Now the point is, who the hell is going to actually have the Sirius tuned to a populated frequency?
The people I've found waiting near me at a traffic light when my radio goes from playing NPR to a garbled mix of NPR, static and whatever crap that person is listening to.
It's not a matter of could it happen, it's a matter of it does happen. There have been numerous complaints to local station operators about the material that people are hearing when tuned to their station. The material is not coming from the station, but rather from nearby FM modulators.
Even the manufacturers of the FM modulators have admitted that they exceed the power levels and that it is a problem. They just don't care.
Because you obviously didn't read the article. NPR is upset at the makers of satellite (and other) FM modulators. The modulators are overpowered and do not comply with FCC regulations. The manufacturers of the units have admitted this and just went on their merry way. So NPR is asking the FCC to hold these manufacturers to the regulations.
This is perfectly reasonable. Think of it this way. If Linksys sells a router with increased coverage area (because they exceed the power limits imposed by the FCC), and your neighbor buys one which causes your router to stop working, don't you think Linksys should have to comply with the law?
Actually, at least the one time I sued somebody in small claims court it was rather straightforward and the court employees were very helpful.
I was 18, when down to the court, paid the fee (maybe $35) and the clerk told me what forms to fill out. She also told me the options for serving the papers. In addition, she pointed me to the computers where I could search for other cases to help research my claim.
I served the papers, and a court date was set. I was told to arrive at a specific time (I believe noon). There were quite a few of us. The judge first handled the cases where one side did not show, and then moved on to the cases that would be argued. I was maybe halfway down the list, and it was about 1pm when we started. We argued our sides of the case for about 25 minutes or so, the judge said he would rule in a few weeks. A week later (which included Thanksgiving), I received a notice from the court that the judge had ruled in my favor, what the judgement was, and when it was due by. The day after it was due (it was unpaid at the time), I went back to the court, filed the paperwork which would allow me to request that the Sherriff collect the judgement. (I received the check before I actually requested the collection).
All in all, it was rather painless, at least as painless as I think it could be.
Just my experience. From it I wouldn't deter people from persuing valid cases (though I personally don't feel this one is valid).
No, the Detroit public school teachers earn, on Median, $52k per year. Which is less than in surrounding areas. The $70k number includes benefits and social security payments, which are not included in the $78k number.
You are also assuming that the education results are the fault of the teachers and teachers only. The administration in Detroit completely screwed up that school district. Missapropriating funds, spending money on rewards for attendance, etc. In addition, if you have students who do not want to learn, and don't care about their test scores, the scores are going to be low.
If you want to be able to say that public school does worse than the alternatives, you have to have a point of comparison. To say on an absolute scale that the students do poorly (which they do), but yet have no evidence to show they would do better elsewhere, it isn't a comparison.
How many of those other advanced degree holders have a tenure system which protects them even when they are lousy?
Actually, teachers don't have this. If a teacher is performing poorly, they can be fired. Just like any other job. Is it easy, no, but really it's not so easy in any job. What tenure does is require that performance be shown to be poor before firing a person, and prevents a firing based on political or other reasons.
What if you have been trying to "fix it" for decades, but are blocked at every turn by anti-education interests such as the NEA, no matter how much more money you throw at it? How many generations of school children do you let pass through the broken system? Why not instead give them an "out" ? Vouchers which let children choose better schools (private AND public) do this.
You have been listening to too much political rhetoric. Is the NEA perfect, absolutely not. What does the NEA want? They want good pay (just as any employee and/or employee group), good benefits, small class sizes and newer supplies/equipment. Pretty much what would make the education system even better. And like I've said before, the system is not broken. Sure, a lot of the current republicans would love to have you think the current system is broken, but in fact, it's not. The vast majority of people are very happy with their public school system, hence why there isn't a bigger public outcry for vouchers.
Vouchers will not allow children to choose better schools. For one thing, private schools are not better. What vouchers will do is take tax dollars to support institutions that hand select and discriminate. You've said earlier than you would like any school that accepts vouchers to have to accept all students. I would like this too, but private school will not do this. And Bush and Co. will not force them. Why? Because that is not how you show your school is better. The only way that private schools are able to skew data in their favor is to hand select the students.
They would perform better, for two reasons (for starters): the schools would be competing against each other (no complancency of the monopoly) which encourages them to improve themselves to attact students. For another, the class sizes tend to be smaller. There's also a better breed of teacher, as the private schools tend more to pay for ability, instead of rewarding teachers for being bad through the tenure system.
In a lot of areas, this currently exists. For one thing, all parents have the option of sending their kids to private school, they just have to pay for it (kind of like most things in life). Schools do compete. In my area, and everywhere I've lived since graduating college has had open enrollment. This means parents are free to choose which school their children go to. Class sizes tend to be smaller in private schools for a couple of reasons. And none of these would exist post-vouchers. First, private schools cost more to operate per student, and can therefore afford to have smaller class sizes. Also, private schools are allowed to restrict enrollment sizes, public schools must take as many children as are in the area. If private schools were forced to take vouchers, they would have less money per pupil, and that would drive up class sizes. Also, because the private schools would be taking in more students, class sizes would be higher. In fact, what would probably happen is an equilibrium between public and private schools where all class sizes would be nearly identical.
