Slashdot Mirror

"You can thank the voucher opponents for this, while saying that the payment is not enough they actually fight to reduce it."

By phrasing it like that, you make it sound like it's established that vouchers are a good thing and anti-voucher groups want to gut voucher amount. It is not, however, established that vouchers are a good thing. The desire is not to give vouchers worth less money; actually, anti-voucher people fight to avoid vouchers altogether and find an alternative to fixing public education.

"One infamous case is where the NEA fought against teachers in Syracuse who took the iniative themselves to tutor students on the weekends."

I couldn't find this anywhere...got a link?

"Do you happen to have something that shows...Before$ > After$"

No, I don't have an analysis to prove or disprove that, except this article is pretty good: http://misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df0 5122004.html. My point was that he campaigned on certain amounts, then across the board provided less than he promised. Then he still demanded all the changes that were originally to be funded with the original amounts, but now won't pay for them. How does he expect that to work?

"the NEA which opposes them solely because private school teachers are not forced into the NEA."

Many organizations have multiple reasons for doing things, and I'm sure the point that private school teachers aren't forced to join the NEA is one small concern. But there's an entire list of their completely valid arguments against vouchers here, so don't let a little politics void a whole bunch of good reasons. Not to mention that the NEA is not the only group with good arguments against vouchers.

"I have no respect for political organizations whose power lies in coercion and theft (forced political contributions by members"

No one's forced to contribute to the political side of NEA, the legally distinct, separately budgeted NEA PAC. So stop believing those lies about forced political contributions.

It depends on the size of the voucher in the program. Many provide enough for the poor to attend. Yet, the anti-education lobby (NEA, etc) opposes these, too, because it means the growth of schools where teachers are not forced into the NEA.

You said "many" because you can't say "most". Because "most" programs, by far, do not provide even half of private school tuition.

And don't label the National Education Association as "the anti-education lobby", without backing it up. The NEA is not anti-education, and it's ridiculous to say that. If the NEA is anti-education, who is pro-education? If anyone's anti-education, it's Bush, who promises funding and brags about how much he cares about education, and then breaks his promises and guts education budgets.

If you were really concerned about "the poorest of the poor", you would not want them to be stuck in inferior schools. You would want vouchers so they can improve their education.

What do you do, work for some politician's spin department? Because I'm against vouchers, you think I'm against education? It's not that simple, although it'd be convenient for your arguments if it were cut and dry like that. Of course I don't want kids stuck at inferior schools, but sending every kid to private school is not the answer either, because no evidence that they'd do a superior job at teaching all the kids that a public school has to teach.

They would be stuck in their poor public schools, while all the smarter or not-quite-so-poor kids leave.

And you can't prove these public schools are inferior compared to private schools, because private schools exist in a bubble of selectivity and wealth, while public schools has to teach whatever kids live in the area. I'd like to see see how good an education the teachers at an upper class private school are able to provide to 500 kids from the inner city. You cut off their selectivity, and you'll see their misleading numbers and inflated test scores drop until they're the same as the public schools.

It is much more expensive to provide schooling for a poor, not-so-intelligent kid, than a well off, smart kid. You have to have a meal plan, you have to have extra help, and you need to get through more social barriers for a kids who have a hard poor life than a kid who has a decent middle class life. The poorer students get more than average because they are needy.

So when you take money away and give it to richer smarter students, and also take away all the smarter kids themselves, you are making it much harder for the public schools to educate the ones who remain.

All vouchers do is thin out the public schools, helping kids with some money or some real brains escape, leaving others in the dust.

How about creating an organization dedicated to protecting teaching professionals from any and all responsibility for the results of their piss-poor work ethic and then calling it The National Education Association.

The TEACH Act is meant for situations just like yours. A bit of reading here or here should get you going. It is by no means a smooth path, for instance I cannot copy the laser discs we own, even to preserve them - let alone embed parts of them in power point presentations, like we want to do. One thing I do know is that copyright, as applies to schools is a gradient of gray, never black and neverwhite.

Sera

Yeah, it's true, people watch DVDs and TVs a lot, and surf the internet a lot, and listen to CDs a lot. But this doesn't mean that people don't also read a lot. So, I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you actually have, rather than just unfounded, bitch-about-the-state-of-affairs-in-America tripe.

Here are some statistics from one source: Good News About America's Public Schools. While it's true that they are statistics from a possibly biased source, I'd like you to show me any statistics showing that anyone has given up reading completely in favor of TV or movies.

