The real problem with education

[Pick]

Why should someone become a teacher merely because they have the technical academic capability? That's far from what is required to be an effective teacher, not to mention they might not want to teach.

[Darth Wong]

Why should someone become a teacher merely because they have the technical academic capability? That's far from what is required to be an effective teacher, not to mention they might not want to teach.

Nice strawman. Since when was anyone claiming that a technical background automatically makes you a good teacher? The claim is that there's a shortage of math/science-qualified teachers in North America, not that anyone with a technical background is automatically a superior teacher.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Why should someone become a teacher merely because they have the technical academic capability? That's far from what is required to be an effective teacher, not to mention they might not want to teach.

Nice strawman. Since when was anyone claiming that a technical background automatically makes you a good teacher? The claim is that there's a shortage of math/science-qualified teachers in North America, not that anyone with a technical background is automatically a superior teacher.

Waitaminute. I'm confused now. Isn't the problem of growing numbers of illiterate students and increasing frequency of MCQ in language teaching a result of insufficient qualified arts/humanities teachers?

Or maybe it's both the humanities and the sciences that need qualified teachers. Or is this another argument entirely? Arghhh...

TWG

[Master of Ossus]

Waitaminute. I'm confused now. Isn't the problem of growing numbers of illiterate students and increasing frequency of MCQ in language teaching a result of insufficient qualified arts/humanities teachers?

Or maybe it's both the humanities and the sciences that need qualified teachers. Or is this another argument entirely? Arghhh...

TWG

We're never going to have enough qualified teachers in any subject, unless the school system can start offering compensation packages comparable to what private sector employees are offered.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I thought the teacher unions in the States are pretty powerful?

TWG

[Darth Wong]

Waitaminute. I'm confused now. Isn't the problem of growing numbers of illiterate students and increasing frequency of MCQ in language teaching a result of insufficient qualified arts/humanities teachers?

The problem with arts/humanities teaching is not a lack of numbers; it's a coddling approach. In the case of math/science teachers there's an actual shortage. The coddling approach is not as much of a problem in math/science but only because advanced math/science are not considered essential to graduate. If they made more math/science mandatory for high-school graduation, I have no doubt that the forces of mediocrity in the country would attempt to whittle down math/science education by coddling students in a similar manner.

[RedImperator]

I thought the teacher unions in the States are pretty powerful?

TWG

They are, but they're not powerful enough to force through the tax increases (or spending cuts elsewhere) that would be necessary to pay teachers private sector money. In the US, schools are financed largely through property taxes, and they're already sky high in a number of municipalities. Run them too high and the residents will vote with their feet and move somewhere where the taxes are lower. The unions have gotten wages up from the starvation levels they were at in the early 20th century, but there simply isn't enough money in the system to raise them any higher.

There is one possible way pay teachers more money without raising taxes. The US has the highest ratio of non-teaching school district employees to teachers in the world. Some are necessary (you couldn't run a school without janitors or a dean of discipline), but many are redundant, if not total deadweight. You could save a lot of money by trimming back the so-called "support staff", but those people are usually union too (different union), and the bureaucrats at the top aren't about to cut their OWN staff allowances. It's a doable reform, but it would be tough.

A more feisable approach would be to redesign the school financing system. That's probably going to happen anyway, because property taxes are becoming ruinous, especially in the Northeast and California. It would also do a lot to level the discrepencies between affluent and poor districts. The reason my high school is falling down around the students' ears while a suburban public high school a mile up the road is one of the finest in the counrty is because property values (and hence property tax revenues) in Philadelphia fell through the floor in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, while eastern Montgomery county has the highest property values in Pennsylvania.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Interesting. The teacher union here in Singapore is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the government, but recruitment isn't a problem, even though turnover is.

There is one possible way pay teachers more money without raising taxes. The US has the highest ratio of non-teaching school district employees to teachers in the world. Some are necessary (you couldn't run a school without janitors or a dean of discipline), but many are redundant, if not total deadweight. You could save a lot of money by trimming back the so-called "support staff", but those people are usually union too (different union), and the bureaucrats at the top aren't about to cut their OWN staff allowances. It's a doable reform, but it would be tough.

Given that Singapore runs with a lower taxation rate than the US, along with a slightly higher GDP percentage on defense, I agree it's not a matter of insufficient funds directed towards education, but rather how the funds are allocated.

TWG

[XPViking]

I thought the teacher unions in the States are pretty powerful?

TWG

There is one possible way pay teachers more money without raising taxes. The US has the highest ratio of non-teaching school district employees to teachers in the world. Some are necessary (you couldn't run a school without janitors or a dean of discipline), but many are redundant, if not total deadweight. You could save a lot of money by trimming back the so-called "support staff", but those people are usually union too (different union), and the bureaucrats at the top aren't about to cut their OWN staff allowances. It's a doable reform, but it would be tough.