Actually, private school teachers are different, not necessarily better. Private schools are allowed to higher anybody, for any position. Public schools are required (through state laws) to ensure a minimum qualification level of all teachers. For instance, to be hired as an elementary teacher in a public school, you must have training in elementary education. Must pass state tests to ensure you are fluent in the material and are also required to undergo continuing education throughout your career. In a private school, there are none of these requirements. In fact, I have known teachers with education and training in elementary reading, to be offered jobs as high school math teachers in private schools. This can't happen in a public school. But the flip side is that private schools can hire individuals without teacher training, which can be good. I think some of the teaching requirements at the state level sho
Then you fix it. But right now, there is absolutely no evidence that public education is doing a worse job than private. In fact, a recent Dept of Education study found that, once you correct for the inherent biases between public and private education (mainly, that public education accepts all students, and private schools hand pick the students), that public schools perform just as well as the private schools.
In other words, if you were to take all of the children being educated today, and stick them into private schools, the net result would be that the student's would not perform better.
I feel that when the government performs a service poorly, that service should be changed. But if the service isn't poor, or at least isn't worse than any other option being considered, well, then it's stupid to change it.
That doesn't matter. The school should pay enough to retain and keep the good teachers, and no more.
Exactly. Hence the salary negotiations to keep the teachers. If the district (i.e. the taxpayers) actually thought the money was being poorly spent, they could get rid of the teachers and hire a new staff. But, most of the teachers are worth it to retain.
So? Why compare apples and oranges? If these highly-paid teachers really wanted to be even richer and are obsessed with that, they should probably leave the profession. It's not like they are so dedicated to it in the first place.
It's not apples to oranges. You are saying teachers are overpaid. They are not, clear and simple. Who said anything about obsessed with being richer? If I want a raise at the end of the year, does that make me obsessed with being richer? No, it means I feel I deserve the raise. My employer can either give me the raise or not, and then I am free to do something about it (accept it, find another job, etc.). In your scenario above, the employer felt the employees deserved the raise.
I have never seen a group of employees as dedicated as teachers. I am sure there are other professions out there like it, but it's rare that employees go out of their way to help the students as anyone else would. Teachers buy classroom supplies, sometimes home supplies, for students who could not afford them, in districts where they don't buy them. Teachers bring food into the classroom for breakfast, snack, and lunch for students who's families can't afford it (and being hungry is one of the easiest ways to ensure a kid does not concentrate and does not learn).
That's a 4% increase that HAS to come from somewhere, and it typically is paid for by cutting programs and increasing class sizes. The greedy demand for uneanred wage hikes (gimme! gimme! gimme!) do force schools to cut programs. They are basically taking money out of the school system. The voters and taxpayers have already voted to very amply fund the schools.
You're right, it does have to come from somewhere, the budget. And guess what, if any employer does not budget appropriate wages for employees, the employees will find better paying jobs. So in order to keep employees, you must budget properly. The fact that programs are cut for it are not the teachers fault. It is the fault of poor planning and preperation by the administration, school board, and local taxpayers. They are not taking money out of the school system, it is a cost of running a school system. It's an important distinction. Taxes take money out of everybody's paycheck, but it isn't "stealing it" like you are trying to imply teacher's salaries are, it's a cost to live in the society. And who says the teachers are being greedy and the wage hikes are unearned? Just because you have some personal bias against teachers, doesn't mean that they are being greedy and the raises aren't deserved.
Actually, most school districts are woefully underfunded. I really can't believe anybody claims that public schools are amply funded. Believe it or not, public schools cost money. Sure, you'd love it if they were free to operate, but unfortunately, they are not. There are salaries of not only the teachers but administrators, support staff, janitors, etc. There are classroom supplies like books, paper and writing utensils. There are costs such as electricity and heat.
It's pretty clear from your posts to both myself and others in this thread that you are very uninformed when it comes to public schools. You have a severe bias against teachers (and why, I don't know). Don't worry, it's pretty common on Slashdot nowadays. If you opened your mind and would look into just what teachers and public schools do on a daily basis, you'd change your opinions.
My point is there is a lot of information that I could teach her. It doesn't mean that I teach it all to her. Which was my point about if it comes up in a conversation. Do you teach everyone you encounter about safe sex? That could actually save their lives rather than just their music collection.
You're right. I've never thought about it that way. Actually, now that you mention it, I should be teaching her a lot of things. For instance, she doesn't know anything about signal processing and filter design. Yet she is here in the same house with me and I could be teaching it to her right now.
Sorry to be so sarcastic. Yes there are things worth teaching. Is "DRM music bad" one of them? Not in my opinion, but that definately puts me in the minority on slashdot. Fact of the matter is, she doesn't care about DRM. She wouldn't want me teaching her about it just as I wouldn't want her teaching me about the different methods of teaching a child to read.
I'm a very opinionated person, but I generally only bring my opinions up when they are relevant. If she were having trouble playing music she purchased, or if she was asking the benefits of one format over the other, I'd let her know about DRM, but I don't go around preaching my views.
It's my opinion that this misplaced preaching is what ultimately harms an otherwise worth while cause. Get worked up over the important stuff. I don't buy music online (hell, I can't remember the last time I bought music period), I prefer a physical CD. If they aren't available to me, or don't play in my CD player, guess what, I don't buy them, I go on my merry way. It's how capitalism works.
Because the teacher's unions don't want to have to compete with anyone.
I have yet to hear an argument against vouchers that isn't just a thinly-veiled version of what I said above.
The comparison of performance between private and public schools is inherently flawed. It relies on the performance of everybody (public school) to a selected group (private school). The average (note average, not all) private school students is from a wealthier family, with more involved parents and more willing to work hard and value his/her education.
Public schools are required to take in everybody. This includes the students with behavioral problems, the students with learning disabilities and the student's with bad home lives. Because private schools can (and do) select the students, they have a better performing student as the floor, so the average performance will be higher.
For proper comparison, private schools should have to admit all students.
