posted
So yesterday afternoon they gave out notices to students that need to go to summer school. Are they the students that have failed every subject every quarter? Are they students with excessive absences? Nope. They are the students that did not do so well on the state math test. So this is telling me that kids that are naturally good at math can do absolutely nothing in my school all year and get promoted to the next grade. I have several that haven't passed anything but gym (some including gym) in any quarter this year. Meanwhile students who struggle in math, but pass the other classes, have to come back for summer school. I hope their parents riot!
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was attempting to escape high school early, I ran into the barrier of one of the state's requirements: four years of English.
I inquired of the school's English department whether I could take English 3 and 4 simultaneously. No dice: "They must be taken sequentially." Could I enroll in summer school for English 3 the summer after my Sophomore year, and then take English 4 the following year? No: "Summer school is only for remedial students." What I could do, I was told, was taken English 4 the summer after my Junior year and graduate at the end of the summer.
When I pointed out that would be using summer school for non-remedial purposes, and asked again whether it would be possible to instead take English 3 during the summer the year before, I was met with a blank stare.
Since, for my purposes, I needed to be done with high school before the end of the summer after my Junior year (i.e., before I left for college), I thanked them not terribly kindly for their assistance and went and enrolled in a state-approved correspondence course for English 4. I finished it several months before finishing English 3, with a grade of A.
Ah, school bureaucracy.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So this is telling me that kids that are naturally good at math can do absolutely nothing in my school all year and get promoted to the next grade.
You think this is a bad thing?
What do you think the purpose of school is? If it's to teach people subjects like math, then those kids who are naturally good at it and can ace the test without doing anything obviously don't need it. Why would you want to force them to sit through more school that they don't need?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What do you think the purpose of school is? If it's to teach people subjects like math, then those kids who are naturally good at it and can ace the test without doing anything obviously don't need it. Why would you want to force them to sit through more school that they don't need?
Standardizing changes the goal of education from the process (learning) to the object (learning a thing). It seems to me that has good and bad effects.
The fact that students who failed the test are getting extra help is a good thing (assuming the things they're tested on truly are essential). But if the test prevents students who can pass it without effort from being pushed to excel (i.e. failing all their school subjects but passing the test), I think that's a bad thing.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: Not that I'm any kind of expert on American schools, but I think Stephan was lamenting the fact that the results for every other subject seem to be irrelevant to the decision of inviting someone to summer school.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So this is telling me that kids that are naturally good at math can do absolutely nothing in my school all year and get promoted to the next grade.
You think this is a bad thing?
What do you think the purpose of school is? If it's to teach people subjects like math, then those kids who are naturally good at it and can ace the test without doing anything obviously don't need it. Why would you want to force them to sit through more school that they don't need?
I would agree if it were the same for English, Social Studies, AND science. When I have students ace my tests and not do anything else, I do not fail them. But the fact that it is ONLY the ones struggling in math troubles me. Everyone has different strengths. Why not even just hold back the ones doing poor in English if not science and social studies?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sucks, but I'd title this thread "Another thing about NCLB" more than "Another thing about American schools."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: That sucks, but I'd title this thread "Another thing about NCLB" more than "Another thing about American schools."
No kidding!
I just don't understand why they promote these kids for failing all year. Then they get to high school and don't realize those days are over. They NEED those credits to graduate.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree here. Students with poor math skills certainly require help, but so do (perhaps even more so) do students with poor reading and writing skills.
I too find it odd that summer school is focused on the standardized test results, rather than the results of teaching and tests in class. It basically invalidates everything the teachers outside of math have done, and at the same time the work the students have done outside of math.
Ontario students are required to get a certain number of credits. If you fail English in grade nine, you need to get that English class either in the next year or at summer school. The same goes for any required class, including math.
Students are also required to pass the Ontario Literacy Test, which tests reading and writing and is administered in the fall of Grade Ten. If you fail the test, you take it again in the next year. Most people only require a second go. There is plenty of time to finish it, since you get three shots before normal graduation. I was ill the day of the test so took it in my grade eleven year. Thankfully, the non-completion of the test had no effect on my otherwise reasonably good high school work.
A standardized math test is administered in Grade 11. I took the enriched math course, failed it (and presumably the exam), moved up a grade, took the "university" level math the next year and graduated with all my credits intact with an 89 in the course and presumably a pass on the test.