Do you consider support staff merely the person who pushes the mop or the ones that are helping in the classroom such as certified educational assistants? I realize that the category is broad, but I am curious as to where you would let the axe fall.

[RedImperator]

I thought the teacher unions in the States are pretty powerful?

TWG

There is one possible way pay teachers more money without raising taxes. The US has the highest ratio of non-teaching school district employees to teachers in the world. Some are necessary (you couldn't run a school without janitors or a dean of discipline), but many are redundant, if not total deadweight. You could save a lot of money by trimming back the so-called "support staff", but those people are usually union too (different union), and the bureaucrats at the top aren't about to cut their OWN staff allowances. It's a doable reform, but it would be tough.

Do you consider support staff merely the person who pushes the mop or the ones that are helping in the classroom such as certified educational assistants? I realize that the category is broad, but I am curious as to where you would let the axe fall.

I'm talking about the masses of people you see in any American school--but especially, I've found, in poor city districts with the least money to waste--who have no clear jobs, don't teach, don't assist teachers, don't change light bulbs, don't answer phones, nothing. They're bureaucrats. To say nothing about the paper-pushers in the district office. Some paper pushers are necessary in any operation, but we have as many bureaucrats as we have teachers in some districts. That's where I'd drop the axe.

The last people to go would be people who are either working in classrooms, working directly with students, or maintaining the actual physical plant. The students are the reason we're all here, and nobody wants to work or learn in a shithole.

[Darth Wong]

A sufficiently strong politician could get the job done, but you don't see too many of those. All you really have to do is pass legislation overruling the provisions in collective bargaining agreements which make it impossible to fire all of these bureaucratic mandarins (remember that contract provisions are only binding insofar as they are legal).

Then you give unrestricted hiring/firing authority to upper management and instruct them to cut administrative staff costs by 50% within 2 years or you'll fire them. Do that and they'll promptly cut out all of the useless middle managers and other assorted baggage. Right now there's no incentive for anyone to go around making enemies by trimming back on useless staff, and limited possibility of doing so even if the will is present.

Of course, they could threaten to go on strike, so you'd probably want to declare it an "essential service" so they can't go on strike, and then harshly punish violators by throwing them in prison.

I know this sounds rather draconian, but it would work, unlike the half-measures and empty talk that normally passes for education reform.

[brianeyci]

It sounds like Mike Harris.

I wonder why Mike Harris never make it illegal for teachers to strike. He went far but not far enough probably.

Brian

[CaptainChewbacca]

Schwarzenegger tried to institute sweeping education reforms in the special election, but the teachers union raised holy hell when the spectere of revoking tenure of unqualified teachers raised its head.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

No kidding. The teachers' unions absolutely flayed him alive. They spent something like $80 million on attack ads, with an end result that every one of his special election measures failed and his approval rating dropped like a rock.

[CelesKnight]

Speaking of cutting costs:

I've often wondered how much is spent on educating the dumbest students, and is it really worth it.

There were about 450 students in my high school. Of those, about 8 or 10 of those were sent to an "alternative school" run by the school district (it was apparently a room rented in a nearby building). Those people weren't nessesarily dumb, but they were people who didn't want to go to school or follow the rules of society. So they were seperated from the rest of us and send to that special school.

Another 10 or so students were really dumb. Not mentally retarded, just stupid. They would take some classes with us, but would skip some to go to a "resource room" where they could get extra help. (As well as do crafts and play games and do things that one normally associated with elementary school.)

All in all, there was at least one teacher, three teachers assistants, one double-sized classroom--we were so short on classrooms that some classes were conducted in temporary shelters outside--and one rented room just for those ~20 students. None of them could aspire to much more than fast-food or factory jobs, and they already knew the basic math and reading skills they would need for that.

It seems to me that that money would be better spent either on the student body as a whole, or spent on the top few students by offering expanded computer, math, and science programs.

Is my school unusal in the benefits that the dumbest kids got, or are a lot of districts like that?

[RedImperator]

It seems to me that that money would be better spent either on the student body as a whole, or spent on the top few students by offering expanded computer, math, and science programs.

Schools have a legal and social requirement to educate everyone to the best of their ability. You try to shut down special ed programs in order give the resources to non-special ed students, you'll get your ass sued so fast your head will spin, and you'll lose. Ask the City of Philadelphia School District about what happens when you shortchange special ed.

