Open debate: what do you think would happen if all (US) education was privatized?

[Guest]

So back a few pages textbooks were mentioned as evidence that you can't just let private companies sell important stuff like educational materials that people have to buy. Except textbooks kind of prove my point. There's about half a dozen textbook publishers that have a lock on the market and consumers have very little choice as to what they can buy, so there's no limit to what those companies can charge. Why and how did they get this lock on making everyone pay hundreds for an online code for a new edition that didn't need to be written? Professors aren't buying the product so they don't really care what students have to pay. So right there you're removing the consumer's choice from the price paid. Many book purchases are subsidized in some way. Mine were subsidized by my school as a way to get me to choose their school over others. Then, Pearson and Houghton-Mifflin and the big guys have huge lobbying power, so they create barriers for entry into the market, sue the little guys out of existence with high priced lawyers, and basically use government power to retain their lock on the market. And they do that via K-12 education too, because if Texas or California orders a textbook, guess who controls the market for that textbook and crushes any competition? One private business publishing company is given power by the public schools to control the entire market for a certain book. And this doesn't even touch on the market for standardized testing, which also funds publishing behemouths and allows them to charge whatever the heck they want. If you want a standardized test for every school, you have to pay one company to make it and publish it. Guess who really, really likes having the federal government involved in education for this reason? Publishing companies!

 

Well, that's funny you say this, because I think it proves my point. 😉 I am not making a bid for the federal (or state) government to create and publish the texts that all schools must use. Not at all. I was saying that without regulation, private companies do abuse power in exactly this way. IOW, making something private sector does not necessarily guarantee more diverse choices and better innovation. It can and often does lead to abusive practices just like we see in textbook publishing. .

 

So. The college textbook market is directly enabled by and very similar to what we already have when it comes to the choices around schooling. It is largely funded by the government itself and has a huge incentive to make education as homogeneous as possible across the US. Like the college textbook market public schools are the only choice for most consumers and administrators aren't spending their own money to run the schools and have no vested financial interest in getting rid of bloat or running more efficiently. Consumers are totally removed from the issue of costs and prices, and there's no incentive to keep costs down or run efficiently anywhere. It creates a market that lacks diversity, makes most schools mediocre at best, and really bad for those who are already struggling.

 

On the other hand, look at the diversity and choice and economy in the homeschool curriculum market. This is nothing like the college textbook market or the public school K-12 market, and I think more representative of people who would be starting schools and closer to how an actually privatized market would look. There's expensive, free, and everything in between, and you can get pretty much whatever you want to do. The consumer pays directly and a lot of the consumers of said products are people on a tight budget. And a company that's operating unethically or inefficiently loses steam pretty quickly because word gets out fast, and/or they can't financially survive. Also, the people writing curriculum aren't doing it for kicks to become super mega rich; in general they are doing it because they love the topic and love education in some form or fashion. And they aren't able to make their curriculum exclusive, because if they start making new editions with online code bundles that people don't want, homeschoolers would drop all that like a hot potato because they have choices and options.

 

Homeschooling materials aren't a parallel because obviously, not everyone can provide home education for their child(ren). Homeschooling does have the advantage of being as individualized as it's possible to be, but it obviously requires that someone, usually a parent and most often mom, can devote a significant amount of attention, time and money to this venture. You're saying you think the rise in private schooling would look more like homeschooling, but I wonder why you think it would go in that direction. Private schooling that provides an outstanding education, operates efficiently and proves great outcomes does not remain small and inclusive. It can't because there is a supply and demand factor even here. That is what I meant by reporting that the private school my son attends is only becoming more expensive while it is also increasing the number of students it turns away. Word spreads and people want to go there. Well, they can't just take every kid who wants to go. So they increase prices, which turns some away. And they get pickier about what students they will take.

 

 

Anyway, just a late night thought after being out with the family all day NOT having a crab feast.

I'm so sad for you. ☺ï¸

[SKL]

I actually think it's public funding that supports outrageous college textbook costs.  Many young college students are relying on student loans or federal grants to pay for books and tuition.  The cost of books is so small compared to tuition, and the student usually isn't paying for them anyway (at least not right now), so while it is obviously a gouge it gets paid without much fuss.  This is not private enterprise. 

 

Maybe they should make professors buy and supply the books for their classes - that might make for interesting changes.  :P  Give them a budget and let them keep the change.  Hmmm....

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I don't think complete, for profit education is ever going to a great thing on a society wide basis.

 

Realistically there are probably many models that would work, depending on the basic situation.  But in a modern context, I think we can say that the state has an interest in, and a duty to, having an educated population.

 

And my observation of different systems says to me that when the public education is very good, and most people - without reference to social class - use it, those things strongly reenforce each other.  I've never seen anything that says to me that private education for all is more effective.

 

Where I live, for a while there have actually been private-public contracts in the building and administering of schools, and really even they always seem to end up as a bad deal.

 

As far as improving things - we I think have on average, somewhat better public education here in Canada.  Overall I think one difference is that it is just more even - it's not perfect, but there aren't the kinds of huge variations in funding.  Teachers aren't paid enough, and the education of teachers could stand to improve somewhat, but are both a little better than the US.  Teachers have to have at least an undergraduate degree before getting an education degree, and there is encouragement to do graduate work, though I have some doubts abut the quality of the programs.

 

Just as an aside - education here is controlled by the province, not the federal government.  While in some places it makes sense to talk about a national curriculum, I think in very large countries it probably makes more sense to control it, at least partly, at the lower level.  

 

My province spends just under $10,000 per student which is about average.

 

Some of the issues are really around wealth inequality so improving them means addressing those problems to some degree. 

 

On the other hand - I do like to see neighbourhood schools as the norm, and have a certain amount of low-level community control.  I think there is room for some specialized schools.  I think there is room for thinking about schools that have a different philosophy of education behind them - like parochial schools.

