Am I oversimplifying public education's funding?

[johnandtinagilbert]

I know this belongs on the general board, but I don't live there. I live here and K-8. Here's what I was thinking.

 

State of FL gets about $6,800/child annually.

 

Limit of 18 kids in pre-K-3 per classroom.....total $122,400

 

Pay a teacher well, better than (s)he's paid now, say $70,000......balance $52,400

 

Average rent for a classroom sized buildinging, incl. utilities $3,000/month, say $36,000 per year.......that leaves $16,400 to educate 18 children.

 

Since I educate 7 children and spent less than $2,000 (pretending that I bought everything brand new this year, which I didn't).....that would leave an awful lot of money.

 

How can someone say public school funding is too low? Can't it really be this simple? Or at least shouldn't it be?

[regentrude]

Yes, you are making this too simple.

Your local ps should have financial info online- so you can go and have a look at their budget.

 

Lets take a standard elementary school.

In addition to your child's classrooom teacher, there are the other teachers: arts, music, PE, the librarian, the teacher for the gifted program, the special education teachers. Plus a principal, a school secretary, and a nurse. All not only get their salary, but also health insurance and a pension contribution.

The school has to maintain the building (which consists of more than the classroom - hallways, bathrooms, an auditorium...), pay utilities, carry an insurance (in this litigious society that must be very expensive) .

The school district pays for school buses and drivers, for lunch services and the lunch ladies.

In a good school, you'd also want computers, science labs, musical instruments and a gym.

 

I agree that there is probably some waste at the administrative level. I do not think, however, that ps is wasting money left and right.

[Pat in MI]

If only it were so simple, :) but that funding also has to pay for things like superintendent, principal, vice-principals, busing, extra help in the classrooms, lunch room, gym, music, art, etc. Superintendents in big districts by us are making a lot of money.

Blessings,

Pat

[Cera]

Well, for starters you forgot the admin staff, cafeteria staff, school buses and staff, nurse, guidance counselor, speech therapist, individual aid(es) for the disabled kid(s).

[TravelingChris]

THe very big cost is educating special needs children. They take up large chunks of the money.

[Mom0012]

THe very big cost is educating special needs children. They take up large chunks of the money.

 

I'd love to understand this better. I am always getting the impression that schools want special needs children because they get extra funding for them, and yet, they don't want to give them any services. My son had an IEP before he was even in kindergarten and it resulted in him seeing a speech therapist with 2 other children for 1/2 an hour once a week and then another specialist came out to his preschool sporadically for an hour a week and did ???

 

My sdd has severe lds and went all the way through the public school system. She received very little help, but lots of accommodations (sitting in the front of the class, allowed to use a calculator, extra time for tests). Until she started hitting high school, and even in most of her classes after, she received all As and Bs as final grades, and yet her midterm and final exam grades would always be Ds and Fs. When she took the SATs, she scored in the 2nd percentile.

 

My sister has a child with autism and he gets very little help at the school. He is failing in every way. If there are huge expenses involved, they are not being spent on him.

 

Lisa

[johnandtinagilbert]

So, let me live in Home School Land for a minute....my children are educated in old fashioned, one room school house. I AM the nurse, secretary, music teacher. blah, blah, blah....Laura Ingalls was all those things, too. We're paying an awful lot of money for many people to do the job that a few can do. Kids used to walk to local schools.

 

I understand there's a lot involved currently, I'm in a round about way saying it's all ridiculous and we spend an awful lot of money on a system that is failing.

 

I'm tired of getting bombarded with "It's for the kids" for every issue that tries to reform public education. They cry for more and more and more money, then blame all the problems on the poverty pyramid. I'm over it. There are a lot of other nations receiving less money and doing a better job.

 

I suggest I am not oversimplifying, but that the system has overcomplicated.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'd love to understand this better. I am always getting the impression that schools want special needs children because they get extra funding for them, and yet, they don't want to give them any services. My son had an IEP before he was even in kindergarten and it resulted in him seeing a speech therapist with 2 other children for 1/2 an hour once a week and then another specialist came out to his preschool sporadically for an hour a week and did ???

 

My sdd has severe lds and went all the way through the public school system. She received very little help, but lots of accommodations (sitting in the front of the class, allowed to use a calculator, extra time for tests). Until she started hitting high school, and even in most of her classes after, she received all As and Bs as final grades, and yet her midterm and final exam grades would always be Ds and Fs. When she took the SATs, she scored in the 2nd percentile.

 

My sister has a child with autism and he gets very little help at the school. He is failing in every way. If there are huge expenses involved, they are not being spent on him.

 

Lisa

Get a label, get some cash. That's how it works. What on Earth they do with that extra money, I couldn't tell you, but they do get extra money for every label attached to the children.

[angela in ohio]

I'd love to understand this better. I am always getting the impression that schools want special needs children because they get extra funding for them, and yet, they don't want to give them any services.

 

This is my dh's job (special education administration,) so I might be able to help.

 

The "extra" amount for special needs students (generally a few thousand dollars per student) is paltry compared to the costs of therapy, low student-teacher ratios, aides, equipment, transportation, home-bound instruction, extra training, supervisors, medical care, legal costs, etc. It is a homeschoolers' fallacy that schools want special needs students in order to get "all that extra money they are losing." A special needs student can cost tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per year over and above the average student, depending on their disabilities.

