School Choice

I don't share your views of hoards of mongrels actually changing the dynamic of any given school that much to provoke an exodus. Plus I think you overestimate the ability of people to send their kids to school far away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Plus I think you overestimate the ability of people to send their kids to school far away.

---

I'm glad you finally said it yourself; vouchers will only benefit those wealthy enough to take advantage of it. And poor people will be stuck in schools with less funding than they already have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I'm glad you finally said it yourself; vouchers will only benefit those wealthy enough to take advantage of it. And poor people will be stuck in schools with less funding than they already have.

---

Uhh, no. It's not easy for anyone to send their kid to a school that's physically very far away. Vouchers are about getting parents in a given geographic area to be able to control the funding and increase the demand for good schools where they are.

But I'm curious about your ideas regarding how giving parents control over their kids school choices disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Most truly wealthy people will probably be willing to pay a premium on top of their educational allowance for extra-exclusive/good/specialized schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I'm glad you finally said it yourself; vouchers will only benefit those wealthy enough to take advantage of it. And poor people will be stuck in schools with less funding than they already have.

---

Absurd.

The wealthy are already sending their kids to different schools. Taking your kids an extra 10 miles isn't going to be too costly. Sure a school in another city would be difficult but there are several districts in most cities.

It wasn't a big deal for the mother in the article to get the children to another school district in terms of travel time now was it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Uhh, no. It's not easy for anyone to send their kid to a school that's physically very far away. Vouchers are about getting parents in a given geographic area to be able to control the funding and increase the demand for good schools where they are.

But I'm curious about your ideas regarding how giving parents control over their kids school choices disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Most truly wealthy people will probably be willing to pay a premium on top of their educational allowance for extra-exclusive/good/specialized schools.

---

All public schools should receive proportional funding based on the number of students. That is fundamental equality for all students. Just because one family has the advantage of being wealthy enough to transport their children to a school out of their district doesn't mean they should be given the right to move the money collected for their district out of the district. Again, let's talk about the people funding that district who have no school aged children. What rights would you give them to move their money out of the district?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

All public schools should receive proportional funding based on the number of students. That is fundamental equality for all students. Just because one family has the advantage of being wealthy enough to transport their children to a school out of their district doesn't mean they should be given the right to move the money collected for their district out of the district. Again, let's talk about the people funding that district who have no school aged children. What rights would you give them to move their money out of the district?

---

The whole point of a voucher system is that a school receives proportional funding based on the number of students. Each student has the same dollar amount on their "heads", and schools that attract students get that dollar amount to work with. That's basically a definition of equal funding.

A voucher system would be a statewide or even federal arrangement. There would be no diversion of resources out of a "district." There wouldn't really be a district. Though of course you seem to see school funding as some kind of confiscatory scheme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

The whole point of a voucher system is that a school receives proportional funding based on the number of students. Each student has the same dollar amount on their "heads", and schools that attract students get that dollar amount to work with. That's basically a definition of equal funding.

A voucher system would be a statewide or even federal arrangement. There would be no diversion of resources out of a "district." There wouldn't really be a district. Though of course you seem to see school funding as some kind of confiscatory scheme.

---

OMG! I even bolded the fucking question so you wouldn't miss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

The inflexible labor issues in urban public schools is entirely the result of our insane teacher's unions, who oppose any real reform and flexibility in their labor arrangements. New York City for example needs to lay-off a few thousand teachers because our budget has finally reached a breaking point due to high teacher salaries and pensions. The teacher's union contract stipulates that layoffs can't happen based on competence. The first teachers to get laid-off must be the least senior, not the lead competent.

I could go on and on, but these insane rules are due to the de-facto monopoly the teacher's union has on schooling. It's why they've become political targets. But ultimately they won't go away anytime soon, they are a highly entrenched and irredentist political interest.

School vouchers break that monopoly by allowing parents (instead of politicians) to control the funding associated with their child. I believe breaking that monopoly is important. When these decisions are shifted to parents, accountability will be decentralized and focused towards a healthier relationship with measuring performance. But historically, there's not been a lack of funding for schools. Their budgets have increased beyond the rate of inflation; it's just that the money goes down a black hole of salaries and benefits

---

I still don't quite see why you can't attack the real problem then instead of choosing a proxy which may not even be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yes, both ridiculous extremes. It's not the school's business what students do at home, and trusting students is a recipe for disaster in many schools. I think teachers need to be trained how to deal with unruly students, and students need to face immediate, escalating punishment for improper behavior (and no, I don't mean physical punishment).