Besides that, what are you going to do with these kids? Special ed programs do cost more per student, which is why schools tend to drag their feet on putting kids in them, but what else are you going to do? Turn them out on the street? Mainstream them and let them disrupt classes (if they're discipline problems) or crash and burn (if they're academic problems)? Decide some kids are just too dumb for school and fix them up with jobs at Burger King? [/code]

[CaptainChewbacca]

What happened in Phliadelphia?

[CelesKnight]

Schools have a legal and social requirement to educate everyone to the best of their ability. You try to shut down special ed programs in order give the resources to non-special ed students, you'll get your ass sued so fast your head will spin, and you'll lose. Ask the City of Philadelphia School District about what happens when you shortchange special ed.

I figured as much. Like most reforms, changing special education would probably have to be initiated at a state or national level, rather than by any particular school district.

BTW, were does the money from spec. ed. come from? It is from the school's general budget, or is are their special funds just for that?

Besides that, what are you going to do with these kids?

That's a good question. First, I think that we as a society need to first decide what the purpose of public education is. Is the purpose of education is to teach everyone a basic set of skills and knowledge or is it to maximize the skills and knowledge of as many students as feasible?

Naturally, that doesn't have to be an either-or choice, and given enough money, we could do both. However, I suspect that money is tight enough in most districts that they eventually have to make a choice between those.

Speaking just from personal experiance, it seems like the current focus is very heavily weighted towards giving everyone a basic set of skills and knowledge. As a result, the more gifted students are waisting their time, sometime leading to them either stopping paying attention in class, or to stop going to classes. Is that worse than a dumb kid "crashing and burning"? I think that both outcomes should be avoided, but from what I can tell (and natually I may be biased) almost all of the money and focus is on the dumb kid.

Decide some kids are just too dumb for school and fix them up with jobs at Burger King?

Would that nessesarilly be so bad? Speaking from personal experiance again, it seems that the focus of spec. ed. is on the really dumb or disruptive--i.e. people who have no chance of going to college or getting any type of non-burgerflipping job. What is that kid going to learn in an upper level highschool class that will help him in life? Home economics, shop, and health might be kinda useful, but high school math, English, and science are of little benefit.

What if the help and support that the really dumb kid is getting in those classes went to help who is almost-but-not-quite college material? That could be enough to push him into college and thus benefitting him greatly. Or, if the resouces were spent on the top few students, it would better prepare them for college and make it more likely that they excel, thus turing our more of the scientists and engineers who are so important to the future of the country.


BTW, I have no problem with special education for elementary students. Elementary skills are important for everyone. Moreover, there is always the chance that someone who is not doing well in elementary school might become more proficent as he gets older.

And to be honest, I don't really have that big of an issue with special education in high school. Ideally speaking, there should be enough money and resources to help out those kids, and to help out everyone else. The real issue that I have is that when money it tight, it seems like districts focus to much on the really dumb and disruptive students, and ignore the average and gifted students.

This isn't quite as well written as I wish it was. Sorry, I'm in a hurry.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, knight, I can understand your concern about secondary school special education, and some funds probably are misused, but you have to be very careful when you track the students.

Not all students are of equal need, and studies have shown in educational psychology that even special education students can succeed with training and care and go into college.

Creating special education programmes that are not adequately taken care of or funded (put on the back burner) have actually shown to weaken the academic skill of already troubled kids. Now, I can understand dealing more harshly with bad students or placing less emphasis on kids in which nothing can be done, but there are kids placed in MMRC that can be helped. You are partially correct when you state this, but I also disagree somewhat:

Would that nessesarilly be so bad? Speaking from personal experiance again, it seems that the focus of spec. ed. is on the really dumb or disruptive--i.e. people who have no chance of going to college or getting any type of non-burgerflipping job

SOME kids are unhelpable, but not all kids found in special ed are like that. According to my Ed. Psychology text, there are many kids who are borderline or kids with mental illneses that are workable, and in several programmes, kids have successfully made it to college and suceeded, although they're still a bit slower.

People who have no chance of going to college might be considered. I think whoever is in charge of the tracking has to pay special attention and not just lump people together (which is the problem in some cases). You have to be careful when you give group IQ tests and then place people into special ed. There are some programmes such as the AVID programme, which, I have read produce very good results in terms of college acceptance and graduation from highschool for slower and troubled teens. Admittedly, it is a bit more expensive, but those kids are harder to deal with, but not totally useless as some others are.

[CelesKnight]

Most of my info about special education comes from personal experiance, not from formal education or research. As such, my understanding of it could be wrong. At my school, special education was for the "hopeless" (for lack of a better word) cases. If special education is supposed to also be used for borderline cases, then I have less issues with it.

In fact, if the reason that only the "hopeless" casses attended spec. ed at my school was because the program wasn't well funded, then I reverse my position and support expanding spec. ed.