 

Parents can get quite a bit of money for special needs students.

 

And, as pp said, there are a lot more costs involved.

Edited November 3, 2010 by angela in ohio

[angela in ohio]

So, let me live in Home School Land for a minute....my children are educated in old fashioned, one room school house. I AM the nurse, secretary, music teacher. blah, blah, blah....Laura Ingalls was all those things, too. We're paying an awful lot of money for many people to do the job that a few can do. Kids used to walk to local schools.

 

I understand there's a lot involved currently, I'm in a round about way saying it's all ridiculous and we spend an awful lot of money on a system that is failing.

 

I'm tired of getting bombarded with "It's for the kids" for every issue that tries to reform public education. They cry for more and more and more money, then blame all the problems on the poverty pyramid. I'm over it. There are a lot of other nations receiving less money and doing a better job.

 

I suggest I am not oversimplifying, but that the system has overcomplicated.

 

Well the teacher can't be the nurse anymore because of regulations. And we have to have cafeterias (and lunch ladies) because some students are provided free lunches and breakfasts. And there has to be a human resources person (and a lawyer on call, if the HR person isn't one) because the union will sue if the teacher is reprimanded. And there must be a lawyer on staff anyway, because parents will sue over all sorts of things. There must be a counselor or two because some kiddos don't have anyone to talk to outside of school. There needs to be special eduation, because we don't just institutionalize special needs kiddos all anymore, but instead actually educate them. I could go on and on... Trust me, though, schools aren't spending money on anything not mandated somehow (and the mandates and expense have increased with "Race to the Top.")

 

Schools aren't failing because of the extra services they have to provide, though. Money has little to do with it (imho, you will find research that says yes and no.) Schools are failing because the teacher training system is a miserable failure, the unions don't let bad teachers get fired, every special interest group has shoved their agenda in front of the 3Rs, our culture doesn't value education, and many parents aren't involved in either raising or educating their dc.

[Nan in Mass]

But in Laura Ingalls land, the child with the poor parents would have been very hungry. The child who was very slow would probably not have learned to read unless a parent taught him outside school because the teacher was too busy dealing with the ordinary children to have the time to intensively educate one. The child with diabetes which needed monitering by a trained nurse would not have been able to go to school. The child who lived too far from the school-house would not have been able to go to school.

 

I'm not saying our current model couldn't use some work. I think many small schools that the children could walk to would be a good idea for k-8, in some ways. That would leave you having to lump together and bus the children with special needs together in a special school with the proper facilities, and I am not sure that is a good idea at all. As you get older, it begins to make more sense to gather more children together so you can (in theory) have enthusiastic, experienced teachers for the more complex subjects, be efficient about things like lab equipment, and offer more types and more levels of classes. This may not be the reality because of the reasons that Angela listed, but it is the theory, anyway.

 

I think your real question might be more along the lines of, "Wouldn't the Laura Ingalls model at least work better than what we are succeeding in doing now?" I think the answer is yes, for some children. Not for many of the others, though. And it may be that with access to the internet and cheap computers and recording equipment, cottage schools may reappear in large numbers. I don't think cottage schools are a universal solution, though.

 

-Nan

[johnandtinagilbert]

Well the teacher can't be the nurse anymore because of regulations. And we have to have cafeterias (and lunch ladies) because some students are provided free lunches and breakfasts. And there has to be a human resources person (and a lawyer on call, if the HR person isn't one) because the union will sue if the teacher is reprimanded. And there must be a lawyer on staff anyway, because parents will sue over all sorts of things. There must be a counselor or two because some kiddos don't have anyone to talk to outside of school. There needs to be special eduation, because we don't just institutionalize special needs kiddos all anymore, but instead actually educate them. I could go on and on... Trust me, though, schools aren't spending money on anything not mandated somehow (and the mandates and expense have increased with "Race to the Top.") Lawsuits, HR, blech. These issues in our society shouldn't, although I know they do, affect school. Free lunch...are free lunch families generally on food stamps? Just wondering b/c I know we qualify for free lunch, but could pack our own lunch.

 

Schools aren't failing because of the extra services they have to provide, though. Money has little to do with it (imho, you will find research that says yes and no.) Schools are failing because the teacher training system is a miserable failure, the unions don't let bad teachers get fired, every special interest group has shoved their agenda in front of the 3Rs, our culture doesn't value education, and many parents aren't involved in either raising or educating their dc.

And there we have it. I guess my annoyance is the answer to fix those problems is always, Mo' Money!

 

My solutions:

Apprenticeships instead of philosophy and college education;

NO UNIONS, let communities pay their teachers;

Again, no special interests (like unions) b/c localities take care of their schools;

stop allowing persons to make education and child rearing the responsibility of the school and maybe they'd take some personal responsibility for their kids by not providing the services (I wonder if that is even possible at this point)

I really have no problem with funding special needs.

 

I guess my community versus federal gov't flag is flying today.

[angela in ohio]

And there we have it. I guess my annoyance is the answer to fix those problems is always, Mo' Money!

