Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.[/quote]
The teachers DID oppose it.[/quote]Was it through a vote? I thought the teachers’ union didn’t let it come to a vote?Participant[quote=CA renter]There is no “status quo” in education, AN. Things are constantly changing from year to year. As of right now, students have more choices and options than they have ever had. If their parents don’t like it, they are free to enroll their kids in private schools (as you do), or homeschool them (as we do). Everyone is different, so there is no singular “right way” to teach, nor is there a simple prescription for what ails our education system; if there were, we would have seen it by now.
But since you’ve asked for my opinion on a solution, I think that we need to put a greater emphasis on parenting and the parents’ responsibility to set the tone for their child’s education. I would also add that students who do not want to learn or who are emotionally unstable (violent, severe behavioral problems, etc.) should be culled from the general student population and sent to schools where parents are literally forced to physically get involved with their child’s learning environment (sitting in class, if need be), and where the schools legally have more leeway to deal with these students. If the parents don’t like it, I think parents should be legally mandated to teach their children at home. Behavioral problems are one of the leading causes of classroom/learning disruptions and teacher burnout.
We also need to be able to extend the school day for students who are not willing/able to learn (even for students who DO want to learn…I just like extended days, as ending the school day at 2:30 p.m. is ridiculous on so many levels, IMO).
Just doing those two things would go a long way toward improving education in our country, IMO.[/quote]When I say status quo, I mean have it be what it is today. So, yes, there is a status quo. Status quo means no real fundamental change.
I agree with parents involvement, but that’s like squeezing blood from a rock. If they already don’t care, what make you think you can force them to care? This is along similar line of outlawing divorce and making one parent stay at home to educate their kids and be involve in their kids’ education. Idealistic, but not reality.
I agree with your solution of segregation based on ability (kinda like what we do w/ our higher education system). But again, how can you suggest something like this but not agree with voucher? This is like the “voucher” for the bad kids. I.E. separating the good kids from bad kids.
As for longer school days, do you think the teachers’ union would even consider this? Some how, I highly doubt it. I’m totally for longer school days, so we agree there.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Only an idiot would give up tenure for something as problem-plagued and prone to administrator abuse as that. And she didn’t double the salaries of everyone who opted out of tenure, only offered to give them merit pay/bonuses “up to” $130K in exchange for giving up tenure. [/quote]
Oh really? Then why not let it up for a vote and let the teachers show how stupid and out of step Michelle Rhee is. If only an idiot would take Michelle Rhee’s proposal, then if there is a vote, no one would vote for it, so there’s nothing to worry about.ParticipantCAR, if I understand you correctly, the status quo is just fine. Correct? Do you think there’s no need for change?
As for Michelle Rhee, like her or not, agree with her or not, I don’t care. At least she’s trying to implement change. If you think it’s wrong solution, what’s your solution (this is assuming you think there is a problem)?
ParticipantHoly Sh… you are old :-P. I remember making fun of my cousin when she turned 25. Once I turned 25, I didn’t think it was as funny. Now, I accept that there’s nothing I can do about aging, so why not enjoy the new “wisdom” :-).
Participant[quote=CA renter]BTW, while I appreciate AN’s number, the private schools around in the better parts of North County cost anywhere from $20K to $35K/year. They have fundraising requirements *in addition to this.* They also tend to have more wealthy donors who will pay for significant portions of the schools’ buildings, etc. (with naming rights). While public schools might have fundraisers, they aren’t the same as those in the better private schools where the wealthier parents are expected to give much more than $50 or $100 per year.[/quote]$20k-$35k? Really? La Jolla Country Day, Francis Parker, and Bishop’s are around $27-28k. Which school is $35k? Are you seriously comparing any public school to these elite private schools?
You’ve obviously haven’t even bothered with looking into the cost of non-religious private schools. I’ve shown examples but lets just say, for similar amount $10k/year, you’re looking at an elementary school that feeds into Francis Parker and Bishops. Their teacher to student ratio is 10-1 for pre-K & K, 12-1 for 1-3rd grade, 24-1 for 4-6th grade. Get back to me when public school can get some thing as close as those numbers. I’m not even talking about religious private schools. Those goes for $5-8k/year and they have similar teacher to student ratio.
Participant[quote=lookingagain][quote=AN]
Currently, SDUSD is spending $9,846 per student. A good (not elite) private school cost about $9-10k. With this cost, the class size range for 10-1 to 20-1 teachers to student ratio. This is from K-12 we’re talking about here. So, yeah, if it’s about class size, offer a $9846 yearly voucher to parents and their kids can have class size between 10-20 per teacher depending on grade. Sounds like an easy win IMHO.[/quote]
AN,
I do not mean to be picky especially since the number you quote here comes from CAR, but the cost per pupil at SDUSD is not $9846 per student. If you read into the way that the data is presented in the website CAR used, only the most direct costs are used to calculate that figure. This is like someone saying that the $1,000,000 house they bought with 0 down only costs $600 per month because all they are counting are the utility bills.A number that is equally valid (and equally incorrect) is $1,900,000,000(the 2013/14 budget)/135000 students = $14,075 per student. And this number is probably closer to the truth.