I am okay with standardized tests when used sparingly, but to use a standardized test in a single subject as the sole measure of students' aptitude seems overly simplistic to the point of hilarity. I agree with you, Stephen.
Math is important, but should not stand in for every other course.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a problem with the sort of standardized tests integrated into grade schools is that they seem to be highly disconnected from the curriculum that an individual teacher wishes to teach.
What if the state worked with teachers in individual schools to develop the standardized tests?
Suppose teachers individually or as a school would submit their own set of problems to whoever composes the tests. The central authority then either "approves" or "disapproves" each problem, and compiles all the "approved" problems from around the state.
Then, each school would distill a fixed number of problems that would become the standardized test for that school. The state would require say 10 problems labelled "easy", 7 labelled "medium", 5 labelled "hard", 10 "multiple choice", 10 "short answer", 2 "essay".
This way, a teacher could simply teach more or less what he/she wants to, not worrying about some amorphous "standard" that corrupts and disrupts the teaching and learning process.
I'm not a teacher so I don't know if this is already done somewhere or if it has downsides that I can't perceive.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you think the purpose of school is? If it's to teach people subjects like math, then those kids who are naturally good at it and can ace the test without doing anything obviously don't need it. Why would you want to force them to sit through more school that they don't need?
The purpose of school is much broader than that. It also includes teaching students the life skills they will need, as well as character. Part of that is learning that you must do your work, even if you consider it to be mundane or below your level. When they later get jobs, they cannot go to their boss and say they decided not to do the work they were assigned because they didn't think it was important or productive. That lesson is probably more important to their futures than anything they will learn in high school math.
Of course, I doubt having kids repeat a grade over again, by itself, is a very effective way of teaching them the need to do their work.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kids who fail but understand the material will still be facing consequences, which are probably more severe then retaking the course (which I believe at my school replaced the failing grade for gpa considerations). Depending on the school district, they may not qualify to graduate. They are definitely going to be having troubles getting into college.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The purpose of school is much broader than that. It also includes teaching students the life skills they will need, as well as character. Part of that is learning that you must do your work, even if you consider it to be mundane or below your level. When they later get jobs, they cannot go to their boss and say they decided not to do the work they were assigned because they didn't think it was important or productive. That lesson is probably more important to their futures than anything they will learn in high school math.
We obviously have differing views on what we want school to teach.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they later get jobs, they cannot go to their boss and say they decided not to do the work they were assigned because they didn't think it was important or productive.
In fact, they can. They will then be fired. What's the problem?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they later get jobs, they cannot go to their boss and say they decided not to do the work they were assigned because they didn't think it was important or productive.
In fact, they can. They will then be fired. What's the problem?
...that they'd be fired...
Something about "can" and "can't": It does not necessarily mean "within the human capabilities of an individual"; it usually means "what an individual is willing to do, and is capable of doing so, to a point where there is a possibility that a few individuals will take that course of action."
Being fired is not usually a consequence most people are willing to accept for their plans.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Being fired is not usually a consequence most people are willing to accept for their plans.
If more people had the will to get fired when they have a dream/idea of something better to do with their time, we might have a more innovative society...when people are taught it's the end of the world to get fired and not do work that's below their level, we lose a lot of potential in our society.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Being fired is not usually a consequence most people are willing to accept for their plans.
If more people had the will to get fired when they have a dream/idea of something better to do with their time, we might have a more innovative society...when people are taught it's the end of the world to get fired and not do work that's below their level, we lose a lot of potential in our society.
You don't need to be fired to persue a dream; Give notice and leave. You gain nothing by burning bridges you don't need to.
From what I've seen you don't have to do anything but wait it out to get promoted to the next grade. I graduated from high school with people who cannot read.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a job where being fired would have been an improvement. I was suffering from depression at the time (without realizing it, of course) so I was having trouble working up the oomph to leave. I suffered there for a year and a half not sure how to make it better. Fortunately, my bank got bought out by a larger bank and the horrible things I heard about them prompted me to apply elsewhere.
I had a new job in a week, turned in my two weeks, and I love my new company.
Of course, a huge difference between school and work is that worker who accels can apply for new and interesting positions and promotions. And I'm willing to do a pretty good amount of drudge work to keep my bank account full, beneath my abilites or not.
Work is built on a system of positive reinforcement. School offers no tangible benefits except grades which only have value in themselves. It's built on a system of negative reinforcement that can't really be enforced. What are you going to do to little Johnny if he decides not to bother anymore? Leave him in the same grade until he's 16? What can his parents actually do to him if he decides not to show up? They still have to feed him and give him a place to live. If they hit him, he can turn them in for abuse.