So now here are the arguments:
1. Vouchers allow my (and your) tax dollars to flow to an institution (private school) which is legally allowed to discriminate and is not required to report to the taxpayers (as public schools are).
2. Vouchers solve a non-existant problem. As the recent DoE report that was quietly swept under the rug showed, given the same students, public schools perform just as well as private schools.
3. Public schools are like public roads. They exist, and are funded, for the common good. Private schools do not (necessarily, though they certainly could) serve the public good.
4. Private schools are not overseen by any citizen entity. Public schools report to the school board, who reports to the local voters. This allows the local community to set standards and oversee the progress of the district.
I would make that "take all new applicants" If a student can't keep up with the academic or social policies of the school, the school should still have the ability turn them away. High student standards are part of what allows private schools to offer superior educations.
And where would the students turned away go? Are we not going to educate them? Or do they go into another school? If they go into another school are we going to compare that school against the original one? And if we do, we've got exactly the situation we have today.
And how does the $51k salary compare to other college educated wage earners in your area? In my area, the best paid teachers are paid much less than the average for college educated individuals. Especially when you consider most teachers are required to have Master's degrees.
You are also talking about a 4% increase that comes generally once every few years (other years are lower), which overall, does not beat out inflation. And they don't force the schools to cut programs. The voters and taxpayers in an area, who choose to underfund their schools, force the cuts.
According to the report, College grads averaged $51,554 in 2004 (same year as AFT data). So teachers earned $5k/year LESS than other college degree holders. Advanced degree holders (which most teachers are required to be) earned an average of $78,093, or more than $30k more than the average teacher.
I don't think they are. The average person on Slashdot may be, but not the average consumer. I think a more accurate set of statements for most customers is:
I will pay for music that I like.
I do not know what DRM is.
I do not know how to remove DRM, and don't know why I would.
Probably the biggest boon for the record companies right now (at least in regards to DRM) is iTunes. For most people, iTunes just works. It's easy, it's cheap, they can listen to their music on their iPod which connects to their car and home stereo, etc. Most people don't have the issues with iTunes that are pointed out on Slashdot all of the time. And as long as iTunes works, the record companies can point to it as a successful, consumer-friendly implementation of DRM.
My wife doesn't know what DRM is. My mom doesn't know. Neither do most people I know. As long as the average consumer can access his/her music the way they normally do (via iPod/iTunes or on a CD), they won't know and won't care about DRM.
No surprise, since the poor kids can't afford to go there! Vouchers for the "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" would change that.
Only if the private schools accept them, which they aren't required to do.
I myself think it education is too important to limit it this way, and would like to see "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" have the same opportunities for the Cadillac education instead of being stuck with the 1985 Yugo.
I agree. Which is why I think that the government's job should be to ensure the best education for all. This means a public education system. Vouchers do not provide this.
News flash: public schools DO suspend AND expel misbehaving students. There goes that excuse.
First of all, the process to suspend and/or expel a student in a public school is a very lengthy, time consuming process. Unless a student is violent towards other students, they will most likely not be suspended. And here's why.
First of all, students have a right to their public education. This right does not exist to a private education. So if you expel a student from a public school, you must be able to show that the denial of their right to attend that school is justified.
Second, there are just so many of them. There is a joke among teachers that goes "What is the perfect class size? Two fewer than you currently have, as long as you get to pick the two." In a class of 25-30 students, it's generally 2-3 that misbehave, meaning that the teacher must spend most of his/her time trying to keep those students from distracting the entire class. So now a teacher is focusing a good deal of effort on only 10% of the class. Not very efficient. Private schools are allowed to pick and remove those 2 students, something public schools realistically can not.
Third, when a public school expels a student, that students still gets an education, at a cost to the school district. And while a school district might spend $X per pupil to teach them in their facilities, the alternate facilities for the expelled students generally cost much more. A private school will lose the tuition and that's it. Public schools will lose general funds when expelling a student.
Part of the reason public schools do better is that they tend to get a better grade of teacher: those who are out to teach instead of to get rich. The work ethic encouraged in the public school system is shown by the lazy thug "teacher" loafing on a picket line to try to get more money instead of making positive effort in the classroom. Private schools have much less tolerance for these loafing thugs and will clear out the deadwood if this happened.
If you have evidence that private school teachers are indeed of "better grade" please provide. Fact of the matter is, some private school teachers are teaching private school because they've lost their public school teaching credentials. Sure there are some great private school teachers, and some great public school teachers. There is nothing inherent about either community that makes one better than the other.
And if you think public school teachers are out to get rich, I just don't know where you get your information. Look at the teaching salaries in a community and compare it to the average income in that same community. Now compare it with the average salary of somebody with a Master's Degree (which teachers at least in my state are required to have). You'll see that the teachers salaries generally are well below the community averages.
Now I'm all for ensuring that public education is the best it can be. But most opponents of public schools don't want to compare apples to apples. Either allow the public schools to act like the private ones, or require the private ones to act like the public schools if you want a valid comparison. As it is, private schools have all of the benefits (generally higher parental involvement, fewer legal restrictions, and the ability to select the students). Public schools have the disadvantages (must accept all students regardless of behavior, learning disability, etc.).
The public school system is the lowest common denominator as far as education. If parents want a good education for their children they will either homeschool using a good curriculum (and not "unschool" like some so-called homeschoolers do) or pay for private education. It's my view that the public education system is the safety net that will ensure a minimum level of knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society.
I don't think I could disagree more. The public school system is what the local community makes it. It is given funds by a city/town and run by a democratically elected school board. In areas where people don't care about the public schools, they are bad. In areas where people don't properly oversee the public schools, they are bad. In areas where the public schools are adequately funded and overseen by intelligent, rational people, they succeed very well.