 

My solutions:

Apprenticeships instead of philosophy and college education;

NO UNIONS, let communities pay their teachers;

Again, no special interests (like unions) b/c localities take care of their schools;

stop allowing persons to make education and child rearing the responsibility of the school and maybe they'd take some personal responsibility for their kids by not providing the services (I wonder if that is even possible at this point)

I really have no problem with funding special needs.

 

I guess my community versus federal gov't flag is flying today.

 

At that point (unions, schools parenting for parents, etc.) you start getting into political issues, though. ;) Then it's really not about the money.

[Julie in MN]

I'd love to understand this better. I am always getting the impression that schools want special needs children because they get extra funding for them, and yet, they don't want to give them any services. My son had an IEP before he was even in kindergarten and it resulted in him seeing a speech therapist with 2 other children for 1/2 an hour once a week and then another specialist came out to his preschool sporadically for an hour a week and did ???

 

My sdd has severe lds and went all the way through the public school system. She received very little help, but lots of accommodations (sitting in the front of the class, allowed to use a calculator, extra time for tests). Until she started hitting high school, and even in most of her classes after, she received all As and Bs as final grades, and yet her midterm and final exam grades would always be Ds and Fs. When she took the SATs, she scored in the 2nd percentile.

 

My sister has a child with autism and he gets very little help at the school. He is failing in every way. If there are huge expenses involved, they are not being spent on him.

 

Lisa

 

Lisa,

It may depend on the student's needs, the school, or maybe it's new. But on average I've seen two personal aides in each classroom, each one taking care of a student all day long. And as the others have mentioned, special teachers and aides hired for pull-out classes, special school buses, special English classes, etc.

 

Classroom teachers are indeed dealing with a lot these days, and they aren't likely being given much of those dollars to work with in their classrooms. I've been told by my children's teachers and by teachers who purchase things from me off of Craigslist that they must purchase their own readers, manipulatives, decorations, and such that they want in their classroom.

 

Julie

[angela in ohio]

Classroom teachers are indeed dealing with a lot these days, and they aren't likely being given much of those dollars to work with in their classrooms. I've been told by my children's teachers and by teachers who purchase things from me off of Craigslist that they must purchase their own readers, manipulatives, decorations, and such that they want in their classroom.

 

 

Teachers get a stipend for materials (over and above the curriculum that is provided) each year. They can purchase items and then submit their receipts to the school business office for reimbursement, or they can order through a purchase order and have the school pay directly. The amount of the stipend varies from district to district. Some teachers do spend over and above that, which is why there is a deduction on federal income taxes for teachers expenses. Dh had to spend a bit out of pocket his first year, just to have decorations and such for his room (though I made a lot of them inexpensively.) Most of the extra money he spent each year was on shoes, clothes, coats, and groceries for students, but that was our choice.

 

There can be a lot of "peer pressure" among teachers, though, to have the newest, nicest materials in their room. :D My sil teaches in a very "nice" district, and she spends tons I'm sure. Every bulletin board is new every year, I think, so that they aren't out of style. ;)

[kokotg]

Teachers get a stipend for materials (over and above the curriculum that is provided) each year. They can purchase items and then submit their receipts to the school business office for reimbursement, or they can order through a purchase order and have the school pay directly.

 

Not here, they don't. For a couple of years, DH got a $100 gift card at the beginning of the school year to spend on classroom supplies, but that went away when the economy went south.

[regentrude]

My solutions:

Apprenticeships instead of philosophy and college education

 

An apprenticeship will not give you educated scientists and engineers.

I guess if we want to live in sod houses on the prairie, we won't need those. Most people, however, appreciate the conveniences of the 21st century such as medical progress and technology (everybody who is writing on this board is using a computer). To develop these things requires a degree of education that Laura Ingalls Wilder did not give her children in the one room school house.

You can not "apprentice" with an engineer and hope to learn everything you need - with the duality of high specialization and broad basic education this has not been possible for at least a century.

[Grace is Sufficient]

there are a LOT of unnecessary extras. Has anyone seen a recently built school building or high school athletic facility? WOW! We had painted concrete block walls, a cafeteria that sometimes doubled as gym and/or auditorium. (sounds kind of like most private school buildings)

 

The public schools now are beautiful brick buildings with pools, and almost private club-like gym facilities, etc. etc. So no one can tell me that there is no waste in the system. A tax increase for the schools just failed in my town last night (yay!) and amid all the threats of cutting busing, teachers, sports, music, etc. I never heard a word about cutting administrators.

 

However, as a homeschooler, I've had a fair amount of contact with the school administration... let's just say, there's no shortage of em!

 

Also, mandates or not, there's a lot of time and money wasted in the schools on non-academics. Personally, I'm tired of being an ATM machine for local school boards.

 

rant off, if I knew how to make the cool little pictures work on my page.

[Elizabeth in WA]

This is my dh's job (special education administration,) so I might be able to help.

 

The "extra" amount for special needs students (generally a few thousand dollars per student) is paltry compared to the costs of therapy, low student-teacher ratios, aides, equipment, transportation, home-bound instruction, extra training, supervisors, medical care, legal costs, etc. It is a homeschoolers' fallacy that schools want special needs students in order to get "all that extra money they are losing." A special needs student can cost tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per year over and above the average student, depending on their disabilities.

 

Parents can get quite a bit of money for special needs students.

 

And, as pp said, there are a lot more costs involved.

 

:iagree: But... some districts are willing to do more than others.