 

As far as the discussion about Finnish schools - I think we could learn a lot from them - they have many of the qualities I think are important.  One thing I'd not is they do have some religious school, which are I think also state funded?  Or partially?  The state church there is Lutheran IIRC but the religious schools are Orthodox which is the second major religious group.  

 

Things the Finns always point to with regard to their systems successes are teacher education, teacher autonomy, and also the removal of politics from education.

 

For me, one major issue I have wit our "secular" education is that it lacks a self-conscious worldview or even idea of education.  In the end, it seems to have very little idea of what it means to be educated, or what it means to be a society, or what it means to be human.  It doesn't see itself as really being able to address these questions and so largely ignores them.  I think these are really the fundamental problems of our failure to do better, and the retread to concepts like employability, taking care of kids while parents are at school, and whatever the popular political causes of the day are.

 

 

 

 

[EmseB]

Well, that's funny you say this, because I think it proves my point. 😉 I am not making a bid for the federal (or state) government to create and publish the texts that all schools must use. Not at all. I was saying that without regulation, private companies do abuse power in exactly this way. IOW, making something private sector does not necessarily guarantee more diverse choices and better innovation. It can and often does lead to abusive practices just like we see in textbook publishing. .

 

 

But, the reason these companies have these practices is because of government interference in the market and because of regulation and public school standards for testing and texts. You are not making the bid for such a thing but that is what exists currently in public education and the testing and textbook market.  It exists because public schools have state and federal standards. You're saying they exist the way they do because they are without regulation. It's exactly the opposite.  Government regulation and our current public school system is exactly what enables them to do what they do.   The high prices of college texts and the practices of textbook and testing publishers are a direct result of homogeneous, government-monopolized, institutional education.

 

What you have with textbook companies is the worst of both worlds: a private company that has essentially created a monopoly via government mandates. Read up on Pearson, Houghton-Mifflin, CollegeBoard, etc and how they use our current school system to charge what they do.

 

Not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no diversity of thought or teaching in any of those texts, but that's another issue entirely.

 

And if you regulate the market even further with price controls then you will end up with even fewer choices, more control by fewer companies.

[EmseB]

Homeschooling materials aren't a parallel because obviously, not everyone can provide home education for their child(ren). Homeschooling does have the advantage of being as individualized as it's possible to be, but it obviously requires that someone, usually a parent and most often mom, can devote a significant amount of attention, time and money to this venture. You're saying you think the rise in private schooling would look more like homeschooling, but I wonder why you think it would go in that direction. Private schooling that provides an outstanding education, operates efficiently and proves great outcomes does not remain small and inclusive. It can't because there is a supply and demand factor even here. That is what I meant by reporting that the private school my son attends is only becoming more expensive while it is also increasing the number of students it turns away. Word spreads and people want to go there. Well, they can't just take every kid who wants to go. So they increase prices, which turns some away. And they get pickier about what students they will take.

 

 

No, I'm talking about the way the market works, the economics of it. I used the curriculum comparison because both markets are selling curriculum so it's easy to see how bad one market is compared the the other when they are selling the same thing.  YES, it's individualized and the individual consumer decides what to buy.  There are more consumers with varied needs and tastes. More choices emerge and prices are regulated by the people paying for the things. Companies cannot charge exorbitant prices for needless revisions.  They cannot do this because no one would buy the stuff.  In the textbook market, they can and do because the government mandates that taxpayers give them millions of dollars.

 

I think private schooling would go in many different directions, not just the homeschooling route.  I do see the economics of the market changing significantly because there is SO much money right now that is used by the government monopoly that would suddenly be in an economy where people could choose. I see people around me starting all different kinds of tutorials and cottage schools right now, some at their own expense. Most charters and things that I've been around have been non-profit. And yes, schools like yours have a limited capacity. ALL schools have a limited capacity.  This is true of public schools too, they simply ration by geographical area rather than by interviews and how individuals would fit.  I find the latter option more conducive to kids getting a good education, to be honest, and way less arbitrary. There is a supply and demand factor for every single resource out there. Just because we slap a label on something and call it "free" and say that everyone gets a piece does not mean it is immune to the effects of economics. What we see in education where government is doing the distributing of the resources is that the poorest are getting the worst deal with the most money spent, except where public/private charters have gone in and changed the landscape for some of the kids.

 

And of course, again, all of this goes back to my original question: what if we put the onus of educating children back onto their parents? The fact that people find this thought to be an impossibility or a disaster waiting to happen is kind of an indictment of our current system, IMO.

Edited September 5, 2017 by EmseB

[hepatica]

Interestingly, this article was just published in The Atlantic. The WTM forum members are always so timely  :001_smile:

[DawnM]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think it is possible or advisable to completely privatize a basic education. I think that it's in a society's interest to have an educated populace, and that can't happen with a completely privatized system because it's a good that some people don't value for their kids. That's not the kid's fault.

Now, obviously, I think we can do better. I think that we need to have smaller administrative bodies that allow for innovation at the school level. The federal government needs to get out of the way and let states compete in innovation and output. I think we need to have better ways of evaluating teachers - difficult testing like what lawyers, nurses and CPAs go through. Unannounced observations of class, that kind of thing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Then they need to get compensated accordingly.  (Please note, I am not arguing with you, just adding to the comment.)

 

What the problem is, is that there are more and more regulations put on teachers, it changes almost yearly, and the evaluations end up being more about personality than actual instruction.  Add to that the fact that across the nation there is a 35% DROP in teacher education program admissions, and we are in for a real problem in this country.  Couple that with the HUGE percentage of teachers who leave the profession within the first 5 years of teaching, and we have a huge problem on our hands.  People no longer want to go into education.  It used to be a valued profession where teachers were compensated fairly (notice I did NOT say well compensated), and they were respected.  

