would the voucher payments not be contingent on your level of property taxes?

 

Beyond that, how is this helping the education system? The 'good' schools can take only so many students. What about the rest of the students? They will still be stuck in poor schools, just like today. It is not a demand problem, it is a supply problem. With this type of product, however, you can't just ramp up production in a factory somewhere in Toledo and crank out new schools...

[Orton's Arm]

How would you determine the size of the voucher payments then? In your earlier example, you cited the sum total of education spending in one school district being transferred to another school district of your choice. In practice, most of the money for school funding comes from property taxes (in most states), so how would the voucher payments not be contingent on your level of property taxes?

 

Beyond that, how is this helping the education system? The 'good' schools can take only so many students. What about the rest of the students? They will still be stuck in poor schools, just like today. It is not a demand problem, it is a supply problem. With this type of product, however, you can't just ramp up production in a factory somewhere in Toledo and crank out new schools...

In my earlier example, I described how, if $5000 per year was going to be spent on a given child's education anyway, the parents should choose which particular school gets that money. I wouldn't like to see a huge discrepancy between education spending levels for rich and poor kids. That said, parents who pay high levels of property taxes may insist (with reason) that their children's voucher payments should be higher. In the end, a compromise solution may be the best I can hope for; with present per-child spending differences muted, but not altogether abolished.

 

That said, public schools are extremely inefficient in their use of funding. Catholic schools, for example, can and do produce superior results at only a fraction of the per-child cost associated with public education. Even if present per-child dollar discrepancies weren't reduced at all, a voucher system would allow children from all economic backgrounds access to a far superior level of education than is presently the case.

 

The supply problem you've described means that it will take several years before a voucher system's benefits are fully experienced. It will take time for the best-run schools to increase their educational capacity; as well as for the worst-run schools to wither away or become specialized niche providers. Our present public school system would be very well suited for the niche role of providing remedial education to the least intelligent students, for example.

[Ramius]

As stated above, i think one of the biggest problems with teachers (i'm not talking about schools now, just the teachers) is that in a lot of places, there are no standards for excellence. Too many people get into the teaching profession because they think its "cool" to have summers and extended holidays off. Here in florida, any retard that can pass a basic certification test can become a teacher with no background in anything (and i know a few of said retards). How is that benefiting the students? It isnt. More states need to adopt a higher level of basic standards, such as a B.S. or B.A. in education before someone can even step foot in a classroom as a permanent teacher. In many other professions, you need a basic level of education of some other type of qualifier before you can be hired. Why should that be different for the teaching profession? At the very least, this would weed out a bunch of low lifes who think its cool to be a "teacher" because they get summers and holidays off.

 

Regarding the money, the majority of teachers are way underpaid for the work that they do. The high end salaries that are often shown are teachers that have been in the system and taching for 20-25+ years. New teachers dont make jack schitt for easily 10-15 years. Again, using FL as an example, a teacher can expect to start off at around 26K per year, and it will take at least 10 years of teaching before they sniff 40K.

 

As for work hours, the dozen of so teachers i know maybe only spend 30 hrs at the school, but easily spend 25+ hours during the week working at home on lesson plans, new ideas, and developing new curricula.

[Boatdrinks]

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

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.

 

 

I think it is quite ridiculous to think that teachers unions are a "big" part of the problem in US public schools. The problems are numerous, to be sure. However the largest problem is not teachers, but the students. Or more precisely the parents of the students. Kids today are more concerned with ipods, xboxes, and looking cool than with learning. And those are the ones with both parents at home! Single parent kids and lower class students have a whole host of other disadvantages. But public schools are a reflection of society, and the reflection isn't good. But it starts at home. Children haven't changed that much over the last 50 years or so. But the parents sure have! Success in education begins at home, and parents should focus more on their child's education than lavishing them with cell phones and the latest "fashions". But it is typical of todays parents to think that "my kid is failing, so it must be somebody else's fault". Maybe, just maybe a child isn't "gifted and talented" just because he or she is yours.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Regarding the money, the majority of teachers are way underpaid for the work that they do. The high end salaries that are often shown are teachers that have been in the system and taching for 20-25+ years. New teachers dont make jack schitt for easily 10-15 years. Again, using FL as an example, a teacher can expect to start off at around 26K per year, and it will take at least 10 years of teaching before they sniff 40K.

 

As for work hours, the dozen of so teachers i know maybe only spend 30 hrs at the school, but easily spend 25+ hours during the week working at home on lesson plans, new ideas, and developing new curricula.

 

Point one: My wife's been teaching maybe 7 years and is just shy of 50k a year. Not bad. FLA sounds a bit cheap, if you ask me.

 

Point Two: I don't know ANY elementary school teachers that have that kind of workload.

[Boatdrinks]

As stated above, i think one of the biggest problems with teachers (i'm not talking about schools now, just the teachers) is that in a lot of places, there are no standards for excellence. Too many people get into the teaching profession because they think its "cool" to have summers and extended holidays off. Here in florida, any retard that can pass a basic certification test can become a teacher with no background in anything (and i know a few of said retards).