 

When my ds14 was first diagnosed with Asperger's I was in graduate school myself and he ended up in a wonderful social behavior program with a better than 4:1 student teacher ratio. Their were a dozen kids in a mixed age (grades 4-6) classroom with a full time teacher and aid, a part time aid, and a full time therapist who doubled as the program administrator. These kids mainstreamed for some classes, and were accompanied by an aid every time they mainstreamed. Their classroom had a smart board and a laptop for each kid as well. This cost our district a fortune. But, I could not replicate the very important social skills and behavior intervention he got in that program.

 

When we moved across the country and he was dumped into full mainstream academics except special ed language arts (because he refused to write) and a social and study skills class in an elective period, he floundered. He could have handled the academics but not the unmediated environment of a middle school. This new district was not willing to spend the kind of money his old district had.

 

Given that we have safety nets in this country, it makes fiscal sense (ignoring issues of social justice here for the moment) to spend money remediating special needs kids who can grow up to become tax payers with extra help. The long term costs of even expensive therapy is almost certainly lower than than long term costs of keeping them on lifelong disability, welfare, or in prison.

[Janice in NJ]

The owner of facebook who is giving away the big bucks to help the Newark school system because the drop out rate is so bad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/education/23newark.html

 

Want some info about the school district that just needs more money?

Newark page for district budget:

http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/districtbudget0910.html

 

Towards the bottom - click on "User Friendly Budget"

For October 2009, it looks to me like the number of kids on the rolls full time is a bit over 39,000. It looks like the budget is just under a billion dollars. Simple division puts the cost at around $ 25K per kid, but I'm guessing they have to cover those "extra" kids listed up top. So if you search for "Advertised Per Pupil Cost Calculations" - about 1/2 way down - you can see that the cost per child is listed as just under $ 17,000. Also keep in mind that Newark is a city, so you aren't spending a TON of money to run buses like you do in rural areas. Most of the kids walk.

 

Here's the page that tells the story of what they are doing with that kind of money - their graduation rates:

http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/graduationresults.html

 

More info on what those proficiency tests mean:

http://www.state.nj.us/education/news/2010/0519test.htm

 

And here's the kicker. A link to the science high school. I've been in this building. It is over-the-top. And yup! It's part of this failing system that just needs better funding.

http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/science/index.htm

 

 

One must wonder what more money is going to do. At least the FB guy can afford it.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

Edited November 3, 2010 by Janice in NJ

[Mom0012]

This is my dh's job (special education administration,) so I might be able to help.

 

The "extra" amount for special needs students (generally a few thousand dollars per student) is paltry compared to the costs of therapy, low student-teacher ratios, aides, equipment, transportation, home-bound instruction, extra training, supervisors, medical care, legal costs, etc. It is a homeschoolers' fallacy that schools want special needs students in order to get "all that extra money they are losing." A special needs student can cost tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per year over and above the average student, depending on their disabilities.

 

Parents can get quite a bit of money for special needs students.

 

And, as pp said, there are a lot more costs involved.

 

I guess I can believe that. It just hasn't been our experience. As I said, my sdd has severe lds and the main "services" that were offered were accommodations. I can see where a lot of the money goes to the administration of special services and maybe to the few extremely disabled, but it's not going to your run-of-the-mill child with learning disabilities -- at least not here in Northern Virginia.

 

Lisa

[Murmer]

Well the teacher can't be the nurse anymore because of regulations. And we have to have cafeterias (and lunch ladies) because some students are provided free lunches and breakfasts. And there has to be a human resources person (and a lawyer on call, if the HR person isn't one) because the union will sue if the teacher is reprimanded. And there must be a lawyer on staff anyway, because parents will sue over all sorts of things. There must be a counselor or two because some kiddos don't have anyone to talk to outside of school. There needs to be special eduation, because we don't just institutionalize special needs kiddos all anymore, but instead actually educate them. I could go on and on... Trust me, though, schools aren't spending money on anything not mandated somehow (and the mandates and expense have increased with "Race to the Top.")

 

Schools aren't failing because of the extra services they have to provide, though. Money has little to do with it (imho, you will find research that says yes and no.) Schools are failing because the teacher training system is a miserable failure, the unions don't let bad teachers get fired, every special interest group has shoved their agenda in front of the 3Rs, our culture doesn't value education, and many parents aren't involved in either raising or educating their dc.

 

Money is not the save all for public education but I do think that if more money was spent on teacher salary and made it comparable to the starting salary of an undergrad scientist position or basic accountant position it would encourage some more intelligent people to be willing to teach. I sometimes feel like there are 2 types of teacher...the ones who love to teach and the ones who could do nothing else but teach. I wish we could get master's in their professions to teach things like Physics, Literature, Math and not just someone who wasn't smart enough to get into med, buisness, graduate school....of course if they did this route then secondary teacher ed as a major would have to disappear because a simple student teaching experience with the knowledge base of a very specific major should work.

[johnandtinagilbert]

An apprenticeship will not give you educated scientists and engineers.

I guess if we want to live in sod houses on the prairie, we won't need those. Most people, however, appreciate the conveniences of the 21st century such as medical progress and technology (everybody who is writing on this board is using a computer). To develop these things requires a degree of education that Laura Ingalls Wilder did not give her children in the one room school house.