 

I have been in public education for the past 28 years, with a 10 year hiatus to stay home with my kids and homeschool, I have seen the changes first hand and when I speak to young people I dissuade them from going into teaching.  I am brutally honest and tell them if their heart is in it, go for it, but have a back up plan (which I could get into here but wont' as it isn't the purpose of this thread.)

 

And there ARE already unannounced observations.....but what are you going to do with a poorly performing teacher when there is literally NO ONE to take the place of that teacher?

 

In fact, I switched school districts this year.  When I went to the "new to the district" teacher training, the Superintendent got up and announced, "12 years ago, our district could be highly selective and I would have gotten up here and told you that you congratulations for being one of the select few we hired, but now, we can't find enough people for some positions, so we are saying thank you for coming instead!!!!!"

 

It was VERY telling.

 

So, YES, changes need to happen, but until teaching becomes a profession that is valued, compensated fairly in ALL of the country and not just NY and select areas, AND there are a multitude of other changes, evaluations and keeping teachers in the profession is a HUGE issue.  And it is getting worse by the year.

[Barb_]

Then they need to get compensated accordingly. (Please note, I am not arguing with you, just adding to the comment.)

 

What the problem is, is that there are more and more regulations put on teachers, it changes almost yearly, and the evaluations end up being more about personality than actual instruction. Add to that the fact that across the nation there is a 35% DROP in teacher education program admissions, and we are in for a real problem in this country. Couple that with the HUGE percentage of teachers who leave the profession within the first 5 years of teaching, and we have a huge problem on our hands. People no longer want to go into education. It used to be a valued profession where teachers were compensated fairly (notice I did NOT say well compensated), and they were respected.

 

I have been in public education for the past 28 years, with a 10 year hiatus to stay home with my kids and homeschool, I have seen the changes first hand and when I speak to young people I dissuade them from going into teaching. I am brutally honest and tell them if their heart is in it, go for it, but have a back up plan (which I could get into here but wont' as it isn't the purpose of this thread.)

 

And there ARE already unannounced observations.....but what are you going to do with a poorly performing teacher when there is literally NO ONE to take the place of that teacher?

 

In fact, I switched school districts this year. When I went to the "new to the district" teacher training, the Superintendent got up and announced, "12 years ago, our district could be highly selective and I would have gotten up here and told you that you congratulations for being one of the select few we hired, but now, we can't find enough people for some positions, so we are saying thank you for coming instead!!!!!"

 

It was VERY telling.

 

So, YES, changes need to happen, but until teaching becomes a profession that is valued, compensated fairly in ALL of the country and not just NY and select areas, AND there are a multitude of other changes, evaluations and keeping teachers in the profession is a HUGE issue. And it is getting worse by the year.

I agree with you. I have a couple of kids who are spinning their wheels a bit trying to figure out what to do. I think they'd both make excellent teachers, but I've not even mentioned the possibility because the system chews them up and spits most of them out after a few years.

 

In the article Hepatica linked above, there was a point made that I've thought about before. Generation or two ago, there weren't many professions open to women outside of teaching and nursing. Many of our best and brightest females wound up in nursing and teaching simply because those professions were acceptable and open to them. Once women began making inroads into other professions, suddenly there were these terrible shortages of nurses and teachers.

 

No. There is a shortage of women willing to accept the pay and conditions inherent in teaching and nursing. As the article said, "Don't complain about a car shortage if you can't find someone to sell you a Lexus for two bucks."

 

That many top college graduates hesitate to join a profession with low wages is no great surprise. For many years, talented women had few career alternatives to nursing and teaching; this kept teacher quality artificially high. Now that women have more options, if we want to attract strong teachers, we need to pay competitive salaries. As one observer put it, if you cannot find someone to sell you a Lexus for a few dollars, that doesn’t mean there is a car shortage.

[frogger]

Just a few points about things that have been stated.

 

A) Private and For Profit aren't the same thing.

 

B) People get a lot out of autonomy, doing well, and respect. Teachers get a lot less than just low pay.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, I'm talking about the way the market works, the economics of it. I used the curriculum comparison because both markets are selling curriculum so it's easy to see how bad one market is compared the the other when they are selling the same thing.  YES, it's individualized and the individual consumer decides what to buy.  There are more consumers with varied needs and tastes. More choices emerge and prices are regulated by the people paying for the things. Companies cannot charge exorbitant prices for needless revisions.  They cannot do this because no one would buy the stuff.  In the textbook market, they can and do because the government mandates that taxpayers give them millions of dollars.

 

If you are going to try and give a lecture about how markets work, you may first want to spend a bit more time thinking about how the individual markets function.  You seem to think that products being similar in form means they have the same market, which is definitely not the case.  The development of college level textbooks is very different than that of homeschooling curricula, but the ultimate difference is that those who pay for homeschool products make the final purchasing decisions, which is ultimately not the case for college texts (professor A says buy the text which is then purchased by student B).

The cost of homeschooling texts and texts used in public/private schools are more in line with each other, which makes sense as the markets are more similar (keeping in mind that there are some differences at the publisher level that do make a difference).

[Barb_]

Just a few points about things that have been stated.

 

A) Private and For Profit aren't the same thing.

 

B) People get a lot out of autonomy, doing well, and respect. Teachers get a lot less than just low pay.

On your second point, yep. That is the primary reason I've not mentioned teaching to my girls. One is an anthropology major, the other is an artist. Neither will be rolling in money, but I fear teaching would be soul-sucking.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

And of course, again, all of this goes back to my original question: what if we put the onus of educating children back onto their parents? The fact that people find this thought to be an impossibility or a disaster waiting to happen is kind of an indictment of our current system, IMO.

 

People are being realistic.  Public education options didn't appear just for the heck of it.  There is an overall public good that is achieved by attempting to educate as much of the population as possible.  I can't name a society offhand which did not offer a public education option of some sort which also managed to offer an education to all.