---

Well, I can agree on the training - when I recall my own time at school it's interesting how different our class behaved with different teachers. Some managed a very high degree of respect without severe punishment. Very weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I read a story about cameras being put in classrooms. Wouldn't hurt to have those put in all classrooms and then being randomly examined. Then base salary on proper teaching technique (as well as test results).

---

One problem: What exactly is "proper teaching technique"? Every teacher teaches by different rules, some use primarily teacher-centric methods, others use group tasks. There's no standard and to introducing an arbitrary standard would punish everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Corporal punishment in schools would be a plus. Immediate consequences act as better deterrents. My only problem of course is that it would be in the hands of teachers and so many of them are incompetent. Difficult issue.

---

Corporal punishment has no place in school anymore and for the right reasons. It's child abusal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

One problem: What exactly is "proper teaching technique"? Every teacher teaches by different rules, some use primarily teacher-centric methods, others use group tasks. There's no standard and to introducing an arbitrary standard would punish everyone.

---

It would be (and is in the experiment in question) current and former teachers who examine the tapes, so there would be a lot of leeway in terms of what proper technique is. An easy test is whether most students are engaging with the material in some way.

At uni lecturers attend each others' lectures from time to time so as to help each other become better lecturers (rather than for the purpose of setting salaries)

I don't think it's as much of an issue at universities, as discipline is rarely a problem. The worst I've seen is people texting/Facebooking during class.

Hmm I wasn't talking about discipline, just about observing teachers :p

Install cellphone jammers in classrooms. Or invite parents everyday :heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I don't think it's as much of an issue at universities, as discipline is rarely a problem. The worst I've seen is people texting/Facebooking during class.

---

At uni the bigger problem I encountered (next to student laziness) is that the professors were hired for their knowledge, smarts, and research abilities, not for how they teach. Recently (last decade or so) there have been huge improvements, with teacher evaluations, mandatory trainings, etc., but there are still a lot of teachers who are crap at teaching. Which gets worse if the study material is also written by them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

At uni the bigger problem I encountered (next to student laziness) is that the professors were hired for their knowledge, smarts, and research abilities, not for how they teach. Recently (last decade or so) there have been huge improvements, with teacher evaluations, mandatory trainings, etc., but there are still a lot of teachers who are crap at teaching. Which gets worse if the study material is also written by them...

---

I agree there. I think the twin problems are the inability of many professors to teach and the unwillingness of many students to learn. Student evaluations of professors are starting to matter when it comes to tenure and salary decisions, but no one is really teaching professors how to teach. And most students view classes as something they need to pass in order to graduate instead of a chance to better themselves and learn new information.

Is there any indication that this would turn out differently than a system we've already had in place for education based on who is willing to spend money to send their children to a specific school, and the money and merits the school requires of those children for entry? To be quite frank this system hasn't managed to deter the existence of sub par colleges, or turn every mediocre or average college into a wonder of modern education, or even result in only good professors/teachers having teaching jobs, so I'm not exactly certain what magic is going to happen when this same system is applied at lower levels of schooling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I agree there. I think the twin problems are the inability of many professors to teach and the unwillingness of many students to learn. Student evaluations of professors are starting to matter when it comes to tenure and salary decisions, but no one is really teaching professors how to teach. And most students view classes as something they need to pass in order to graduate instead of a chance to better themselves and learn new information.

---

There's a lot of connection between the two of course as well: excellent teachers get their students more motivated as well. But if a lecture consists of a prof basically reading out of the (extremely crappy) book he wrote, I'm not going to show up.

I have noticed that quite a lot of professors who are crap at teaching classes are good at explaining something one-to-one. So it seems there is a disconnect between what they think students understand, and what the students actually understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

There's a lot of connection between the two of course as well: excellent teachers get their students more motivated as well. But if a lecture consists of a prof basically reading out of the (extremely crappy) book he wrote, I'm not going to show up.

I have noticed that quite a lot of professors who are crap at teaching classes are good at explaining something one-to-one. So it seems there is a disconnect between what they think students understand, and what the students actually understand.

---

I was a teaching assistant for the most exciting professor in the department (he consistently receives the highest scores on student evaluations, uses movies/songs in his lectures, makes the information accessible, etc.). Still a decent chunk of the class didn't give a damn (granted, it was a smaller part of the class than in lectures where the professor couldn't teach).

Yes, I've seen plenty of that too. I think a lot of it because professors aren't taught to teach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

It may have something to do with different areas having different property tax levels, which, at least where I live, is how schools get a large percentage of their funding.