You can not "apprentice" with an engineer and hope to learn everything you need - with the duality of high specialization and broad basic education this has not been possible for at least a century.

I was referring to apprenticing for Teachers.

[regentrude]

I was referring to apprenticing for Teachers.

 

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood - I though you meant for everybody.

But even so, I disagree:

One thing that teachers are lacking is actually knowledge in their subjects.

This is a particular problem in mathematics.

So instead of mainly teaching teachers how to teach and control crowds, they should be required to study the subject they are going to teach to a higher level. A good algebra teacher can not just know algebra but needs to understand math beyond in order to be effective. You have to be a few levels ahead to have the in-depth understanding.

A good foreign language teacher should be proficient in the language and not just one lesson ahead in the textbook (there are ps french teachers who don't actually speak french, spanish teachers who don't speak spanish etc!)

Not sure teachers can develop those rigorous skills doing apprenticeships.

[angela in ohio]

Money is not the save all for public education but I do think that if more money was spent on teacher salary and made it comparable to the starting salary of an undergrad scientist position or basic accountant position it would encourage some more intelligent people to be willing to teach. I sometimes feel like there are 2 types of teacher...the ones who love to teach and the ones who could do nothing else but teach. I wish we could get master's in their professions to teach things like Physics, Literature, Math and not just someone who wasn't smart enough to get into med, buisness, graduate school....of course if they did this route then secondary teacher ed as a major would have to disappear because a simple student teaching experience with the knowledge base of a very specific major should work.

 

That would be great, but we would also have to require comparable schooling. It is much less challenging to get an elementary ed degree than a science or accounting degree.

 

Secondary ed degrees are different, at least around here (I suppose it varies by state.) A secondary ed degree is almost a degree in your major, plus a minor in a complementary area. I am working on my math/computer science/physics secondary ed degree. I would only have to take another few classes to get my math degree, too (I'm considering it :001_smile:.)

 

It does take more than a bit of student teaching to learn to teach a classroom well, though. Much as I grumble about my education classes, it is important to understand child/adolescent development, how to plan curriculum, etc. All those are taught in education classes. It's not nearly enoguh preparation, but it is better than nothing.

 

Many teachers do have Master's degrees. In order to keep their certification, at least in Ohio and Michigan, teachers must keep taking classes. Many work toward their Master's degree, which brings a higher pay scale.

 

I think, along with money, what would draw more educated people to education would be a higher level of professionalism.

[angela in ohio]

I guess I can believe that. It just hasn't been our experience. As I said, my sdd has severe lds and the main "services" that were offered were accommodations. I can see where a lot of the money goes to the administration of special services and maybe to the few extremely disabled, but it's not going to your run-of-the-mill child with learning disabilities -- at least not here in Northern Virginia.

 

Lisa

 

Wow. Here many students get speech and other therapies, and most students with severe LDs are in special education rooms. Michigan is a great state for special education students, though.

[Rosie_0801]

Can anyone see how teaching apprenticeships could be phased in, in a viable way?

 

 

Rosie- curious about this particular thought experiment.

[Caroline]

Can anyone see how teaching apprenticeships could be phased in, in a viable way?

 

 

Rosie- curious about this particular thought experiment.

 

A number of colleges are creating an internship program for teacher candidates. Google "professional development schools" for more information. Kennesaw State University in Georgia is developing a program. Students spend the majority of their junior year and all of their senior year in k12 schools. Their courses are taught at the k12 schools, and are often co-taught by k12 teachers. For example, I am teaching Advanced Math Topics along with a KSU prof to our interns. Then the interns will create lesson plans and will teach my Algebra II and discrete math classes a couple of times.

[Rosie_0801]

A number of colleges are creating an internship program for teacher candidates. Google "professional development schools" for more information. Kennesaw State University in Georgia is developing a program. Students spend the majority of their junior year and all of their senior year in k12 schools. Their courses are taught at the k12 schools, and are often co-taught by k12 teachers. For example, I am teaching Advanced Math Topics along with a KSU prof to our interns. Then the interns will create lesson plans and will teach my Algebra II and discrete math classes a couple of times.

 

Thanks, I'll google that, and I'll also google "junior" and "senior" so I can translate the rest of what you said into Australian English :tongue_smilie: You'd think I'd have committed that to memory by now, but it keeps falling out of my head...

 

Rosie

Edited November 4, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Caroline]

Thanks, I'll google that, and I'll also google "junior" and "senior" so I can translate the rest of what you said into Australian English :tongue_smilie: You'd think I'd have committed that to memory by now, but it keeps falling out of my head...

 

Rosie

 

Junior is third year. Senior is fourth year. Sorry about that.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood - I though you meant for everybody.

But even so, I disagree:

One thing that teachers are lacking is actually knowledge in their subjects.

This is a particular problem in mathematics.

So instead of mainly teaching teachers how to teach and control crowds, they should be required to study the subject they are going to teach to a higher level. A good algebra teacher can not just know algebra but needs to understand math beyond in order to be effective. You have to be a few levels ahead to have the in-depth understanding.

A good foreign language teacher should be proficient in the language and not just one lesson ahead in the textbook (there are ps french teachers who don't actually speak french, spanish teachers who don't speak spanish etc!)