 

FWIW, for all the gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair regarding our public schools, there are still many schools that do quite well and many students who are learning and achieving.  Trying to address what is "wrong" with our schools while ignoring what is working is how we end up with a hodge podge of policies which don't achieve change where it is needed.  Part of the issue which is clear from the data but us continually ignored at the policy level is that socioeconomic factors and racial inequalities play a major role in failing school districts, and privatization of education on a wide scale is not a solution for those problems.

[Guest]

No, I'm talking about the way the market works, the economics of it. I used the curriculum comparison because both markets are selling curriculum so it's easy to see how bad one market is compared the the other when they are selling the same thing. YES, it's individualized and the individual consumer decides what to buy. There are more consumers with varied needs and tastes. More choices emerge and prices are regulated by the people paying for the things. Companies cannot charge exorbitant prices for needless revisions. They cannot do this because no one would buy the stuff. In the textbook market, they can and do because the government mandates that taxpayers give them millions of dollars.

 

I think private schooling would go in many different directions, not just the homeschooling route. I do see the economics of the market changing significantly because there is SO much money right now that is used by the government monopoly that would suddenly be in an economy where people could choose. I see people around me starting all different kinds of tutorials and cottage schools right now, some at their own expense. Most charters and things that I've been around have been non-profit. And yes, schools like yours have a limited capacity. ALL schools have a limited capacity. This is true of public schools too, they simply ration by geographical area rather than by interviews and how individuals would fit. I find the latter option more conducive to kids getting a good education, to be honest, and way less arbitrary. There is a supply and demand factor for every single resource out there. Just because we slap a label on something and call it "free" and say that everyone gets a piece does not mean it is immune to the effects of economics. What we see in education where government is doing the distributing of the resources is that the poorest are getting the worst deal with the most money spent, except where public/private charters have gone in and changed the landscape for some of the kids.

 

And of course, again, all of this goes back to my original question: what if we put the onus of educating children back onto their parents? The fact that people find this thought to be an impossibility or a disaster waiting to happen is kind of an indictment of our current system, IMO.

Are you saying that at the college level, the government(s) choose the curriculum that must be used at the colleges, because that is the only one they will subsidize due to deals with the big publishers? Or are you talking about only K-12? I am not aware of it working that way. At the college I attended, one of my profs was on the textbook liason committee or whatever it was called; she proportedly was doing everything she could do to try and halt the horrid prices and constant turnover of texts in her classes. She even gave those of us who already bought the $250 textbook for French I a "cheat sheet" of problem numbers so we would not have to buy another $250 textbook for French II that was the same damn thing. I don't know why she would be a liason if it makes no difference and they have only these choices anyway.

 

But maybe you are only talking about K-12?

[luuknam]

I suggested the index and got the response "what is an index?"  When I get students coming to college who do not know what an index is, is it time for me to start using a searchable ebook?  

 

No, then it's time to slap the kid's K-12 teachers. Realistically though, it doesn't help students to not teach them basic life skills. Do we want people to graduate from college without knowing what an index is and where to find it in a book? Maybe at some point in the future, that kind of knowledge will become obsolete, but for now, not yet.

 

But again, these are not really per student expenses. Buildings and salaries and insurance etc are more costly in NY than in Utah or Idaho. NY has unions. Charter teachers in NY love the unions, because their salaries are often based on what public school teachers are getting paid. NY has a way more diverse student body than Idaho. The sheer number of languages spoken by NYC school children is phenomenal.

 

 

Boise, ID - 26,000 students, approximately 90 languages. 

 

http://boiseschools.org/parents/english_language_learners/

 

Buffalo, NY - 34,000 students, 83 languages:

 

http://www.buffaloschools.org/files/128780/languages%20in%20the%20district.pdf

 

NYC - 1.1 million students, 162 languages:

 

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3A4AEC4C-14BD-49C4-B2E6-8EDF5D873BE4/213766/201516DemographicReportv5FINAL.pdf

 

That said, I seriously doubt it matters if you've got kids speaking 90 languages or 162... you're not hiring translators for every single language. The diversity in number of languages compared to the total number of students in much higher in Boise or Buffalo than in NYC though (largely because NYC is so huge... but still... I'd imagine it's easier to cope with 1.1 million students with 162 languages than with 26,000 with 90 (of course, it's not just about the number of languages, but also about the percentage of ELLs, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "NYC has a lot of languages compared to Idaho"). NYC spends about the same per student as Buffalo does ($21k vs $20k - and COL in Buffalo is much lower. Boise spends $8k).

 

Btw, all of those are ELL only. They don't include kids who are bilingual. 

[DawnM]

 

 

And of course, again, all of this goes back to my original question: what if we put the onus of educating children back onto their parents? The fact that people find this thought to be an impossibility or a disaster waiting to happen is kind of an indictment of our current system, IMO.

 

 

It is hard for me to explain to the parents, who come in yelling at me and cussing me out, that their child is being suspended for yelling and cussing out a teacher.....apple/tree and all that.

 

So, yes, I agree with you.....the educational system is not the biggest issue, it is a symptom or an outcome of some of the real issues in our country when it comes to our youth.....home life, peers, media (social and over the air), and so many other factors play in.

[SamanthaCarter]

NM. I keep making poorly timed comments because the thread moves too fast!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 5, 2017 by SamanthaCarter

[kiana]

It's heartbreaking that teaching is so soul sucking. Why is that? It think they are poorly paid because of the layers and layers of bureaucrats skimming off the top, not because we as a society don't value their work

 

I don't know. You hear a lot of smack talking about teachers. How many times have you heard "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach"?

 

But another reason it's so soul sucking is because the administration is so convinced of their incompetence that they keep implementing more and more restrictions. In some cases, teachers have been forced to teach literally with an earpiece by which someone can relay immediate feedback, which often involves chiding them for not following the script exactly. There is no room for divergence. They have little to no input on curriculum, pace, or anything else. 

 

I could not work under those conditions. I would very seriously rather stack shelves at Walmart. 

[regentrude]

I don't know. You hear a lot of smack talking about teachers. How many times have you heard "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach"?