Basic skills must be taught, period. It does not matter if you are a product of public or private schooling, reading, math, etc. are all things that need to be taught. You seem to feel that this is all that public schools teach. Which I find odd.
My public highschool offered numerous AP level courses, pretty much the entire range. About half of the students graduate having at least taken Calculus I (everybody must take pre-Calc). There were also numerous music and art programs available. These are all above the "knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society."
I am a product of public schools, as are the vast majority of my coworkers (Engineers). The private school educated coworkers I have for the most part attended a religious school because their parents wanted them to receive a religious education (I have no problem with that, just not my cup of tea).
It's not where you send your kids if you want them to be leaders, or a future Nobel prize recipient. I'm not saying that there are not leaders or Nobel prize recipients who attended public school.
Private school is for the elite. Plain and simple. Do you have to be rich and well-connected to attend? No, but it sure helps. A lot of whom we know as leaders are not leaders because of knowledge, they are leaders because of connection. Sure, in this sense private school would do them very well, as they would be classmates of the children of the rich and powerful.
It's interesting that you claim that private school is where your kids should go to become leaders or a future nobel prize recipient, yet you provide no evidence that there is any correlation (much less causation) between the private education and the success.
Warren Buffet - Attended DC public schools
Bill Gates - Attended public, then private middle/high school
Andrew Fire (2006 Nobel Prize) - Attended Fremont Public schools
George Smoot (2006 Nobel Prize) - Attended public school in Ohio
The two names above were the only 2006 winners that I could find any information on their pre-college education.
I would expect that the "average" public school student would look to perform worse on paper than private school students. But this is going to biased by the fact that public school must teach to all, and not pick and choose students like charter and private high schools can. But I also think of this as a benefit. It allows kids to learn to succeed and work in an environment where they have to deal with different people, with different skill levels and comprehension abilities.
Keep in mind that public education in America didn't actually exist for a long period of time, and we are now seeing its collapse.
I'm not sure where you find the evidence to support "we are now seeing its collapse." In a lot of areas it's thriving. Sure, Bush has been talking a lot about how bad public schools are and promoting vouchers, but it's political rhetoric, not grounded in any facts. Like I said a
As I've been told, waivers, permissions slips, etc. are worth about as much as the paper they are written on, maybe not even that much. Basically, if a parent wants to sue, they're going to sue, and they will claim that they weren't adequately informed of the dangers, didn't have legal counsel, etc.
There's a lot of blaming the schools in this discussion, but the real problem is with society. We allowed it to get this bad.
Did anybody sue? No. Did parents raise a fuss? Not that I know of. The reason for the ban? Lazy teachers plain and simple. They didn't like having to make sure that kids were playing friendly-like, and decided that nobody playing was easier to police.
Except that teachers like recess. Why, you ask? Because it lets kids release that energy that naturally builds up inside of them. Believe me, no teacher would do away with recess because they are "lazy."
-dave
Re:Why home schooling is booming
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Home schooling and other alternative education programs (EG: charter schools, distance education, etc) are growing at exponential rates, approaching 50% per year in many areas.
With absurdities like this, is it any wonder why?
Actually, yes it is. The thing I have never understood about complaining about public education, is that by the very nature of being public, every tax payer has a say in how it is run.
If you don't think the local schools are doing a good job, run for school commitee, or just attend the meetings, make your voice heard.
Most people who complain about public education have never attended a school commitee meeting and have never stood up when the commitee was looking for input (something my local one does at every meeting).
You are making one major assumption: That the test is testing the important material. A lot of tests do not.
Of course my perspective comes from being taught in private Catholic schools until the College years, and at least in my case our teachers blew away the public school teachers in the area. They made things interesting and they would actually fail students who didn't pass our tests. Granted that may be the exception even in private schools, and our tests were not standardized like now, but since we were learning at such a high level above the same grade in public school I can't come to any other conclusions.
Your perspective is from a school that can arbitrarily reject student's from attending. Can drop failing students from the school and can pick and choose who they allow. Whereas the public school must accept every students, must teach every student, and is responsible to every tax payer in the community. Not being able to come to any other conclusion shows that critical thinking was not taught in your private school.
I agree with you 100%. In fact, it's my feeling that Engineers just aren't respected anymore. Politicians don't respect engineers, management doesn't respect engineers, consumers don't respect engineers. No wonder nobody wants to go into engineering anymore.
This passes for insightful? I'm sorry, but you must not be an engineer, at least one involved in product or system development. You never assume that the previous levels QC provided you with anything more than you yourself have tested for. Sometimes this is done by testing a sample, sometimes by testing each and every one. But nothing goes out the door with my signature unless I am 100% convinced myself that there are no problems with it (either I tested it, somebody that I trust has tested it, or that I have witnessed the testing).
One of my first assignments at my first job was to witness the vendor's QC testing. Write as good of specification and test as possible, and they will still find ways to wiggle around the intention. If I wasn't there to stop the testing, require changes, and retest the item, it's scary to think what would have gone out the door.
Do you think burglary victims should be fined for being the victims of a crime?
Blaming computer security is like blaming door locks for burglaries. Fact of the matter is, nobody should have to secure their computer, unfortunately, we live in a world where people will take advantage of people all too quickly. The blame for spam lies solely with the spammers. Not with Microsoft (as much of Slashdot would like to believe), not with the avg computer user who doesn't have a completely secure machine.
Security is like DRM, is like speeding tickets, etc. People will always find a way around it. As long as you are going to allow the average user of the internet to send email, there will be a potential way in for a spammer.
Please stop masking the real responsibility for spam by blaming it on the grandma and grandpa just trying to email their grandchildren. The blame rests with the spammers, period.