The whole thing is a deck of cards that assumes that by the time kids realize how powerless everyone around them really is they'll also have the wisdom to see the thing out for their future benefit. God help the myopic children who see the lies but not the necessity of playing along.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they later get jobs, they cannot go to their boss and say they decided not to do the work they were assigned because they didn't think it was important or productive.
I do this all the time. A large part of my job is coming up with the best way of achieving goals. Of course, I do this at the time or soon after I'm given an assignment and in conference with my bosses, but it's not all doing what ever the boss tells you to in the business world.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, I've often told people that "We agreed I would do X, Y, Z, but while I was working on X I noticed interesting fact A, so I did B and C instead". But then, science is probably a bit different from most jobs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's look at the heart of this. It really has nothing to do with mandatory testing, it has to do with the fact that mandatory testing has a very high public profile and has, in most cases, attached consequences.
The government, at all levels, doesn't care that kids are failing in every subject year after year and are still being passed. What they care about is that nobody knows it.
The mandatory state testing though has international implications. It holds USA students up along side much better and far more motivated foreign students. Further, if it is bad enough, or if there hasn't been enough improvement, you risk loss of federal funds.
Now there is an idea that could only come from this President; take funding away from schools who clearly need more help, not less.
So Math Scores have tremendous political and social consequences, not for the students, but for the politicians. The politician could care less that droves of unseen unnamed students are being cheated out of the foundation that their life will be built on (education), because, sad to say, there are no political consequences to those unseen students.
On general principle, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of passing students on when they have clearly failed to take in the necessary information and acquire the necessary skills. It's great for the schools and politicians because they don't have to look bad, but, I think, it does great immeasurable harm to the students.
[For the record, I had to repeat 2nd grade.]
I think first and foremost, students need to be motivated. They need to be made to understand that they are not going to be foot-loose and fancy-free kids forever. At some point, Mom and Dad are going to stop paying the bills, and then the burden is going to fall on them. They need to be prepared for it.
I really think that is a problem for high school kids. Too many of them think high school is the center of the universe and that it will last forever. Ouch! and double Ouch! when they finally wake up and discover the rent is due, the car payment is due, the utility bills are due, and they can't get a decent job.
Next, teachers need to be able to present information in an interesting yet practical way, and I don't mean merely a lot of fancy bang zoom gimmicks. The best teachers are teachers that can engage students. Though sadly, I think teachers seldom have the resources to fully accomplish that goal, and by resource, I mean financial and moral support of the school administration.
I think it should be driven home again and again to students that high school is the foundation upon which they will build the rest of your life. And grade school is the foundation upon which high school is built. If you do misreably in grade school, it makes it extremely difficult to get caught up in high school. Certainly, enjoy high school while it's there, but make sure you invest in the future, because the future is racing up on you much much faster than you imagine.
So...it's all about politics.
And, on another subject, what is 'fancy' and why is it 'free'? Inquiring minds want to know.
posted
I think a big part of the problem is parents have in many cases checked out. They view educating their child as the school's responsibility. If there is hw, well, the teacher should be forcing the kid to do it. If the kid has a test, the teacher should force the student to study. Of course, my husband worked inner city so that could skew my perspective. I think that education only works when parents support it.
I also know my husband had a horrible time teaching his students algebra because they had not actually learned skills in earlier grades. Some of the students did not really understand multiplication, most needed a calculator for simple addition and subtraction and fractions were beyond almost all of them. So, very few of them actually learned any algebra before getting passed on to algebra 2 or geometry. They were a little better in the basics though.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone here please educate me on the "resources" issue?
I mean, where is all the money going?
Let's say we have a class of 30 students. The state pays $10K per student.
They buy a trailer for the students; we'll be generous and make it an 800 square foot affair, so there's room for desks, a lab, etc.
You can get a 1200 square foot doublewide home for $30K; I'll be generous and say we spend $50K on the schoolroom trailer. It's got heating, A/C, 2 bathrooms, a little kitchen, and a few room dividers.
Now we buy desks and school supplies. Let's buy a LOT of them--heck, let's splurge and spend $50K on it. That's a LOT of brand-spanking-new textbooks and microscopes and a TV/DVD and paper and pencils and pencil sharpeners and whatever else this class of 30 kids will need.