 

 

 

 

 

How about a few standards for excellence for the parents? I shudder to think of the standards set for a kid who hears his folks throwing around words such as "retards". Brilliant.

[OCinBuffalo]

You bring up excellent points. I agree schools should be doing more to hold loser parents accountable for their children's success. I feel something like that is worth doing regardless of whether a voucher program is instituted; just as a voucher program would be worth doing regardless of whether the accountability measures you've described are put into place. A voucher program without your accountability measures would clearly benefit the 70+% of students whose parents are at least somewhat concerned about their educations. As for the remaining 30%, their schools would be selected more or less at random. While that's far from ideal, those students would be no worse off than they are in the failing inner city public schools to which they are presently consigned.

Well, kinda, the thing is that the consequence of implementing vouchers without my(or whoever's) accountability plan is that a lesser % of kids(but a large number->400,000?) get left adrift. Those kids will almost definitely become an exponential drain on society. You may be right, and perhaps random assignment might work, but it is much more likely that those kids end up exactly where they are today->until they steal a car and end up inside. We all know where it goes from there - more and more tax dollars we have to pay while they end up:

 

1. Dead

2. In jail for life

3. Having kids that will perpetuate this cycle

4. Committing crimes that affect other people drastically - may even contribute the kids of the victims to this cycle.

 

Bottom line: We have to stop allowing children to be the currency by which these people, and the so-called progressives that are all too quick to reward their bad behavior, trade in. The fact that anyone can point to this vicious cycle and use the word "progress" boggles my mind.

[RuntheDamnBall]

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.

Can we dispel some of this myth outright? Certainly there are parents who are in troubled situations that don't give their children the proper attention they should get with regard to school. There are also children of privileged parents who can't be disciplined in schools because (according to the parents) their kids can do no wrong. The teachers can't firmly grab a kid's arm without fear of getting sued. Let's not pretend that rich kids are any better than poor kids in school. It's just that one side gets a blind eye turned to bad behavior and another is told from day one that it's likely to go to jail or some other dead-end.

 

As usual with teachers, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I have seen good teachers not get tenure because a school board member didn't like that their kid was graded tough in the teacher's class. I've also seen teachers dogging it because they've got their tenure and are untouchable. Tenure with review/probation/release stages seems to be the answer. Revoking it outright just puts all teachers, especially ones who want to challenge kids to be better, at unnecessary risk, and will make it even harder to find good ones.

 

I know the pay is good but it is thankless. My best friend is teaching at a school in the Bronx and he is exhausted. He needs the two months off. He comes up with new and challenging lesson plans only to find his kids are three steps behind. If people are really doing their jobs it's a hard job. For people who aren't, it's a cakewalk and they should be challenged by a review.

 

I also would like to caution anyone who thinks that things proceed much differently in the 'real world.' How much time are we all wasting here online anyway? Are we all working nose-to-the-grindstone those extra two months? Good questions.

[OCinBuffalo]

Can we dispel some of this myth outright? Certainly there are parents who are in troubled situations that don't give their children the proper attention they should get with regard to school. There are also children of privileged parents who can't be disciplined in schools because (according to the parents) their kids can do no wrong. The teachers can't firmly grab a kid's arm without fear of getting sued. Let's not pretend that rich kids are any better than poor kids in school. It's just that one side gets a blind eye turned to bad behavior and another is told from day one that it's likely to go to jail or some other dead-end.

Myth my ass, come over to my mom's class sometime - I dare ya. Better yet, go with her to these kids' houses and see what they live like(I don't mean that they are poor - I mean there is a crack pipe/bong sitting out on the kitchen table). Most importantly, sit in a meeting with these parents and observe what they say(if they even show up) when she confronts them about, for example, why their kid didn't eat all weekend.

 

"Troubled Situations" = liberal BS for "not the parent(s) fault they are a hooker, crack addict, in prison, or can't keep their hands off their kids(sexually or abuse-wise), and many other things". It is theses parents' fault because they have made, and more importantly continue to make, the choices to put themselves in that situation. Especially when one considers states like PA and NY with the myriad of "progressive" social programs and "safety nets" and treatments of which they could use to "progress" themselves out of these "Troubled Situations".

 

There is no doubt that rich kids can be ridiculous in school as well. In my view this is even worse because that kid has absolutely no excuse, and the parents have even less of an excuse. But here's the thing: rich people can be just as selfish and poor people. This is why I my plan in the post above doesn't discriminate based on anything at all. The "care plan" for every kid has the same requirements and structure, it's just modified to suit individual needs. So if you are a "rich" parent and your kid is banging around with coke in his pocket and skipping class - you get to pay the full amount(or how about double) of taxes-> rich people's favorite thing to do!

 

As usual with teachers, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I have seen good teachers not get tenure because a school board member didn't like that their kid was graded tough in the teacher's class. I've also seen teachers dogging it because they've got their tenure and are untouchable. Tenure with review/probation/release stages seems to be the answer. Revoking it outright just puts all teachers, especially ones who want to challenge kids to be better, at unnecessary risk, and will make it even harder to find good ones.