Slashdot Mirror
Now the point is, who the hell is going to actually have the Sirius tuned to a populated frequency?
The people I've found waiting near me at a traffic light when my radio goes from playing NPR to a garbled mix of NPR, static and whatever crap that person is listening to.
It's not a matter of could it happen, it's a matter of it does happen. There have been numerous complaints to local station operators about the material that people are hearing when tuned to their station. The material is not coming from the station, but rather from nearby FM modulators.
Even the manufacturers of the FM modulators have admitted that they exceed the power levels and that it is a problem. They just don't care.
-dave
Because you obviously didn't read the article. NPR is upset at the makers of satellite (and other) FM modulators. The modulators are overpowered and do not comply with FCC regulations. The manufacturers of the units have admitted this and just went on their merry way. So NPR is asking the FCC to hold these manufacturers to the regulations.
This is perfectly reasonable. Think of it this way. If Linksys sells a router with increased coverage area (because they exceed the power limits imposed by the FCC), and your neighbor buys one which causes your router to stop working, don't you think Linksys should have to comply with the law?
-dave
Actually, at least the one time I sued somebody in small claims court it was rather straightforward and the court employees were very helpful.
I was 18, when down to the court, paid the fee (maybe $35) and the clerk told me what forms to fill out. She also told me the options for serving the papers. In addition, she pointed me to the computers where I could search for other cases to help research my claim.
I served the papers, and a court date was set. I was told to arrive at a specific time (I believe noon). There were quite a few of us. The judge first handled the cases where one side did not show, and then moved on to the cases that would be argued. I was maybe halfway down the list, and it was about 1pm when we started. We argued our sides of the case for about 25 minutes or so, the judge said he would rule in a few weeks. A week later (which included Thanksgiving), I received a notice from the court that the judge had ruled in my favor, what the judgement was, and when it was due by. The day after it was due (it was unpaid at the time), I went back to the court, filed the paperwork which would allow me to request that the Sherriff collect the judgement. (I received the check before I actually requested the collection).
All in all, it was rather painless, at least as painless as I think it could be.
Just my experience. From it I wouldn't deter people from persuing valid cases (though I personally don't feel this one is valid).
-dave
No, the Detroit public school teachers earn, on Median, $52k per year. Which is less than in surrounding areas. The $70k number includes benefits and social security payments, which are not included in the $78k number.
You are also assuming that the education results are the fault of the teachers and teachers only. The administration in Detroit completely screwed up that school district. Missapropriating funds, spending money on rewards for attendance, etc. In addition, if you have students who do not want to learn, and don't care about their test scores, the scores are going to be low.
If you want to be able to say that public school does worse than the alternatives, you have to have a point of comparison. To say on an absolute scale that the students do poorly (which they do), but yet have no evidence to show they would do better elsewhere, it isn't a comparison.
How many of those other advanced degree holders have a tenure system which protects them even when they are lousy?
Actually, teachers don't have this. If a teacher is performing poorly, they can be fired. Just like any other job. Is it easy, no, but really it's not so easy in any job. What tenure does is require that performance be shown to be poor before firing a person, and prevents a firing based on political or other reasons.
-dave
What if you have been trying to "fix it" for decades, but are blocked at every turn by anti-education interests such as the NEA, no matter how much more money you throw at it? How many generations of school children do you let pass through the broken system? Why not instead give them an "out" ? Vouchers which let children choose better schools (private AND public) do this.
You have been listening to too much political rhetoric. Is the NEA perfect, absolutely not. What does the NEA want? They want good pay (just as any employee and/or employee group), good benefits, small class sizes and newer supplies/equipment. Pretty much what would make the education system even better. And like I've said before, the system is not broken. Sure, a lot of the current republicans would love to have you think the current system is broken, but in fact, it's not. The vast majority of people are very happy with their public school system, hence why there isn't a bigger public outcry for vouchers.
Vouchers will not allow children to choose better schools. For one thing, private schools are not better. What vouchers will do is take tax dollars to support institutions that hand select and discriminate. You've said earlier than you would like any school that accepts vouchers to have to accept all students. I would like this too, but private school will not do this. And Bush and Co. will not force them. Why? Because that is not how you show your school is better. The only way that private schools are able to skew data in their favor is to hand select the students.
They would perform better, for two reasons (for starters): the schools would be competing against each other (no complancency of the monopoly) which encourages them to improve themselves to attact students. For another, the class sizes tend to be smaller. There's also a better breed of teacher, as the private schools tend more to pay for ability, instead of rewarding teachers for being bad through the tenure system.
In a lot of areas, this currently exists. For one thing, all parents have the option of sending their kids to private school, they just have to pay for it (kind of like most things in life). Schools do compete. In my area, and everywhere I've lived since graduating college has had open enrollment. This means parents are free to choose which school their children go to. Class sizes tend to be smaller in private schools for a couple of reasons. And none of these would exist post-vouchers. First, private schools cost more to operate per student, and can therefore afford to have smaller class sizes. Also, private schools are allowed to restrict enrollment sizes, public schools must take as many children as are in the area. If private schools were forced to take vouchers, they would have less money per pupil, and that would drive up class sizes. Also, because the private schools would be taking in more students, class sizes would be higher. In fact, what would probably happen is an equilibrium between public and private schools where all class sizes would be nearly identical.