Okay, so we're at $80K now. We have $220K left over.
Let's pay the teacher....$80K for the year. Wouldn't that be nice?
So we have the schoolroom, the supplies, and the teacher's salary. We still have $140K left over.
Where is that money going?
Especially since from what I remember of my CA public school classrooms, the classrooms sucked, the books were falling apart, and the teachers were terribly underpaid. And there was a LOT more than $10K alloted by the state for each child.
And with the above example, I think you could make do on even less. You could ask a company to donate the trailer. You could get used books and desks. You can share microscopes. You have the buy the trailer only once, so the next year, you have that much more money. Even fixing a roof or siding wouldn't break the budget.
I think before I want to pour more money into schools, I'd like to see them wiser with the money they already have. The money's going somewhere, and if it's not to the teachers, and not to the kids, then something has to change.
Teachers--enlighten me, please, on what exactly is costing public schools so much $$?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, a lot of it is administration. Before that money even gets to the school itself, it passes through the district, where a huge bunch of administrative costs come in (in some districts more than others. We just had a big scandal in the LAUSD about misappropriation of funds and such...) Then there's renovation, after school programs, special projects, resources such as teacher training and psychological evaluations and special testing for students who need it, etc. The money for each student doesn't go to each student's individual education; it goes to the district to use as they see fit to run the whole district.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most children are not taught in trailers. Just the maintenance on a large building can be, well, large. School bus fleets are remarkably expensive to keep in operation.
And, simple fact, a small number of students are much, much more expensive than the rest. Students with learning disabilities are a significant part of any school's budget on a per-student basis.
If you're interested in seeing your local school board's budget, it is definitely part of the public record. I was very familiar with the local school budgets for a number of years, and could dig up a recent one to go over, if you're interested.
edit: and there are all sorts of fun costs, like the costs to purchase those required standardized tests. Some of them get truly absurd.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add in the buses and the gas to make them work, and the drivers, maintenance, training, insurance.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elementary Level: Also add in the ancillary staff at the school who provide services to the student: nurse, secretary, accountant, physical ed teacher, music teacher, art teacher (if you're lucky enough to have one), teacher for speakers of English as a Second Language (ESL), Early Intervention Program teachers (EIP), special education teacher, speech therapist, physical therapist, behavior intervention specialist, cafeteria workers, custodians.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and your $80k per teacher amount is far too low. While in some districts average salaries reach up that high (typically because a large number of the teachers have many, many years experience), what I'm referring to are the other costs associated with a teacher: benefits, HR overhead, et cetera.
I wouldn't be surprised if in most districts the average cost per teacher, just for the salary, benefits, and management of those items, is over $120k (in private industry half again base salary is often used as a guesstimate; teachers often have decent benefits).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I'm pretty sure the charter school that my son attended for kindergarten had a far more restricted budget than what the public schools have, and yet they were able to make it work. I wonder how.
I'd love to see an actual budget, fugu.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were they able to make it work with all the things public schools provide to the most needy? Many private schools take advantage of state laws that require public schools to provide resources to deal with those with learning disabilities and the like. Support along those lines can vary from bussing kids around to providing multiple salary lines to the private school out of public budgets.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I could tell, they did. I think my son Chief's teacher mentioned something to me about teachers willingly taking a pay cut to work at that school; after we'd started going the school began a limited bussing line. (I lived across town and still drove my son in and out every day).
I think the school may have relied a lot on parent volunteers.
However, public schools do as well. My PSing friends schedule four hours a week volunteering for their kids' schools.
I think the key difference between the public schools in that state and our charter school was the charter school had 3 administrators. All the other employees were teachers. I think parents helped with building maintenance.
Which wouldn't be possible with a public school, I'm guessing.
My father was an environmental lawyer for the Air Force, and I can still remember hearing about the money any federal or state group had to spend on small things like routine maintenance, because they were required to provide x,y,z for workers, and were required to hire based on federally-instituted quotas, and not whoever was cheapest or most effective.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in my example, I have $120K left over. Let's raise the teacher's pay to...$150K. There's still $70K left over.
I thought the US was helping to set up schools in developing countries, like in Afghanistan. How are they doing it there? How do they run schools in Africa and India? I'm interested in seeing a cost comparison. Maybe there's something we can learn from our poorer sister countries.
ETA: And here I am sure most people will disagree with me, , but I think there are services that the schools need money to render that aren't needed, or at least not on the scale they think.