Agreed, but it isn't going to happen. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say it should be such, it isn't going to happen without mass violence, which would be unacceptable.

Violence isn't necessary, just politics and advocacy.


I really wish I could believe that. You must have had a better experience that I in school. It was not germane to the discussion so I did not discuss it here, but when you're too smart, and make the teachers look dumb they punish you too. That aspect has been discussed to death on slashdot (read nearly anything by Katz). In highschool, I had similar problems on the opposite end of the scale. The school system is broken. It can't be repaired, only dismantled and rebuilt. Unfortunatly, they are also the ones deciding what you learn and how you learn it. Want to be scared? Go to the nea website and read some the things they have to say. I watched an anti education system paranoia piece, and read the nea website the same day, and IMNSHO I found the paranoid didn't go quite far enough. In one piece by the president of the nea I read that the teaching of facts and skills weren't important. It was far more important to theach the right social, philisophical and political outlook.

I assume you took the meds. Did you then jump through the school ranks? Did you advance even one year ahead, or even fill your last year of HS with college level courses? If not, stop bragging.

Grade level jumping wasn't allowed at that time when I was medicated in sixth grade, my teacher tried to get me advanced a year, they wouldn't even review it. I DID fill the first half of my senior year in high school with AP courses, and took one my junior year. The second semester I said fuck it. I had tried to take government in summer school and graduate a semester early (the earliest allowed in my district), but I wasn't allowed as it was full of people who hadn't passed government, and they had priority, so my second semester I filled up on crap classes because government was the only one that mattered, and I just didn't care any more. If not for needing that last government credit however, I would have been out a few months early.

College however was a bit of a rude awakening. Not at first. The first couple of semesters were easier than high school, and I got lazy. When the upper division stuff hit, I got bit.


Sorry if I pissed you off. But social promotion is a load of BS. If a kid can't cut the grade, give them a different teacher, put them in a different school, or make them repeat it. If they still have problems, THEN you medicate.


I'll respond to this load of tripe in small words so you can understand them. Without medication, I tested at two grades below grade level. Two days after starting medication I tested at three above. I couldn't keep on task long enough to BE tested accuratly. In sixth grade I tested out above most college graduates with meds.

I find it deeply offensive, that someone such as yourself would demand that I spend several extra years in the hell that is the public indoctrination system just because I was not 'mature' enough to handle the moronic setup they have. If I held out any hope that it could be changed I would advocate for such change, but it NEVER will change. No amount of advocacy, politics or any other peaceful solutions will fix it.

I will freely admit however that it is possible that I would have done better in a different environment. My parents DID try to put me in private school, but it was too expensive. They tried a different teacher, but were told that it wouldn't happen, and they tried for a different public school, they were likewise told that that was forbidden (I'm told that this has changed now).

I want to hear from you what ADD / ADHD is, without you falling back on medical arcana that describe the biology behind the condition without describing the condition.

Not that anyone is still reading... :)

I'm surprised people portray school teachers as borderline panhandlers. They vary WIDELY, as does per pupil school spending which varies by about 6:1.

NEA survey of salaries & spending

Private school teachers, esp. parochial, often make less than unionized public school teachers. I don't know how much teachers *should* make, but there are professions in worse shape.

Actually, I'd say the NEA data is pretty much worthless because averages entire states and does not factor in some sort of COLA. The COLA between NYC and SD is *huge*. Also, states vary internally. I see that my state, VA, spends ~$6,000/pupil, pretty low on the list, while DC looks staggering at $13k. However, my county of Arlington, across the Potomac from DC, spends $12.5k. I again don't know the "right" number, but the averages are misleading. Medians would be slightly better.

Here is a more nuanced survey of VA salaries, which vary nearly 2:1 intrastate. When I lived in IL, spending varied nearly 6:1. (Here is NYC.) Our salaries are not proportionally as high as our spending per pupil (don't forget to factor in classs size BTW :), and the ironic thing is that many of the teachers can't afford to live in the county, which is not at all ritzy. Median home (note, not average!) value has reached $350k, double since I moved here 5 years ago(!). Anyway, one needs to look at context or the numbers mean nothing.