Actually, private school teachers are different, not necessarily better. Private schools are allowed to higher anybody, for any position. Public schools are required (through state laws) to ensure a minimum qualification level of all teachers. For instance, to be hired as an elementary teacher in a public school, you must have training in elementary education. Must pass state tests to ensure you are fluent in the material and are also required to undergo continuing education throughout your career. In a private school, there are none of these requirements. In fact, I have known teachers with education and training in elementary reading, to be offered jobs as high school math teachers in private schools. This can't happen in a public school. But the flip side is that private schools can hire individuals without teacher training, which can be good. I think some of the teaching requirements at the state level sho
Then you fix it. But right now, there is absolutely no evidence that public education is doing a worse job than private. In fact, a recent Dept of Education study found that, once you correct for the inherent biases between public and private education (mainly, that public education accepts all students, and private schools hand pick the students), that public schools perform just as well as the private schools.
In other words, if you were to take all of the children being educated today, and stick them into private schools, the net result would be that the student's would not perform better.
I feel that when the government performs a service poorly, that service should be changed. But if the service isn't poor, or at least isn't worse than any other option being considered, well, then it's stupid to change it.
-dave
That doesn't matter. The school should pay enough to retain and keep the good teachers, and no more.
Exactly. Hence the salary negotiations to keep the teachers. If the district (i.e. the taxpayers) actually thought the money was being poorly spent, they could get rid of the teachers and hire a new staff. But, most of the teachers are worth it to retain.
So? Why compare apples and oranges? If these highly-paid teachers really wanted to be even richer and are obsessed with that, they should probably leave the profession. It's not like they are so dedicated to it in the first place.
It's not apples to oranges. You are saying teachers are overpaid. They are not, clear and simple. Who said anything about obsessed with being richer? If I want a raise at the end of the year, does that make me obsessed with being richer? No, it means I feel I deserve the raise. My employer can either give me the raise or not, and then I am free to do something about it (accept it, find another job, etc.). In your scenario above, the employer felt the employees deserved the raise.
I have never seen a group of employees as dedicated as teachers. I am sure there are other professions out there like it, but it's rare that employees go out of their way to help the students as anyone else would. Teachers buy classroom supplies, sometimes home supplies, for students who could not afford them, in districts where they don't buy them. Teachers bring food into the classroom for breakfast, snack, and lunch for students who's families can't afford it (and being hungry is one of the easiest ways to ensure a kid does not concentrate and does not learn).
That's a 4% increase that HAS to come from somewhere, and it typically is paid for by cutting programs and increasing class sizes. The greedy demand for uneanred wage hikes (gimme! gimme! gimme!) do force schools to cut programs. They are basically taking money out of the school system. The voters and taxpayers have already voted to very amply fund the schools.
You're right, it does have to come from somewhere, the budget. And guess what, if any employer does not budget appropriate wages for employees, the employees will find better paying jobs. So in order to keep employees, you must budget properly. The fact that programs are cut for it are not the teachers fault. It is the fault of poor planning and preperation by the administration, school board, and local taxpayers. They are not taking money out of the school system, it is a cost of running a school system. It's an important distinction. Taxes take money out of everybody's paycheck, but it isn't "stealing it" like you are trying to imply teacher's salaries are, it's a cost to live in the society. And who says the teachers are being greedy and the wage hikes are unearned? Just because you have some personal bias against teachers, doesn't mean that they are being greedy and the raises aren't deserved.
Actually, most school districts are woefully underfunded. I really can't believe anybody claims that public schools are amply funded. Believe it or not, public schools cost money. Sure, you'd love it if they were free to operate, but unfortunately, they are not. There are salaries of not only the teachers but administrators, support staff, janitors, etc. There are classroom supplies like books, paper and writing utensils. There are costs such as electricity and heat.
It's pretty clear from your posts to both myself and others in this thread that you are very uninformed when it comes to public schools. You have a severe bias against teachers (and why, I don't know). Don't worry, it's pretty common on Slashdot nowadays. If you opened your mind and would look into just what teachers and public schools do on a daily basis, you'd change your opinions.
-dave
My point is there is a lot of information that I could teach her. It doesn't mean that I teach it all to her. Which was my point about if it comes up in a conversation. Do you teach everyone you encounter about safe sex? That could actually save their lives rather than just their music collection.
-dave
You're right. I've never thought about it that way. Actually, now that you mention it, I should be teaching her a lot of things. For instance, she doesn't know anything about signal processing and filter design. Yet she is here in the same house with me and I could be teaching it to her right now.
Sorry to be so sarcastic. Yes there are things worth teaching. Is "DRM music bad" one of them? Not in my opinion, but that definately puts me in the minority on slashdot. Fact of the matter is, she doesn't care about DRM. She wouldn't want me teaching her about it just as I wouldn't want her teaching me about the different methods of teaching a child to read.
I'm a very opinionated person, but I generally only bring my opinions up when they are relevant. If she were having trouble playing music she purchased, or if she was asking the benefits of one format over the other, I'd let her know about DRM, but I don't go around preaching my views.
It's my opinion that this misplaced preaching is what ultimately harms an otherwise worth while cause. Get worked up over the important stuff. I don't buy music online (hell, I can't remember the last time I bought music period), I prefer a physical CD. If they aren't available to me, or don't play in my CD player, guess what, I don't buy them, I go on my merry way. It's how capitalism works.
-dave
Because the teacher's unions don't want to have to compete with anyone. I have yet to hear an argument against vouchers that isn't just a thinly-veiled version of what I said above.
The comparison of performance between private and public schools is inherently flawed. It relies on the performance of everybody (public school) to a selected group (private school). The average (note average, not all) private school students is from a wealthier family, with more involved parents and more willing to work hard and value his/her education.
Public schools are required to take in everybody. This includes the students with behavioral problems, the students with learning disabilities and the student's with bad home lives. Because private schools can (and do) select the students, they have a better performing student as the floor, so the average performance will be higher.