I'm putting this very clumsily, but in my arrogant opinion, some schools are too quick to intervene in some cases.
For instance, I think it's perfectly normal for some children, particularly boys, to not begin to read until they are 7 or 8.
In schools these children are labeled "learning disabled" or something like that, and are put on the list for $$$ educational interventions, when perhaps all they need is a little time, after which they'll start reading on their own just fine.
And if the public schools are anything like the military, they may exaggerate the needs/problems of students, in order to maintain or increase their budgets, or defend their jobs.
It's the people-with-hammers-see-nails idea. Speech therapists are going to think every 3 year old with a lisp is in need of expensive state-funded twice-weekly trips to a speech therapist.
But here I depart from wondering what schools are spending money on, to criticizing their reasons for spending money.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oh, and your $80k per teacher amount is far too low. While in some districts average salaries reach up that high (typically because a large number of the teachers have many, many years experience), what I'm referring to are the other costs associated with a teacher: benefits, HR overhead, et cetera.
I wouldn't be surprised if in most districts the average cost per teacher, just for the salary, benefits, and management of those items, is over $120k (in private industry half again base salary is often used as a guesstimate; teachers often have decent benefits).
erm, after fifteen years as a teacher I make a third of your $120k figure. Just to lend some perspective to this crazy discussion.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, I think it's perfectly normal for some children, particularly boys, to not begin to read until they are 7 or 8.
In schools these children are labeled "learning disabled" or something like that, and are put on the list for $$$ educational interventions, when perhaps all they need is a little time, after which they'll start reading on their own just fine.
The problem I have with this statement is that while it's perfectly normal for some kids, perhaps, it's definitely caused by a real learning disability in others, and the sooner it's identified and coping strategies/assistance as needed put into place, the better those kids are going to fare.
The strategy at most schools is not to just label kids; it's to test until they find out what is causing the problem (or decide that it's not really a disability causing it after all.) Now, there are problems with the system in place, for sure, but I don't think just saying "oh, we won't worry about it until he's eight" is going to be best for the child in all or even most cases.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't make the general budget available online, so I'll have to find one in person (you could always get one from your local district, of course; they should have them freely available at the administrative building).
However, I can give a general idea from an annual report, which has some high level numbers.
Total enrollment for the year in question (2006) was 10,964 students. Total expenditures were $88,499,247.84, or about $8071 per student.
Of that, $11,317,551.31 (a bit over $1000 per student) goes to servicing debt (building bonds is almost all of that, I believe), a little under $6 million goes to school transportation-related expenses (a bit over $500 per student), and about $8.5 million goes to a capital projects fund (there are a number of decrepit buildings in the district, so there's always work on, at the very least, keeping them in repair. Roofs are expensive).
Then there's about $62.5 million for everything else (approximately $5,700 per student). Of that, a bit over $25 million goes towards regular instruction, split among nearly (some of them are paid out of other line items, but not too many) 766 teachers (including those paid like teachers, such as school librarians) for an average of a bit over $32,000 per teacher (note: this includes benefits; my district used to have much higher average salaries, but has been encouraging retirement of higher-salaried teachers. I am not at all convinced that was a good move, but it certainly reduces costs).
There's also $4 million some for administrators. Another $23 to 24 million for support services (for pupils, for instructional staff, for central support). Add in something over $5 million for educating students with learning disabilities, and you have all the big items. There's also nearly $1 million for remediation and summer programs and the like.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: I definitely overstated when I said most districts. I don't think many other than inner city reach that high of salary + benefits. I suspect the cutoff that most are above is more like $70k, after pondering, and that will vary a lot by amount of experience in the teachers. I know that the local school district was well over that a decade or so ago, in large part because they had quite a few teachers with masters degrees and 40+ years of experience. Now it appears they're more in the range of $35 to 40k per teacher, with an average experience of 7 or 8 years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
KQ--I think that some students do have problems, that do need to be addressed, and that saying "We'll wait it out" would be like sticking one's head in the sand. Look at what a difference it makes to have interventions for Down's Syndrome kids beginning as soon as possible.
However, I think a lot of problems are problems of definition. I think there is a faulty assumption that children should meet the same educational milestones at the same ages, like, "Children should be able to read by age 5."
I think that we used to expect children to read at a later age, and perhaps expecting children to read at an earlier age has contributed in part to the rise of learning disability diagnoses.