Not sure teachers can develop those rigorous skills doing apprenticeships.

My idea was based on the one room schoolhouse, where a teacher would have to teach all of the classes. The one room schoolhouse model taught what we think of as K-8, providing a general education. Those going to more advanced classes went to university. High school as we know didn't exist.

[johnandtinagilbert]

That would be great, but we would also have to require comparable schooling. It is much less challenging to get an elementary ed degree than a science or accounting degree. I agree.

 

Secondary ed degrees are different, at least around here (I suppose it varies by state.) A secondary ed degree is almost a degree in your major, plus a minor in a complementary area. I am working on my math/computer science/physics secondary ed degree. I would only have to take another few classes to get my math degree, too (I'm considering it :001_smile:.) I don't believe it's required here to teach in secondary school, but is preferred and you get paid more.

 

It does take more than a bit of student teaching to learn to teach a classroom well, though. Much as I grumble about my education classes, it is important to understand child/adolescent development, how to plan curriculum, etc. All those are taught in education classes. It's not nearly enoguh preparation, but it is better than nothing.

 

Many teachers do have Master's degrees. In order to keep their certification, at least in Ohio and Michigan, teachers must keep taking classes. Many work toward their Master's degree, which brings a higher pay scale.

 

I think, along with money, what would draw more educated people to education would be a higher level of professionalism.

I believe the bolded things can be taught in apprenticeships. I took 3 years of college in elementary education courses. I have learned far more by teaching than all the theoretical things taught in college. I never go to the classes that taught curricu. etc., yet I know how to do all of those things and understand them just fine. Traditionally, an apprenticeship is not a semester or two of practicums. It's a long term commitment of several years. You can absolutely learn them via self-education. This board is testimony to that. Most of us here didn't have Child Development courses, yet we have a significant understanding of grammar, logic and rhetoric stages by self-educating and hands on teaching.

 

I agree increased pay would bring more persons into elementary and upper grade schools. I also think some simply enjoy the challenge of working with adults in their fields; others are not meant for or don't love teaching.

[angela in ohio]

Most of us here didn't have Child Development courses, yet we have a significant understanding of grammar, logic and rhetoric stages by self-educating and hands on teaching.

 

I've actually learned so much from my Educational Psychology class. I do think part of it is because I had something (years of parenting and teaching) to relate it to, so maybe those classes would be better for later in the teacher training process. I keep saying, "Oh, I wish I'd known that!" :001_smile: And I do see a lot of questions on here that could be answered by reading a book on educational methods and/or psychology.

 

I do think more student teaching time would be helpful, which would be similar to the idea of an apprenticeship. The problem, of course, is that you need someone qualified to apprentice to. There are a limited number of great teachers out there. And those who mentor the apprenticeships would likely be chosen by seniority, not excellence, anyway. :glare:

[johnandtinagilbert]

I've actually learned so much from my Educational Psychology class. I do think part of it is because I had something (years of parenting and teaching) to relate it to, so maybe those classes would be better for later in the teacher training process. I keep saying, "Oh, I wish I'd known that!" :001_smile: And I do see a lot of questions on here that could be answered by reading a book on educational methods and/or psychology. True.

 

I do think more student teaching time would be helpful, which would be similar to the idea of an apprenticeship. The problem, of course, is that you need someone qualified to apprentice to. There are a limited number of great teachers out there. And those who mentor the apprenticeships would likely be chosen by seniority, not excellence, anyway. :glare:

SO TRUE! There was a link here recently about an upstart company traveling the nation looking for the "best of the best" and figuring out the things those teachers all have in common. I sure wish I could remember that book/program/article ....help, anyone?

[Stacy in NJ]

I know this response isn't really directly responding to your question, but the issue of educational funding drives me up the wall.

 

Did you ever hear of the Kansas City experiment? Briefly, In 1985 a judge in Kansas City took control of their ps system. He mandated the funding levels be increased to astronomical levels. They more than doubled their per pupil expenditure, built phenomenal new facilites, hired more qualified teachers, paid those teachers more and......... ended up with no improvement in educational outcome for the students.

 

Here's an article that tells the story in detail: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

 

We've had a similar situation going on here in NJ. Jersey spends somewhere around $10,000 per pupil every year. A judge determined that high poverty school districts needed extra funding. Those districts, called Abbott districts, receive extra state funding to nearly double the state average resulting in ...... no measurable improvement in academic performance from prior to increased funding levels.

 

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/education/press/article_31866bfc-031f-11df-9bf6-001cc4c002e0.html

 

It's not about the money; it's about the structural weakness of the system and the failures of our culture.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Stacy in NJ

[cathmom]

there are a LOT of unnecessary extras. Has anyone seen a recently built school building or high school athletic facility? WOW! We had painted concrete block walls, a cafeteria that sometimes doubled as gym and/or auditorium. (sounds kind of like most private school buildings)

 

The public schools now are beautiful brick buildings with pools, and almost private club-like gym facilities, etc. etc. So no one can tell me that there is no waste in the system. A tax increase for the schools just failed in my town last night (yay!) and amid all the threats of cutting busing, teachers, sports, music, etc. I never heard a word about cutting administrators.

 

However, as a homeschooler, I've had a fair amount of contact with the school administration... let's just say, there's no shortage of em!