For proper comparison, private schools should have to admit all students.
So now here are the arguments:
1. Vouchers allow my (and your) tax dollars to flow to an institution (private school) which is legally allowed to discriminate and is not required to report to the taxpayers (as public schools are).
2. Vouchers solve a non-existant problem. As the recent DoE report that was quietly swept under the rug showed, given the same students, public schools perform just as well as private schools. 3. Public schools are like public roads. They exist, and are funded, for the common good. Private schools do not (necessarily, though they certainly could) serve the public good.
4. Private schools are not overseen by any citizen entity. Public schools report to the school board, who reports to the local voters. This allows the local community to set standards and oversee the progress of the district.
-dave
I would make that "take all new applicants" If a student can't keep up with the academic or social policies of the school, the school should still have the ability turn them away. High student standards are part of what allows private schools to offer superior educations.
And where would the students turned away go? Are we not going to educate them? Or do they go into another school? If they go into another school are we going to compare that school against the original one? And if we do, we've got exactly the situation we have today.
-dave
And how does the $51k salary compare to other college educated wage earners in your area? In my area, the best paid teachers are paid much less than the average for college educated individuals. Especially when you consider most teachers are required to have Master's degrees.
You are also talking about a 4% increase that comes generally once every few years (other years are lower), which overall, does not beat out inflation. And they don't force the schools to cut programs. The voters and taxpayers in an area, who choose to underfund their schools, force the cuts.
-dave
Now compare the average salary from AFT: $46,600 to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/26/degree.val ue.ap/index.html
According to the report, College grads averaged $51,554 in 2004 (same year as AFT data). So teachers earned $5k/year LESS than other college degree holders. Advanced degree holders (which most teachers are required to be) earned an average of $78,093, or more than $30k more than the average teacher.
-dave
I don't think they are. The average person on Slashdot may be, but not the average consumer. I think a more accurate set of statements for most customers is:
- I will pay for music that I like.
- I do not know what DRM is.
- I do not know how to remove DRM, and don't know why I would.
Probably the biggest boon for the record companies right now (at least in regards to DRM) is iTunes. For most people, iTunes just works. It's easy, it's cheap, they can listen to their music on their iPod which connects to their car and home stereo, etc. Most people don't have the issues with iTunes that are pointed out on Slashdot all of the time. And as long as iTunes works, the record companies can point to it as a successful, consumer-friendly implementation of DRM.My wife doesn't know what DRM is. My mom doesn't know. Neither do most people I know. As long as the average consumer can access his/her music the way they normally do (via iPod/iTunes or on a CD), they won't know and won't care about DRM.
-dave
No surprise, since the poor kids can't afford to go there! Vouchers for the "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" would change that.
Only if the private schools accept them, which they aren't required to do.
I myself think it education is too important to limit it this way, and would like to see "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" have the same opportunities for the Cadillac education instead of being stuck with the 1985 Yugo. I agree. Which is why I think that the government's job should be to ensure the best education for all. This means a public education system. Vouchers do not provide this.
-dave
She doesn't work for the government, but she is also required to provide service to anybody who needs it, unlike a private school.
-dave
News flash: public schools DO suspend AND expel misbehaving students. There goes that excuse.
First of all, the process to suspend and/or expel a student in a public school is a very lengthy, time consuming process. Unless a student is violent towards other students, they will most likely not be suspended. And here's why.
First of all, students have a right to their public education. This right does not exist to a private education. So if you expel a student from a public school, you must be able to show that the denial of their right to attend that school is justified.
Second, there are just so many of them. There is a joke among teachers that goes "What is the perfect class size? Two fewer than you currently have, as long as you get to pick the two." In a class of 25-30 students, it's generally 2-3 that misbehave, meaning that the teacher must spend most of his/her time trying to keep those students from distracting the entire class. So now a teacher is focusing a good deal of effort on only 10% of the class. Not very efficient. Private schools are allowed to pick and remove those 2 students, something public schools realistically can not.
Third, when a public school expels a student, that students still gets an education, at a cost to the school district. And while a school district might spend $X per pupil to teach them in their facilities, the alternate facilities for the expelled students generally cost much more. A private school will lose the tuition and that's it. Public schools will lose general funds when expelling a student.
Part of the reason public schools do better is that they tend to get a better grade of teacher: those who are out to teach instead of to get rich. The work ethic encouraged in the public school system is shown by the lazy thug "teacher" loafing on a picket line to try to get more money instead of making positive effort in the classroom. Private schools have much less tolerance for these loafing thugs and will clear out the deadwood if this happened.
If you have evidence that private school teachers are indeed of "better grade" please provide. Fact of the matter is, some private school teachers are teaching private school because they've lost their public school teaching credentials. Sure there are some great private school teachers, and some great public school teachers. There is nothing inherent about either community that makes one better than the other.
And if you think public school teachers are out to get rich, I just don't know where you get your information. Look at the teaching salaries in a community and compare it to the average income in that same community. Now compare it with the average salary of somebody with a Master's Degree (which teachers at least in my state are required to have). You'll see that the teachers salaries generally are well below the community averages.
Now I'm all for ensuring that public education is the best it can be. But most opponents of public schools don't want to compare apples to apples. Either allow the public schools to act like the private ones, or require the private ones to act like the public schools if you want a valid comparison. As it is, private schools have all of the benefits (generally higher parental involvement, fewer legal restrictions, and the ability to select the students). Public schools have the disadvantages (must accept all students regardless of behavior, learning disability, etc.).