 

and sadly, there is some kernel of truth in it.

Often students who cannot hack their major drop out and go into teaching.

And the education majors have fairly low SAT scores compared to other disciplines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-sat-score-for-every-college-major-2014-10

 

(and even the critical reading scores of education majors are significantly lower than those of math and physical science majors - so it's not because of math)

 

and the pattern continues with the GRE scores, so college does not remediate the difference even among those students who continue to graduate school

https://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/

 

There are fantastic teachers out there - and then there are teachers who not only can't teach, but are too dumb to understand percentages (my DS' 3rd grade teacher)

Edited September 5, 2017 by regentrude

[Arcadia]

It think they are poorly paid because of the layers and layers of bureaucrats skimming off the top, not because we as a society don't value their work

My kid's teachers in a K-8 local public school sent home emails and weekly newsletters with grammar and spelling errors. His 1st grade teacher told me to teach him math and science myself because she can't teach math nor science.

 

On the other hand when we switched to the online public charter, my kids' teachers rarely sent emails with grammar or spelling errors, could explain to my kids math up to calculus level and science up to high school and sometimes AP level when we meet up. Their teachers were also able to diagram sentences correctly. it is so much easier for my husband to respect/appreciate my kids online public charter teachers.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Arcadia

[SKL]

This thread wasn't really about why some schools are bad, but since it seems to be going in that direction, I had a thought about that ....

 

I have friends who are teachers who are so motivated and professional.  There are times when they are discouraged, but there are so many times when they are excited about something special or some chance to see the results of their work.  I've also worked with teachers who acted like they didn't even like their kids and didn't really feel any responsibility for outcomes.  What was the difference?

In my anecdotal observation, the excited teachers are the ones who are teaching and making a difference in their own community - at the schools their own kids and friends' kids attend.  The ones who acted like "why am I even here, these kids are hopeless" were working in neighborhoods that had to recruit teachers from outside the community, probably because the community itself didn't produce many college graduates.

 

I wonder what would change if we had programs to identify youngsters in low-income communities who would like to be teachers, support their education, and give them incentives to stay right there and teach when they are older?

[Debbi in Texas]

Yes. Measuring this year's 5th graders against last year's 5th graders and requiring "progress" is complete nonsense. Who comes up with this and thinks it can possibly be a suitable metric?

 

The same people who came up with the idea the students in my resource class with learning disabilities must pass the same standardized test. And their scores are figured in with the rest of the test takers.

[regentrude]

The same people who came up with the idea the students in my resource class with learning disabilities must pass the same standardized test. And their scores are figured in with the rest of the test takers.

 

and who decided that this would make a great measure for the teacher quality.

 

Seriously, the best teacher in the world is not going to teach my mentally disabled brother how to recognize the letters or add 2+3.

[hepatica]

I don't think it's as simple as saying "NYC has a lot of languages compared to Idaho"). 

 

nevermind...

Edited September 5, 2017 by hepatica

[luuknam]

Maybe they should make professors buy and supply the books for their classes - that might make for interesting changes.  :p  Give them a budget and let them keep the change.  Hmmm....

 

 

Maybe a decent idea, if it weren't for the fact that too many classes are taught by poorly paid adjuncts. On the one hand, I believe that the vast, vast majority of those care about educating their students, but otoh, they also often have significant amounts of student loan debt, so picking less than ideal options in order to pocket as much money as possible would be tempting. Plus, it'd be hard to make it fair... how do you decide what budget profs should have for textbooks? Different disciplines are going to cost different amounts... 

[Guest]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

 

We refuse to model what works within our own borders.

[kiana]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

 

Don't tell ME what to do, buddy!

[luuknam]

Generation or two ago, there weren't many professions open to women outside of teaching and nursing. Many of our best and brightest females wound up in nursing and teaching simply because those professions were acceptable and open to them. Once women began making inroads into other professions, suddenly there were these terrible shortages of nurses and teachers.

 

No. There is a shortage of women willing to accept the pay and conditions inherent in teaching and nursing. 

 

 

Also, there is no particular reason that teachers have to be female. Unfortunately though, people in the US seem to think that especially elementary school teachers are suspect if they're male... like they might be pervs. About half of my elementary school teachers were male (and none of them were pervs, afaik). I'm thinking more than half of my secondary school teachers were male (not an overwhelming majority, but I think a majority). FWIW, in the past couple of decades, teaching has become a more female profession in NL as well, from what I've read... I'm not entirely sure why. But, there are still quite a number of male teachers (compared to in the US). 

 

Aside from that, pretty much all of my secondary school teachers (7th-12th grade) had master's degrees in their fields, and then teacher certification on top of that. Now, being in the pre-university stream did mean that that was more likely, just like I assume that people's AP teachers are more likely to have master's degrees in their fields than the average teacher, but still... almost every single one of them did. And oh, they complained about being underpaid... but people respected them, at least, because, well, they were respectable. Someone upthread mentioned that people need to be taught to respect teachers. It doesn't work that way. Respect is earned (and pretty easy to lose if you don't deserve it). 

[DawnM]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

 

Not only is the education good, but the teachers are highly respected and paid very well.

 

Imagine that.

[DawnM]

This thread wasn't really about why some schools are bad, but since it seems to be going in that direction, I had a thought about that ....

 

I have friends who are teachers who are so motivated and professional.  There are times when they are discouraged, but there are so many times when they are excited about something special or some chance to see the results of their work.  I've also worked with teachers who acted like they didn't even like their kids and didn't really feel any responsibility for outcomes.  What was the difference?

 

In my anecdotal observation, the excited teachers are the ones who are teaching and making a difference in their own community - at the schools their own kids and friends' kids attend.  The ones who acted like "why am I even here, these kids are hopeless" were working in neighborhoods that had to recruit teachers from outside the community, probably because the community itself didn't produce many college graduates.