 

 

 

Yes, I've noticed this. My elementary school was on possibly 2-3 acres max. My dh's was just a building with a courtyard where they could play. About ten years back I was reading an article about a nearby town and what pieces of land the town was acquiring to build new schools in the future. Every tract was between 8-10 acres! I've been in some of these new buildings. They're all always one level. Why is that? Litigation? It's cheaper to build up and saves on heating/cooling and takes up less land.

[FairProspects]

Money is not the save all for public education but I do think that if more money was spent on teacher salary and made it comparable to the starting salary of an undergrad scientist position or basic accountant position it would encourage some more intelligent people to be willing to teach. I sometimes feel like there are 2 types of teacher...the ones who love to teach and the ones who could do nothing else but teach. I wish we could get master's in their professions to teach things like Physics, Literature, Math and not just someone who wasn't smart enough to get into med, buisness, graduate school....of course if they did this route then secondary teacher ed as a major would have to disappear because a simple student teaching experience with the knowledge base of a very specific major should work.

 

I was teacher certified post-2000 and due to the No Child Left Behind Act and the "Highly Qualified" aspect of these regulations, teacher preparation has really changed in the last few years. As a secondary teacher in our state I had to have a major in both of my endorsement subjects to be labeled "highly qualified", a minor was no longer good enough even for a secondary endorsement area. Over 90% of teachers in this district (and I think our whole state although I haven't looked it up recently) have a Masters degree and it is close to being required here since the secondary certification for teachers is now nearly an equivalent amount of schooling.

 

Now, we can argue about whether teaching programs cover the right curricula or what have you, but I feel my preparation was extensive and I tend to think that this idea of unqualified teachers in their subject area may be a problem relegated to older teachers. The new requirements are extremely stringent and nearly drove me away from teaching as a profession. The current amount of required education is almost incomprehensible from a cost/benefit standpoint for the pay that will be netted.

[Stacy in NJ]

teachers. I single our Germany as the most effective system because their cost in relationship to outcome is most efficient (low cost with propotionally high performance).

 

German teachers usually hold degrees in their subject matter and then under go a rigorous training program that is structured as a kind of apprenticeship. While teaching is a prestigious profession in Germany, they earn no more than American teachers do.

 

 

I was referring to apprenticing for Teachers.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Stacy in NJ

[Guest]

deleted

[wapiti]

Some of you may be interested in a teacher preparation program developed by KIPP et al. http://www.teacheru.org/?a=p

[johnandtinagilbert]

teachers. I single our Germany as the most effective system because their cost in relationship to outcome is most efficient (low cost with propotionally high performance).

 

German teachers usually hold degrees in their subject matter and then under go a rigorous training program that is structured as a kind of apprenticeship. While teaching is a prestigious profession in German, they earn no more than American teachers do.

any suggestions on reading about Germany's system?

[justasque]

I think, too, that "failing public schools" is too general a category. I once lived in a city where one of the elementary schools had test scores in the 75th percentile, and one had test scores in the 12th percentile. One of those schools appears to be doing just fine, but the other appears horrible. To lump them together as "the failing public schools" is to way over-generalize. Some public schools are failing, yes, but some are doing a great job.

 

That said, a huge difference was that the kids in these two schools, who lived in different neighborhoods, came into the system with vastly different educations to begin with. Looking at the "12%" number, it would be easy to assume that school was "failing" - but unless you also look at where the kids started, you really don't know whether those teachers were horrible or brilliant. I have a huge problem with the way we use numbers to try to quantify school success/failure - just looking at one number seems so sloppy and inaccurate.

 

(We lived in the 12% school's area. You bet we homeschooled that year!)

[Rosie_0801]

And I'm happy to report that I've solved Australia's education system problems. Now if only I could figure out who to tell; someone who has the power to implement my brilliant ideas.

 

 

:D

Rosie

[Stacy in NJ]

The middle class and affluent suburbs of NYC, the leafy burbs as they're called, have very high performing ps. The kids in these areas come mostly from college educated parents or tradesman like electricians/plumbers. Most of them enter school well prepared and have supportive home environments. The inner city schools in Newark, Trenton, Camden are tremendous failures. We've dumped large sums of money into these failing schools only to watch them continue to fail. The one bright light, at least in NJ, are charter schools. They enroll the same population as the failed inner city schools with significantly different results. The only high performing schools in cities like Newark are charter schools or magnets.

 

All this just to say, there are some ps that do wonderful jobs mostly because they start out with a well educated populations not because of their educational pedagogy. Then there are ps that do a wonderful job with lower funding levels (charter receive only 2/3 the level of funding) with disadvantages populations. Those are the schools we should be paying attention to.

 

 

 

I think, too, that "failing public schools" is too general a category. I once lived in a city where one of the elementary schools had test scores in the 75th percentile, and one had test scores in the 12th percentile. One of those schools appears to be doing just fine, but the other appears horrible. To lump them together as "the failing public schools" is to way over-generalize. Some public schools are failing, yes, but some are doing a great job.

 

That said, a huge difference was that the kids in these two schools, who lived in different neighborhoods, came into the system with vastly different educations to begin with. Looking at the "12%" number, it would be easy to assume that school was "failing" - but unless you also look at where the kids started, you really don't know whether those teachers were horrible or brilliant. I have a huge problem with the way we use numbers to try to quantify school success/failure - just looking at one number seems so sloppy and inaccurate.