True.

I know the pay is good but it is thankless. My best friend is teaching at a school in the Bronx and he is exhausted. He needs the two months off. He comes up with new and challenging lesson plans only to find his kids are three steps behind. If people are really doing their jobs it's a hard job. For people who aren't, it's a cakewalk and they should be challenged by a review.

This point of view always intrigues me every time I hear it. And, in my job I hear it a lot. It seems everyone is convinced, without any real supporting data of course, that their job is harder than everyone else's. I've got news for you. It isn't. I can say this because of what I do, which is to work with all kinds of companies, and public sector organizations, departments, etc. I have been doing this long enough now that I can honestly say that 80-90% of people's perceptions about "how hard their job is compared to somebody else" are exactly that - mere perceptions. In fact, the whole thing is in the mind and I can prove it.

I also would like to caution anyone who thinks that things proceed much differently in the 'real world.' How much time are we all wasting here online anyway? Are we all working nose-to-the-grindstone those extra two months? Good questions.

You are right in that when or where or how long a job/task takes to do is almost irrelevant when compared whether or not doing that job produces results. I don't care how long teachers work each day or how many months they get off as long as they produce results. We shouldn't think of teachers as "hourly" employees because ultimately we don't care how many hours they worked, as long as little Johnny gets in to college/gets a good job.

[RuntheDamnBall]

OC, I think we're on the same page in that the real problem is parents that don't care or are inattentive or unwilling to see that their kids are in trouble. The educational system is full of good-hearted people who don't want to let these kids slip through the cracks, and that's a great thing, but it's not enough and it's not in the job description. It's going above and beyond the call of duty. It's taking on the role of a parent -- the hardest job in the world, so yes, I would argue that it's a harder job than many others. Parents who don't care produce kids who don't care, who, all too early, will become parents who don't care. This is at the root of a lot of liberal ideas (sex ed, programs, etc) -- I don't know that it's the only solution but unless you teach kids that they are part of something beyond themselves, and that includes, potentially, a family, it doesn't appear that they're going to get the tools to make the right decisions in the future. They're certainly not going to get it at home. How you give them that without appearing to let off the parents who don't give a sh--, I don't know.

 

I also would caution on the idea of 'results' where the kids are a factor in an equation and, if the equation is correct, they can be plugged in and it all works out, little Johnny is a productive citizen with a good job.

 

The job of education is to help produce people who can make good decisions, solve problems on their own, to give them tools (and a significant part of this is a parent's job). 'Results'-based legislation is not a good idea, imo, and in the long run it produces nothing other than drones who can perform certain actions really well, but can't adapt to others.

[Alaska Darin]

I think it is quite ridiculous to think that teachers unions are a "big" part of the problem in US public schools. The problems are numerous, to be sure. However the largest problem is not teachers, but the students. Or more precisely the parents of the students. Kids today are more concerned with ipods, xboxes, and looking cool than with learning. And those are the ones with both parents at home! Single parent kids and lower class students have a whole host of other disadvantages. But public schools are a reflection of society, and the reflection isn't good. But it starts at home. Children haven't changed that much over the last 50 years or so. But the parents sure have! Success in education begins at home, and parents should focus more on their child's education than lavishing them with cell phones and the latest "fashions". But it is typical of todays parents to think that "my kid is failing, so it must be somebody else's fault". Maybe, just maybe a child isn't "gifted and talented" just because he or she is yours.

You can thank the country's academia for most of this. They decided to agree posthaste with Ben Spock and the rest of the "spoil the child" liberals by taking any semblence of actual punishment from the school system. That ceded the power to children and made actual "teaching" virtually impossible. Then they got the government involved and "voila", a truly screwed crisis for which there is no easy answer. You just don't unpaint that wall.

 

It's easy and convenient to blame today's parents but they're just part of the equation. Once again we're treating the symptoms instead of the problem.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You can thank the country's academia for most of this. They decided to agree posthaste with Ben Spock and the rest of the "spoil the child" liberals by taking any semblence of actual punishment from the school system. That ceded the power to children and made actual "teaching" virtually impossible. Then they got the government involved and "voila", a truly screwed crisis for which there is no easy answer. You just don't unpaint that wall.

 

It's easy and convenient to blame today's parents but they're just part of the equation. Once again we're treating the symptoms instead of the problem.

 

Never mind that PARENTS THEMSELVES can't even discipline their own kids as they see fit.

[Alaska Darin]

Never mind that PARENTS THEMSELVES can't even discipline their own kids as they see fit.

That was what I meant by government involvement.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That was what I meant by government involvement.

 

That's what I fiugred, but to me, that's the BIGGEST issue in this whole thing.

[VABills]

That's what I fiugred, but to me, that's the BIGGEST issue in this whole thing.

For someone who says they never spell incorrectly, you sure seem to have some unique words that are "spelled" correctly.

[DC Tom]

You sure seem to have some unique words that are "spelled" correctly.

 

That's what makes them unique, numbnuts.