 

I wonder what would change if we had programs to identify youngsters in low-income communities who would like to be teachers, support their education, and give them incentives to stay right there and teach when they are older?

 

 

Just as an aside......I have mostly worked in very inner city schools and I have not witnessed this.  Sure, there are some who don't want to be there, but for the most part, MOST of the teachers are digging into their own pockets to provide snacks for hungry kids, staying after to provide tutoring for those struggling, and donating time and energy even when they weren't paid extra, weren't recognized, and didn't get much personal gain out of it.

[Guest]

Not only is the education good, but the teachers are highly respected and paid very well.

 

Imagine that.

I know it. I read the book "The Smartest Kids in the World," which talked about education in Finland and the way teachers are regarded highly. It really ought to be that way.

[Arcadia]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

The most often remark I have heard was that US is the most creative country and all those countries with very good results are just churning out robots who can't think.

 

This is always followed by how those dumb countries aren't able to produce Nobel prize winners or hyper successful businessmen like Bill Gates.

 

For older people here in their 60s/70s/80s, they had a relatively good public school education and they might not understand why schools in some places are broken unless they have grandkids in the system and are going over their work.

[DawnM]

Also, there is no particular reason that teachers have to be female. Unfortunately though, people in the US seem to think that especially elementary school teachers are suspect if they're male... like they might be pervs. About half of my elementary school teachers were male (and none of them were pervs, afaik). I'm thinking more than half of my secondary school teachers were male (not an overwhelming majority, but I think a majority). FWIW, in the past couple of decades, teaching has become a more female profession in NL as well, from what I've read... I'm not entirely sure why. But, there are still quite a number of male teachers (compared to in the US). 

 

Aside from that, pretty much all of my secondary school teachers (7th-12th grade) had master's degrees in their fields, and then teacher certification on top of that. Now, being in the pre-university stream did mean that that was more likely, just like I assume that people's AP teachers are more likely to have master's degrees in their fields than the average teacher, but still... almost every single one of them did. And oh, they complained about being underpaid... but people respected them, at least, because, well, they were respectable. Someone upthread mentioned that people need to be taught to respect teachers. It doesn't work that way. Respect is earned (and pretty easy to lose if you don't deserve it). 

 

 

I meant as a society.  I was not speaking about individual teachers.  It is not easy to gain respect when every TV show you watch disses teachers, the government thinks paying you is a chore they would rather not deal with, and parents come in demanding that you give their child X or Y just because it is their child.

 

I am not speaking of one or two anecdotal stories, but rather the general population's view of teachers.  If I weren't the age I am and so far into it, I would go into something else.  At least I am currently out of the classroom doing what I really love, but I do keep up my teaching credentials just in case.

 

ETA:  I usually felt respected, at least by my students and the other faculty.  But the overall feel of the public these days is almost distain for teachers.

Edited September 6, 2017 by DawnM

[Arcadia]

It is not easy to gain respect when every TV show you watch disses teachers, the government thinks paying you is a chore they would rather not deal with, and parents come in demanding that you give their child X or Y just because it is their child.

I think the teaching profession here has unfortunately become associated with being the "catch-all" profession. It is like lottery public schools, the harder to get in, the higher the respect/envy for children who got in. The teaching profession doesn't have a high bar of entry here. The Praxis exam test prep books in the library are next to the LSAT and MCAT books, and people like my husband do compare the exams. Some people at the library commented that nursing exams are harder.

 

ETA:

I don't think it swings to disdain. Just not as much respect as someone managing to get into med school or law school for example.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Arcadia

[SKL]

This is getting even more tangential, but I do wonder sometimes why the US seems SO particularly averse to doing *anything* following a model of other sucessful countries. I mean, I know not everything translates perfectly from a small country like Finland, with different expectations, culture, constitution to a big, huge, diverse country like the US, but still. In some circles at least, you utter a taboo by merely suggesting that we might have something to learn from a country that gets very good results. I don't understand what the big insult is.

 

I think a lot of it is because we don't believe we're seeing the whole story.  It's like reading my facebook page - I really seem to have it all together, because danged if I'm posting all the times my kids push my crazy button.

 

I have heard that the results in Finland went down recently.  No idea why, and I really don't care why, because this is not Finland.

 

I agree with Chocolate Reign - we have plenty of success stories in our own backyard that we fail to build upon.

[SKL]

Article about what I just posted above - Finnish education misrepresentations etc.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32302374

 

[Bluegoat]

Article about what I just posted above - Finnish education misrepresentations etc.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32302374

 

I found that a little hard to follow.  Did the results go up before the changes, or after?  And what changes?

[Arcadia]

ETA: I usually felt respected, at least by my students and the other faculty. But the overall feel of the public these days is almost distain for teachers.

Toronto is having a "teachers can't teach math" problem too. If someone read news articles like what is quoted below, the impression of teachers won't be good.

 

"Elementary teachers’ weak math skills — some can’t even recall Grade 6 fractions — have sent Ontario teachers’ colleges scrambling to launch mandatory crash courses, with some making student teachers pass a math test to graduate.

 

Teachers’ math phobia, which faculties of education across North America view as a “huge problem,†are seen as one factor in Ontario’s falling student math scores, especially in grade school, where most teachers have a liberal-arts background and have not studied math since high school.

...

“I’ve got some mathematically brilliant teacher candidates, but I’m also working with some who don’t know how to multiply or divide,†noted professor Mary Reid of U of T’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). “They have no idea what a ‘remainder’ is. They think a remainder of 3 is the same as decimal 3.â€

 

OISE now gives student teachers a mandatory diagnostic math test during orientation week — no calculators allowed — to pinpoint where they might need help.

 

Here is a problem from that test, based on Grade 7 skills:

 

Mary has read 120 pages of a novel, which is 40 per cent of the book.

How many pages does she have left to read?

 

Only 55 per cent of the student teachers got it right. (Answer: 180 pages.)