Versus sanitation workers it appears the teachers, education notwithstanding, make similar wages. Before someone chimes in to rag on the quality of teachers, at least some (or many) are good and deserve to be paid accordingly. And, before I get one of *those* people, no, "throwing money at something" does not guarantee fixing it. Choking off its air supply does guarantee results. (I hate that stupid argument.)

If NYC sanitation workers don't like their wages, they can convey they effectively by smell --- strike. Teachers have less colorful options, though I suppose closing the schools and sending kids home is pretty cruel. :)

As you can see, I'm starting off the new year cranky. Let's hope it lasts. ;-)

1) Teachers suffer from low pay and low respect in most of the country. I blame much of this on the power of the NEA, which is a classic example of a bureaucracy that exists to perpetuate its own existence. If the NEA advocated in favor of more rigorous screening, performance reviews, and salaries based not on seniority but on parent reviews, student reviews, peer reviews, and testing performance, teachers might have a chance. But as it is, the NEA aggressively fights to "protect" teachers. Of course all this does is perpetuate stereotypes about teachers being slackers who want to work 9 months out of the year. Try being a full-time teacher in the US without also being a member of the NEA - it doesn't happen.

2) District-based funding, coupled with per-seat attendance rules mean that schooling is about cramming as many students into the classrooms as possible. School districts, be they rural or urban, rich or poor, almost always suffer from bloated bureaucratic structures and mismanagement. An atmosphere of entitlement ("We dedicate our lives to helping children, so you can forgive our mistakes") permeates these organizations. This of course stems from antiquated concepts of tenure and lifetime employment in the education system. Hell, even the US Government doesn't offer the kind of guaranteed work for life contract that most school districts provide.

3) Ultimately, American K-12 education is more about socialization and keeping children out of trouble than it is about truly educating them. Because family structures have fallen apart, teachers are expected to be caretakers first, and educators second. How on earth can teachers focus on using technology effectively when they barely even get the opportunity to teach?

I've done technology volunteer work for schools in places all over the country, and one consistent trend I see is that charter schools make far better use of the money they have, and leverage technology better than traditional public schools. Too many Americans are content with the status quo, because they figure the NEA and the national political parties know best. They're afraid of changing the system for fear of ruining American K-12 education. The thing is, it's already screwed up, and the time for change is now.

Why is the National Endowment for the Arts pissed off about MIE or Unschooling?

The National Educational Association, a teacher's UNION, has these few words about unschooling. It seems unschooling is not in their business strategy. Yes, its about money, while unschooling is about education.

Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.

NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.

NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.

NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.

From the horse's mouth.

And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'

Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.

NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.

NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.

NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.

From the horse's mouth.

And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'

Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.

NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.

NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.

NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.

From the horse's mouth.

And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'

Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.

NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.

NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.

NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.

From the horse's mouth.

And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'

No, no! It's the National Education Association!

Informative

Informative

As usual, Katz never cites any hard sources for his assumptions. For statistics and analysis of crime rates among students, please take a look at the NEA's School Safety Facts. Please keep in mind that the NEA (National Educators Association) is a teachers' lobbyist concern, and does have some slant in the favor of public school teachers.

That said, I find Katz' immediate implication of 'educators' as proponents of the Mosaic 2000 program offensive. I can't think of many teachers who would support such an idiotic proposal, and also resent the implication that educators would support such an abomination to suppress free speech outside the classroom, using such media as the WWW.

While I agree that there /has/ been a failing of late for teachers to meet the needs of some of their brighter students, there is only a finite amound of work these people can do in the course of a day. When you have a class of at least 20-25 students, it is very difficult for the teacher to focus on just /one/ student. What these people need is support, not half-informed pundits shooting their mouth off.

As usual, Katz never cites any hard sources for his assumptions. For statistics and analysis of crime rates among students, please take a look at the NEA's School Safety Facts. Please keep in mind that the NEA (National Educators Association) is a teachers' lobbyist concern, and does have some slant in the favor of public school teachers.

That said, I find Katz' immediate implication of 'educators' as proponents of the Mosaic 2000 program offensive. I can't think of many teachers who would support such an idiotic proposal, and also resent the implication that educators would support such an abomination to suppress free speech outside the classroom, using such media as the WWW.

While I agree that there /has/ been a failing of late for teachers to meet the needs of some of their brighter students, there is only a finite amound of work these people can do in the course of a day. When you have a class of at least 20-25 students, it is very difficult for the teacher to focus on just /one/ student. What these people need is support, not half-informed pundits shooting their mouth off.