After writing that I talked to the secretary of my old school. It turns out that in the years since I've left, they've done just that--they've expanded the spec. ed. program to help a lot more students. Since I don't think that students are getting dumber, I presume that means that they are now helping borderline cases.


I don't doubt that with enough attention and resources, even many "hopeless" cases might be significantly helped. However, I have an honest question: how much attention and resources are required? And, more importantly, could those resources be better spent elsewhere? Or, to put it another way, what's the opportunity cost of getting that one student to college--would society as a whole be better off it we spent that money better educating the rest of the students?

[RedImperator]

What happened in Phliadelphia?

We've had our asses sued off--multiple times--because somebody somewhere decided to cut corners with a special ed kid; i.e., not implement an IEP, ignore teachers who say he's probably got a learning disability or emotional problems or what have you, mainstream a kid too soon against recomendations, ignore parents' requests for a psych eval, that kind of thing. You always end up losing more money in the lawsuit than you would have just doing what the law says you're supposed to do with these kids.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I find the terminology you guys are using pretty interesting. Over at my side, 'Special' education usually refers to the stream for the best and brightest, just one notch below 'Gifted'.

Those with lower mental abilities are classed as those with 'special needs'.

I think that while the lower-end kids should not be neglected, the capable and the smart ones should also be given opportunities to excel, meaning more resources devoted to them. The problem is finding enough funds and manpower to do both.

TWG

[RedImperator]

I find the terminology you guys are using pretty interesting. Over at my side, 'Special' education usually refers to the stream for the best and brightest, just one notch below 'Gifted'.

Those with lower mental abilities are classed as those with 'special needs'.

I think that while the lower-end kids should not be neglected, the capable and the smart ones should also be given opportunities to excel, meaning more resources devoted to them. The problem is finding enough funds and manpower to do both.

TWG

One of the areas in which the Philadelphia school district has been a putting a lot of money is gifted education. The district maintains a series of "magnet" high schools for gifted kids. Some of the magnets are general high schools with more challenging courses, and some are specially focused. For example, we have a school called Creative and Performing Arts, which is basically where the district sends all its best artists, writers, actors, and musicians. These are kids who are likely to actually have careers in the arts--Boyz 2 Men and The Roots both came out of CAPA, for example.

The problem we have in the district with gifted kids is the same we have with special-ed kids: identifying them and getting them into a program which takes full advantage of their talents. There are just so many kids in the system it's easy to lose track of them. And gifted programs cost money, which restricts how many deserving kids actually get to take advantage of them.

[XPViking]

Most of my info about special education comes from personal experiance, not from formal education or research. As such, my understanding of it could be wrong. At my school, special education was for the "hopeless" (for lack of a better word) cases. If special education is supposed to also be used for borderline cases, then I have less issues with it.

In fact, if the reason that only the "hopeless" casses attended spec. ed at my school was because the program wasn't well funded, then I reverse my position and support expanding spec. ed.

After writing that I talked to the secretary of my old school. It turns out that in the years since I've left, they've done just that--they've expanded the spec. ed. program to help a lot more students. Since I don't think that students are getting dumber, I presume that means that they are now helping borderline cases.


I don't doubt that with enough attention and resources, even many "hopeless" cases might be significantly helped. However, I have an honest question: how much attention and resources are required? And, more importantly, could those resources be better spent elsewhere? Or, to put it another way, what's the opportunity cost of getting that one student to college--would society as a whole be better off it we spent that money better educating the rest of the students?

Depending on the severity of the disability of the child I believe. Some students may require a wheelchair and some kind of voice synthesizer do hickey to communicate (along with a full time CEA) while others can be grouped together into a resource room for some instruction. Still others may only require some specialized equipment (in other words, their brain is okay but perhaps face some physical challenges). The costs vary widely. Also I would think that the results vary as well. What kind of significant improvement are we looking for? All you can hope for with some students is that they can learn some basic life skills and be semi-independent for the rest of their natural lives. A school setting may be the only place they can make any friends.

Is is better to spend money on these students as opposed to gifted students? I hope I am understanding you correctly here and my reply would be - that's a tough call. One could probably say that the gifted group would be able to succeed no matter what and are relatively self sufficient as compared to special ed students, but certainly it would be better to provide as much opportunity as possible for them to succeed. Meanwhile, the students that do have physical or mental disabilities need to be helped as well.

[RedImperator]

If you're going to start asking is special ed money could be better spent elsewhere, then the first question you need to answer is What happens to the special ed kids after you take their funding away? The old answer was leave them at home for their parents to deal with until they're old enough to institutionalize. If you want to do a cost-benefit analysis, society will spend a lot less money if it can teach these kids some semblence of independence then if you leave them wards of the state until they die.