 

“Their average mark on that test was 80 per cent, which sounds good except you’re talking about math that’s taught as early as Grade 5 and 6,†said Reid.

...

The University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) in Oshawa has launched a mandatory course for student teachers of Grades 1 to 6 on math basics like fractions and decimals — not how to teach them, but what the math actually means, said associate professor Ann LeSage. When a similar course was optional, few teachers took it “because so many are afraid of math,†she said. Now everyone takes it.

“They might know the formula for calculating the area of a circle, but they don’t know why it works. Many students panic and freeze when they even hear the math words.â€"

https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2016/05/13/for-many-teachers-math-just-doesnt-add-up.html

[DawnM]

I think the teaching profession here has unfortunately become associated with being the "catch-all" profession. It is like lottery public schools, the harder to get in, the higher the respect/envy for children who got in. The teaching profession doesn't have a high bar of entry here. The Praxis exam test prep books in the library are next to the LSAT and MCAT books, and people like my husband do compare the exams. Some people at the library commented that nursing exams are harder.

 

ETA:

I don't think it swings to disdain. Just not as much respect as someone managing to get into med school or law school for example.

 

Well, doctors and lawyers require far more schooling and get paid a whole lot more, so I am not comparing teaching to being a doctor or a lawyer.  And nursing is harder for some for sure, it is a very specific subject field.

 

Most of education is not subject knowledge based and I will admit it is a hard thing to quantify because if you know your subject matter, that is great, but if you have no classroom management, you aren't going to be a good teacher......at all.  And the same is true the other way around.

 

As for those of you who keep saying math teachers are dumb, don't know their subject matter.....etc.....that actually does not surprise me.  Most people who are really good in math go into math fields and make 3xs the money that they would make as a teacher.  The same is often true for science majors.  There is a LOT more money out there to be made outside of teaching.

 

As for the bar being high.....what would you like the bar to be?  If we can't even get teachers with a low bar, how will we entice people into the field by raising the bar and not raising the incentives otherwise?  

 

I was reading an article recently, and I will see if I can find it again.....it basically said, "In the past, when people didn't want to go into teaching and there were teacher shortages, the states would just throw more money at the problem to lure in teachers.  However, the educational state of the country is such now that even money won't solve the issue." and it then talked about the issues in public education going on.  All the demands outside of the actual instruction, etc....

 

Now, not all of those "outside of instruction" things are necessarily bad.  There is a lot of good to mainstreaming, college track for all who want it, differentiated instruction for those struggling, intervention for students with issues not related to education, etc......but it is VERY taxing on teachers, and add in there stagnated pay since on or before 2008, class size increases, etc....and you have a recipe for disaster.

[snowbeltmom]

In my neck of the woods, teachers begin to specialize in middle school.  Why don't we have teacher specialization at the elementary level?  Why don't we have those elementary teachers that are good in math, focus only on teaching math?  It is ridiculous that teachers that don't understand the concepts of fractions and percents are providing math instruction in the classroom.   

[kiana]

In my neck of the woods, teachers begin to specialize in middle school.  Why don't we have teacher specialization at the elementary level?  Why don't we have those elementary teachers that are good in math, focus only on teaching math?  It is ridiculous that teachers that don't understand the concepts of fractions and percents are providing math instruction in the classroom.   

 

Here I 100% agree. We have reading specialists. Why NOT math specialists? 

[Twolittleboys]

I haven't read all (or most) of the long thread as I just found it and didn't yet have time but here is what I think:

 

It would be a disaster. I am all for (some) private schools. They can concentrate on specific aspects and/or offer better education (due to choice of students/better resources). But there needs to be a free/public option. This also serves as a yard stick to measure against and ensures that private schools have to offer something extra. Who would pay if they don't get more out of it than they have for free? This sets a minimum standard for private schools.

 

What would happen if all schools were privatized?

There would still be outstanding private schools but they would charge a high premium. Obviously, they would want to make as much money as possible so fees would be raised as far as possible without losing your student base. Some hard-working/talented etc. students would benefit from these schools (as they do now).

 

There would probably be competition in the mid-price segment. However, this would mostly be beneficial in affluent or at least comfortable areas with a large population (i.e. where people could afford to pay a bit more and could move kids to a different school in the area). It wouldn't help if people can not pay extra (so for example rely on vouchers alone) or where distances are too great. Quality of these schools would probably be about the same as now.

 

In poorer areas or areas with little interest/knowledge of education, a bunch of super-cheap schools would pop up. Students would be much worse off than now and likely there would be many not attending at all (if this isn't enforced which would be harder with lots of small private institutions). 

 

If vouchers or whatever are tied to taxes (or similar) it would amplify this as basically the rich would be subsidized.

 

So I think the overall outcome would be an even greater chasm between rich and poor AND a growing segment of the population lacking even a minimum education. Basically a recipe for social unrest and decay.

[Bluegoat]

I think the reason is that the model for elementary school is just that kids will build a relationship mainly with one teacher who knows the kids well, and that teacher will be something of a generalist.

 

Here, you have an undergrad degree before you get a teaching degree - but for elementary school teachers, they take a pretty wide breath of classes, even though they have a major.

 

And really - I don't think it sounds crazy, on the face of it, to think that people should have enough grasp of math up to grade 5 or 6 that they would be able to teach it effectively.

 

To me, it does seem to indicate, more than anything, that the teachers themselves had an inadequate math education.

 

[snowbeltmom]

I think the reason is that the model for elementary school is just that kids will build a relationship mainly with one teacher who knows the kids well, and that teacher will be something of a generalist.

 

Here, you have an undergrad degree before you get a teaching degree - but for elementary school teachers, they take a pretty wide breath of classes, even though they have a major.

 

And really - I don't think it sounds crazy, on the face of it, to think that people should have enough grasp of math up to grade 5 or 6 that they would be able to teach it effectively.

 

To me, it does seem to indicate, more than anything, that the teachers themselves had an inadequate math education.