My main point is that when someone brings data to a discussion (CAR) please bring honest data.[/quote]even with $9.8k, it’s still higher than or equal to a lot of private schools and you get less. I didn’t need to debate the official number from CA government when it’s enough to prove my point.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
We must be REALLY REALLY unlucky to have encountered 2 of these type of VERY RARE teachers in my daughter’s 5 years of schooling starting in kindergarden. [/quote]Maybe it’s just that you don’t know what you’re talking about and those teachers are doing a great job.[quote=ocrenter]NPR had a segment in 2012 where an experiement was done in a struggling school district. They gave bonuses to all of the teachers at the beginning of the year, if the teachers do not meet certain academic criteria, the bonuses would have to be returned. This is compared to teachers that were promised bonuses if the same acadmeic criteria was met. The result showed if the bonuses had to be returned, the students ended up doing much better.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161370443/do-scores-go-up-when-teachers-return-bonuses
So the question is would unions actually say yes to something like this???[/quote]Michelle Rhee offered something similar, essentially offering to double the pay if teachers will give up their tenure and they can get raises base on performance. It was a opt-in option as well, so teachers can still stay in the current system if they want. The union didn’t even let it come up for a vote.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Again, there is no evidence that private schools or charter schools perform better than public schools once these variables are taking into consideration. The vast majority of studies show the opposite, that public schools outperform private schools.[/quote]First, we have to define what’s better. To me, cheaper and smaller class size is a great start. With those 2 metrics, private school and some charter school have shown to be better than public school.[/quote]
Proof? Don’t forget to include ALL funding sources, like church subsidies in the case of religious schools, and parent funding in the case of most private schools (usually much more fundraising, outside of the regular tuition costs, in private schools than in public schools, especially in the “elite” private schools).[/quote]
there are plenty of private schools in SD that’s not religiously related. Just go the their site, look at their tuition and their stated class size. I’ll point you to one to start, Mission Bay Montessori. As far as fund raising, there are huge fund raising at good public schools as well, so that’s a moot point.Participant[quote=livinincali]If you want proof of why socialistic systems fail, just look at public education. It’s probably one of the most socialistic institutions in the country and it continues to get poor results because they refuse analyze these policies and change them.
They refuse to look at administrative costs. They refuse to do meaningful performance evaluation. They promote kids based on feeling rather than knowing the content. They refuse to split kids up by ability and let those at the top succeed.
The successes of the Preus school should be a model for public schools. Hey maybe we should segregate the high IQ kids and give them some teachers that can allow them to succeed. Instead that is deemed unfair (The number one phrase in the socialists playbook) and so we stick all the kids in the same room and teach to the left hand side of the bell curve. Everybody on the right side of the bell curve is bored and those are the far left still aren’t getting it.
We just have to accept the fact that everybody isn’t born with the same ability. Life isn’t fair. Let’s try to get those that can really succeed ahead and those that really struggle the basic life skills they need to function in society. They need the ability to read, write and do mathematics. Put them through classes that focus on real life skills and let them skip physics, chemistry, advanced history, etc. Stuff that they don’t need to function and stuff that they can always learn by READING if they are interested in it.[/quote]Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is exactly what I’m trying to say w/ Preuss. I wasn’t trying to say all kids should have the same outcome. But all kids should have the same opportunity. I guess that’s exactly what’s different between political parties today. One think outcome should be normalized while another think only opportunity should be normalized.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Again, there is no evidence that private schools or charter schools perform better than public schools once these variables are taking into consideration. The vast majority of studies show the opposite, that public schools outperform private schools.[/quote]First, we have to define what’s better. To me, cheaper and smaller class size is a great start. With those 2 metrics, private school and some charter school have shown to be better than public school.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN]
[quote=CA renter]And could Preuss get the same outcomes from students with low IQs, SES, etc. if they threw all this money and all of these resources at them? No, they could not. They’ve tried that already and failed.[/quote]Proof? I thought SES + demographic backgrounds are highly correlated to IQ? I’m getting lost trying to follow your contradiction.[/quote]
Again, not exactly sure about what you’re asking for here, but if you’re questioning the experiment with throwing money at poor schools, read this:[/quote]Nope, not just throwing money at the problem. Have Preuss open more schools and fail?
Participant[quote=CA renter]No, the parents are NOT the bosses, no matter what you might think. Nor should they be. Most parents have ZERO knowledge or understanding where childhood education is concerned.
If you think schools are bad now, it would be far, far worse if they followed your suggestions.[/quote]Yep, tell that to the parents in Sweden. Or better yet, tell that to the parents who send their kids to Tier 1/2/3 University or vocational school or JC.
Participant[quote=CA renter]SES and demographic backgrounds are highly correlated to IQ. [/quote]I think you’re contradicting yourself here.
[quote=CA renter]Regarding your last comment about Preuss, did you not read what was posted? The cost per student at Preuss is WAAAAY above the cost per student at a regular public school. Preuss relies heavily on wealthy donors.[/quote]How much more? Why can’t we rely on wealthy donors in public school as well? Need an example? Think UC/CSU.
[quote=CA renter]And could Preuss get the same outcomes from students with low IQs, SES, etc. if they threw all this money and all of these resources at them? No, they could not. They’ve tried that already and failed.[/quote]Proof? I thought SES + demographic backgrounds are highly correlated to IQ? I’m getting lost trying to follow your contradiction.
-
AuthorPosts