Likewise, I think it's unnatural to expect a little boy under the age of 8 to sit still for several hours a day.
But now that we have that expectation, children who cannot conform to that expectation are often labeled as having a problem, when they didn't have a problem except as defined by the institution.
SO, I think the fault lies not in the children, but in faulty expectations.
But, then, again....I'm a crazy homeschooler, and I can afford to think this way. I think the American public school system needs a total overhaul if it's going to adequately serve children. But I don't know how many citizens agree, and I'm guessing that the help the schools want is more of the kind where we work within the philosophy most public school educators/admins are accumstomed too, i.e., more student problems requires more money for more teaching expertise.
And, here's another question, and I know it probably sounds snotty, though it's not at all intended that way--what is the difference between teachers and other therapists/interventionists?
Why aren't teachers, who theoretically have spent many years learning how to teach things to children, considered able to teach to more, well, "difficult" children, instead of sending children on to specialized experts? I mean, do the speech therapists have less training, and are paid less than teachers, and that's why children are sent to them?
Again, I'm not trying to be snotty.
I'm just wondering if as a country we are so dependent on the "pay more money for an expert" way of solving educational problems that we can't find a way to improve American education without throwing more (possibly unhelpful) money into it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is in large part a question of time: division of labor. Perhaps a teacher could help a student who needed speech therapy . . . if she weren't busy teaching 30 other students. By having a speech therapist on staff, the students who most need it can have individual and small group time with a professional who can focus on what they need. They aren't spending their whole day with speech therapists, just shorter sessions. Only a few students need constant high levels of supervision and attention. For instance, at my high school there were under a dozen very high needs students, but they needed three or four people looking after them constantly who were trained and experienced in dealing with their needs, particularly when some of them (not all had them) had fits.
But as you can easily see from my summary, school districts aren't spending money on anything outrageous. Many of the 'lower costs' of private schools are just shifting some of those costs onto the parents indirectly (and generally less efficiently -- for instance, the school bus system no doubt costs much, much less than if parents had to get their kids to school).
Indeed, while I favor significant reform of schooling, I suspect those reforms would end up costing more, primarily because they would see much smaller class sizes. School systems are extraordinarily cheap for what we have them do.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the most messed up part about school budgets, is not being able to save money for a rainy day. We KNOW there are going to be budget cuts next year. They are increasing class sizes and cutting a lot of little things. Yet if we don't spend every penny of this year's budget, we lose it. In fact principals get bonus money for their schools if they run through their money more quickly then others.
My wife's (5th grade) team was handed a catalog and told they have 5 days to spend $5,000. Otherwise the school loses it, yet they are downsizing the amount of teachers in their school next year.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oh, and your $80k per teacher amount is far too low. While in some districts average salaries reach up that high (typically because a large number of the teachers have many, many years experience), what I'm referring to are the other costs associated with a teacher: benefits, HR overhead, et cetera.
I wouldn't be surprised if in most districts the average cost per teacher, just for the salary, benefits, and management of those items, is over $120k (in private industry half again base salary is often used as a guesstimate; teachers often have decent benefits).
erm, after fifteen years as a teacher I make a third of your $120k figure. Just to lend some perspective to this crazy discussion.
It depends on the area. I think the average teacher salary in my school district is 70-80k or something like that.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely, teachers start at 43k in my county, and currently max out with a master's at a little over 80k.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't fleshed out all my feelings on the subject, because there are a lot of things to balance.
However, I do know I would like significantly more flexibility in hiring and firing teachers. I'm not saying do away with all the protections teachers enjoy, but it should be easier to fire someone who is not being a very good teacher, even if they have a decent number of years experience. As far as hiring, I think there are a number of people who could be (and are being, in a few places) hired who would be valuable additions as teachers, particularly in science and math classes in high school, who are not being brought in in most places now. More freedom in offering more desirable hires higher salaries would probably make sense, too.
I do emphasize something one commenter pointed out: the people going into Teach for America tend to come much more from the highest qualified graduates at some of the best schools in America at a high rate. However, that TFA teachers' performance is higher than the performance of teachers with quite a few years of experience is very telling.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:erm, after fifteen years as a teacher I make a third of your $120k figure. Just to lend some perspective to this crazy discussion.
You just need to go on strike more. The district with the highest paid teachers around here, go on strike nearly every time there contract is up.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but I think there are services that the schools need money to render that aren't needed, or at least not on the scale they think.