-dave
I don't think I could disagree more. The public school system is what the local community makes it. It is given funds by a city/town and run by a democratically elected school board. In areas where people don't care about the public schools, they are bad. In areas where people don't properly oversee the public schools, they are bad. In areas where the public schools are adequately funded and overseen by intelligent, rational people, they succeed very well.
Basic skills must be taught, period. It does not matter if you are a product of public or private schooling, reading, math, etc. are all things that need to be taught. You seem to feel that this is all that public schools teach. Which I find odd.
My public highschool offered numerous AP level courses, pretty much the entire range. About half of the students graduate having at least taken Calculus I (everybody must take pre-Calc). There were also numerous music and art programs available. These are all above the "knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society."
I am a product of public schools, as are the vast majority of my coworkers (Engineers). The private school educated coworkers I have for the most part attended a religious school because their parents wanted them to receive a religious education (I have no problem with that, just not my cup of tea).
It's not where you send your kids if you want them to be leaders, or a future Nobel prize recipient. I'm not saying that there are not leaders or Nobel prize recipients who attended public school.
Private school is for the elite. Plain and simple. Do you have to be rich and well-connected to attend? No, but it sure helps. A lot of whom we know as leaders are not leaders because of knowledge, they are leaders because of connection. Sure, in this sense private school would do them very well, as they would be classmates of the children of the rich and powerful.
It's interesting that you claim that private school is where your kids should go to become leaders or a future nobel prize recipient, yet you provide no evidence that there is any correlation (much less causation) between the private education and the success.
The two names above were the only 2006 winners that I could find any information on their pre-college education.
I would expect that the "average" public school student would look to perform worse on paper than private school students. But this is going to biased by the fact that public school must teach to all, and not pick and choose students like charter and private high schools can. But I also think of this as a benefit. It allows kids to learn to succeed and work in an environment where they have to deal with different people, with different skill levels and comprehension abilities.
Keep in mind that public education in America didn't actually exist for a long period of time, and we are now seeing its collapse.
I'm not sure where you find the evidence to support "we are now seeing its collapse." In a lot of areas it's thriving. Sure, Bush has been talking a lot about how bad public schools are and promoting vouchers, but it's political rhetoric, not grounded in any facts. Like I said a
As I've been told, waivers, permissions slips, etc. are worth about as much as the paper they are written on, maybe not even that much. Basically, if a parent wants to sue, they're going to sue, and they will claim that they weren't adequately informed of the dangers, didn't have legal counsel, etc.
There's a lot of blaming the schools in this discussion, but the real problem is with society. We allowed it to get this bad.
-dave
Did anybody sue? No. Did parents raise a fuss? Not that I know of. The reason for the ban? Lazy teachers plain and simple. They didn't like having to make sure that kids were playing friendly-like, and decided that nobody playing was easier to police.
Except that teachers like recess. Why, you ask? Because it lets kids release that energy that naturally builds up inside of them. Believe me, no teacher would do away with recess because they are "lazy."
-dave
Home schooling and other alternative education programs (EG: charter schools, distance education, etc) are growing at exponential rates, approaching 50% per year in many areas.
With absurdities like this, is it any wonder why?
Actually, yes it is. The thing I have never understood about complaining about public education, is that by the very nature of being public, every tax payer has a say in how it is run.
If you don't think the local schools are doing a good job, run for school commitee, or just attend the meetings, make your voice heard.
Most people who complain about public education have never attended a school commitee meeting and have never stood up when the commitee was looking for input (something my local one does at every meeting).
-dave
You are making one major assumption: That the test is testing the important material. A lot of tests do not.
Of course my perspective comes from being taught in private Catholic schools until the College years, and at least in my case our teachers blew away the public school teachers in the area. They made things interesting and they would actually fail students who didn't pass our tests. Granted that may be the exception even in private schools, and our tests were not standardized like now, but since we were learning at such a high level above the same grade in public school I can't come to any other conclusions.
Your perspective is from a school that can arbitrarily reject student's from attending. Can drop failing students from the school and can pick and choose who they allow. Whereas the public school must accept every students, must teach every student, and is responsible to every tax payer in the community. Not being able to come to any other conclusion shows that critical thinking was not taught in your private school.
-dave
I agree with you 100%. In fact, it's my feeling that Engineers just aren't respected anymore. Politicians don't respect engineers, management doesn't respect engineers, consumers don't respect engineers. No wonder nobody wants to go into engineering anymore.
-dave
This passes for insightful? I'm sorry, but you must not be an engineer, at least one involved in product or system development. You never assume that the previous levels QC provided you with anything more than you yourself have tested for. Sometimes this is done by testing a sample, sometimes by testing each and every one. But nothing goes out the door with my signature unless I am 100% convinced myself that there are no problems with it (either I tested it, somebody that I trust has tested it, or that I have witnessed the testing).
One of my first assignments at my first job was to witness the vendor's QC testing. Write as good of specification and test as possible, and they will still find ways to wiggle around the intention. If I wasn't there to stop the testing, require changes, and retest the item, it's scary to think what would have gone out the door.
-dave
Do you think burglary victims should be fined for being the victims of a crime?
Blaming computer security is like blaming door locks for burglaries. Fact of the matter is, nobody should have to secure their computer, unfortunately, we live in a world where people will take advantage of people all too quickly. The blame for spam lies solely with the spammers. Not with Microsoft (as much of Slashdot would like to believe), not with the avg computer user who doesn't have a completely secure machine.
Security is like DRM, is like speeding tickets, etc. People will always find a way around it. As long as you are going to allow the average user of the internet to send email, there will be a potential way in for a spammer.
Please stop masking the real responsibility for spam by blaming it on the grandma and grandpa just trying to email their grandchildren. The blame rests with the spammers, period.
-dave