 

(We lived in the 12% school's area. You bet we homeschooled that year!)

[Stacy in NJ]

Unfortunately, when people throw money at these problems they actually mask real solutions. It's another magic pill that is probably doomed to failure.

 

 

One must wonder what more money is going to do. At least the FB guy can afford it.

[Tammyla]

Snort...You find that person and then hop over here and fix ours.

 

Retirement pay and benefits take up a large part of our local budget. They post it on line and I was shocked at the numbers.:w00t:

 

QUOTE=Rosie_0801;2155407]And I'm happy to report that I've solved Australia's education system problems. Now if only I could figure out who to tell; someone who has the power to implement my brilliant ideas.

 

 

:D

Rosie

[Teachin'Mine]

The middle class and affluent suburbs of NYC, the leafy burbs as they're called, have very high performing ps. The kids in these areas come mostly from college educated parents or tradesman like electricians/plumbers. Most of them enter school well prepared and have supportive home environments. The inner city schools in Newark, Trenton, Camden are tremendous failures. We've dumped large sums of money into these failing schools only to watch them continue to fail. The one bright light, at least in NJ, are charter schools. They enroll the same population as the failed inner city schools with significantly different results. The only high performing schools in cities like Newark are charter schools or magnets.

 

All this just to say, there are some ps that do wonderful jobs mostly because they start out with a well educated populations not because of their educational pedagogy. Then there are ps that do a wonderful job with lower funding levels (charter receive only 2/3 the level of funding) with disadvantages populations. Those are the schools we should be paying attention to.

 

:iagree: And I think that one of the things those charter and magnet schools have in common is that they expect excellence. They set a higher standard which is upheld by the teachers, expected by the parents, and lived up to by the students. Isn't it similar in some homeschooling situations?

[johnandtinagilbert]

The middle class and affluent suburbs of NYC, the leafy burbs as they're called, have very high performing ps. The kids in these areas come mostly from college educated parents or tradesman like electricians/plumbers. Most of them enter school well prepared and have supportive home environments. The inner city schools in Newark, Trenton, Camden are tremendous failures. We've dumped large sums of money into these failing schools only to watch them continue to fail. The one bright light, at least in NJ, are charter schools. They enroll the same population as the failed inner city schools with significantly different results. The only high performing schools in cities like Newark are charter schools or magnets.

 

All this just to say, there are some ps that do wonderful jobs mostly because they start out with a well educated populations not because of their educational pedagogy. Then there are ps that do a wonderful job with lower funding levels (charter receive only 2/3 the level of funding) with disadvantages populations. Those are the schools we should be paying attention to.

Great post.

 

Snort...You find that person and then hop over here and fix ours.

 

Retirement pay and benefits take up a large part of our local budget. They post it on line and I was shocked at the numbers.:w00t:

 

QUOTE=Rosie_0801;2155407]And I'm happy to report that I've solved Australia's education system problems. Now if only I could figure out who to tell; someone who has the power to implement my brilliant ideas.

 

 

:D

Rosie

I hadn't thought about that. I wonder what ours are.

[kokotg]

 

Retirement pay and benefits take up a large part of our local budget. They post it on line and I was shocked at the numbers.:w00t:

 

 

 

that's one of the big reasons other countries do more with less. All those countries you see with higher test scores and lower costs have health care and other benefits provided by the government instead of by employers (in this case, it's by the government either way, of course, but you know what I mean--it doesn't come out of the education budget).

 

A decent retirement system is definitely one of the benefits of teaching, and we're grateful it's there. But it's a benefit that compensates somewhat for lower pay. My husband is a math teacher. He has a degree in math from a good college, with a minor in computer science. He spent the first few years out of college doing web development for a large non-profit. He's been teaching for 7 1/2 years now, and it will be several more years before he gets back up to the salary that he left behind to go into teaching. The retirement benefits at his teaching job are better than what he left behind, but we actually pay considerably more for health insurance. DH isn't in teaching for the money, clearly, but he does need to make a living wage in order to stay in teaching; his salary doesn't leave a lot left over for saving, so the retirement benefits are a pretty essential part of us being able to afford for him to be a teacher.

[johnandtinagilbert]

that's one of the big reasons other countries do more with less. All those countries you see with higher test scores and lower costs have health care and other benefits provided by the government instead of by employers (in this case, it's by the government either way, of course, but you know what I mean--it doesn't come out of the education budget).

 

A decent retirement system is definitely one of the benefits of teaching, and we're grateful it's there. But it's a benefit that compensates somewhat for lower pay. My husband is a math teacher. He has a degree in math from a good college, with a minor in computer science. He spent the first few years out of college doing web development for a large non-profit. He's been teaching for 7 1/2 years now, and it will be several more years before he gets back up to the salary that he left behind to go into teaching. The retirement benefits at his teaching job are better than what he left behind, but we actually pay considerably more for health insurance. DH isn't in teaching for the money, clearly, but he does need to make a living wage in order to stay in teaching; his salary doesn't leave a lot left over for saving, so the retirement benefits are a pretty essential part of us being able to afford for him to be a teacher.

How long does one generally have to teach before earning retirement?