 

:iagree: But keeping the status quo is only going to ensure that future generations continue to suffer the same consequences.  We have music and art teachers in elementary school, I don't understand why we can't have dedicated math teachers, especially when there is a lot of data out there indicating how incompetent many elementary teachers are in math. 

 

[Twolittleboys]

It could be different, of course, but FWIW, I have yet to hear it as a negative from any of our exchange students that we have them affiliated with our schools.  THEY are the ones who are saying it's cool that anyone can participate and not just a small portion of society.  They are teens and don't know everything about how things work, of course, but that's their comparison - from Europe to Asia to South America.

 

We have community programs for some things (esp popular sports) available to all, but they tend to have higher fees are involved, esp for travel teams.  How much would we add in music, art, and free/reduced breakfasts and lunches?  I'm not sure.  I suspect in some areas, not much.  Then too, if a student's parent isn't involved to take advantage of what is out there, the kid is out of luck.  At school they can try something in gym/music/art class, fall in love, and continue from there.  That happens quite often actually.

 

From a German perspective, I do think there is probably just as much offered outside school here as in a regular high school in the US (sports, music, etc.) and at least my kids' school does offer a fair number of extracurriculars (various bands, theater, choir, acrobatics, etc.). The main difference I do see is that having so many extra activities offered at school let's students identify more with their school. In general, school "spirit" is pretty low here as it isn't the center of everything. Depending on how you value this, the US may offer an advantage.

[Twolittleboys]

 

 

 

No... no it's not.  We've seen that quite recently with all the believers in Fake News of various sorts and how much power they have.  The vast majority do not have much of an education - and they get dangerous (from anti-vax on).  By dangerous I don't necessarily mean fighting (though that can be part of it).  I mean promoting 100% false "facts" and acting upon them.  I really think we NEED an educated population and the world is better off when we have one (any country).

 

I strongly agree with most of this BUT I am not sure I agree with your basic premise. Are you saying that the poster you quoted (and which now doesn't show up which makes it difficult for me to remember exactly what it said) is incorrect? I actually do think it can be easier to control an uneducated population. Unfortunately, such a population can be easier manipulated by the right authority figure(s) and exactly that is the problem, isn't it?

[kiana]

I think the reason is that the model for elementary school is just that kids will build a relationship mainly with one teacher who knows the kids well, and that teacher will be something of a generalist.

 

Here, you have an undergrad degree before you get a teaching degree - but for elementary school teachers, they take a pretty wide breath of classes, even though they have a major.

 

And really - I don't think it sounds crazy, on the face of it, to think that people should have enough grasp of math up to grade 5 or 6 that they would be able to teach it effectively.

 

To me, it does seem to indicate, more than anything, that the teachers themselves had an inadequate math education.

 

While I agree with you on how things *should* be, we are looking at what *is*. I'd rather have quality instruction than the specific relationship with the teacher, and unfortunately we don't have enough with a truly deep understanding of elementary math. 

[regentrude]

From a German perspective, I do think there is probably just as much offered outside school here as in a regular high school in the US (sports, music, etc.) and at least my kids' school does offer a fair number of extracurriculars (various bands, theater, choir, acrobatics, etc.). The main difference I do see is that having so many extra activities offered at school let's students identify more with their school. In general, school "spirit" is pretty low here as it isn't the center of everything. Depending on how you value this, the US may offer an advantage.

 

Yes, that has been my experience as well. 

But then, "school spirit" is not something that is emphasized at all; also, children spend much less time in the school.

If anything, kids identify more with their class than with the school as a whole; the same kids stay together for all of elementary, and for  5th through 10th grade. This creates strong cohesive bonds in the group which I find preferable to the constant remixing of classes that is taking place in US schools. I prefer 25 consistent classmate you get to know really well over 150 short term class mates you encounter for a year here or there.

[regentrude]

While I agree with you on how things *should* be, we are looking at what *is*. I'd rather have quality instruction than the specific relationship with the teacher, and unfortunately we don't have enough with a truly deep understanding of elementary math. 

 

And that is disturbing. We are not talking about advanced calculus, but about understanding multiplication of integers, long division, and arithmetic with fractions. Any student entering college should have mastery of these skills. Teachers go to college and attend an education program. How can they be allowed to graduate without an understanding of elementary math? (Ideally, one might argue that students who lack basic math skills should not be admitted to an education program in the first place, but at least they should have learned this after completion)

The problems just propagate: teachers are math phobic, students don't learn math and are afraid of it, math fearing students go to teach . That's a vicious cycle. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

 

 

And there ARE already unannounced observations.....but what are you going to do with a poorly performing teacher when there is literally NO ONE to take the place of that teacher?

 

.

 

Here, that's handled by hiring a retired teacher, or a youngster who will be subbing for a few years before being offered a permanent slots.  This is a unionized state where people want to be teachers in non-urban districts and there is a line to get in.  My son's spanish teacher was let go one year (had a drug problem), and there was no problemo hiring short term sub qualified in spanish while her case was processed, the long term sub was one of the spanish teachers that had been let go when enrollment went down.  My neighbor stepped out for a year for the first baby, and it took two years for a full time position to open to get back in - she did not step out for #2.   My young friend was just hired this summer in a rural district, after graduating 2 years ago and subbing in the commuting range while living at home during those two years. Its tough to find a permanent position, and the urban teachers are sooo happy when they get hired here.  I was thanked every single time I went for open house or a conference...they appreciate students who do not disrupt.   As Carol mentioned, it would be helpful if teacher jobs and pensions were structured a bit differently so they could move without seriously impacting their retirement.  The bigger problem here is the rent...very hard for a beginning grad in any field aside from engineering, law, medicine to rent a one bedroom on their own and have enough money left for transportation if they can't get student digs. At a living wage of 87k, I don't see raising wages as the solution. Taxes need to be restructured so the rent doesn't have to be so high.