---

Which is a pretty decent poverty trap even before Reaganomics, but I can't for the life of me figure out why Lewk is against it

The woman's white, I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

but I can't for the life of me figure out why Lewk is against it

---

1. People who don't have children have to pay taxes for schools
2. People who do have children can't use the tax money that goes towards public schools to pay for private or home schooling

But only monks and homosexuals don't have kids, and while I'm not sure I don't think his batshit Baptist cult believes in monks?

I see it mainly as an attempt to get (or keep) money, in return for keeping his kids ignorant via home schooling.

But Christ said it would be easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of Jesus

Of course Lewk's idea of rich probably entails Scrooge McDuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

But only monks and homosexuals don't have kids, and while I'm not sure I don't think his batshit Baptist cult believes in monks?

---

I should have worded it better...people who don't yet have children, or don't have children who are going to public schools (either because they are sending them to private school, homeschooling them, or they are older), still have to pay taxes to fund said schools.

Or more bluntly, the government is taking people's hard earned money, giving it away to public schools that reek of socialism and have unions, taking away their freedom to choose how to educate their children, then forcing them to learn stuff decided by liberals. Remember Lewk's homeschooling material he linked that was largely religion based (except perhaps math, because the Bible doesn't really have much to say about the evils of addition and multiplication, other than it should be people doing the multiplying)? Public schools take away the freedom of parents to teach their kids using only that material.

Its only referred to as Freedoms or Choice by Lewk if the result gives them, or opens up the freedom to choose things Lewk agrees with. For instance Lewk is never going to refer to the government offering a public option on healthcare as freedom or choice, because the freedom to choose a government provided health insurer is not something Lewk wants or agrees with. Government vouchers that could go to homeschooling or private schools however is a different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It would be (and is in the experiment in question) current and former teachers who examine the tapes, so there would be a lot of leeway in terms of what proper technique is. An easy test is whether most students are engaging with the material in some way.

---

However, without a standard you'd still be subject to subjective evaluations. Sorry, doesn't convince me.

And how exactly do you measure if a student "engages the material"?

They need to standardize school funding and award money based upon teacher performances and principle performances. Then randomizes locally every 4 years at which local public school a teacher works. They maintain past pay, and get raises or maintaining of wages best upon their performance over the next 4 years they are working.

Quote:

---

Or more bluntly, the government is taking people's hard earned money, giving it away to public schools that reek of socialism and have unions, taking away their freedom to choose how to educate their children

---

Funding an educated populace is good for america and good for them whether or not they have kids. This idea of only pay for the benefits that directly apply to you is not helpful, is counterproductive, and is less efficient than the societies that have foresight beyond their own noses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

Then randomizes locally every 4 years at which local public school a teacher works.

---

That is a VERY bad idea. For example, a Physics teacher has spent a lot of energy building up the Physics department, fought for funding for new experiments, knows his way around the storage, has made friends with his fellow teachers, organized extra-curricular activities.

And then you rip him out of there, just for shits and giggles. And now he may begin again to build up the Physics department, may make new friends, has to find his way around storage again.

Change for the sake of change is a moronic idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

However, without a standard you'd still be subject to subjective evaluations. Sorry, doesn't convince me.

And how exactly do you measure if a student "engages the material"?

---

You're always going to have a subjective standard...I would hope that teachers are better able to determine what is good teaching and what is not than non-teachers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're always going to have a subjective standard...I would hope that teachers are better able to determine what is good teaching and what is not than non-teachers...

---

So, here we have a teacher who drank of the cool-aid, thinks that group tasks are the end-it-all and somehow managed to end up at those evaluation units.

And then we have the evaluated teacher who tends to use a bit more of the teacher-centric approach, who then takes a beating for it, despite getting good results at year's end.
That's what our teachers-in-training here in Germany have to endure on a regular basis. Sorry, not convinced.

With the massive amount of possibilities of how to teach a school class, that's really not a good idea. And, sorry to say it, but: Objective standards are well within the realm of possibility. If you apply them to the results instead of the methods.

Because by making a teacher's pay dependant on his methods, you'll get teachers who stick to the safe ones, no creativity required, no experiments, nothing. God forbid that one tries something new, he might get his pay reduced!

A) Judging results instead of methods is itself objective.
B) Choosing the results to focus on is subjective.
C) Any method used to obtain the results is subjective.
D) Deciding which factors to control for when looking at results (i.e. not every teacher gets "the same" class) is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

OMG! I even bolded the fucking question so you wouldn't miss it.

---

The question of why people should pay taxes that go to schools even if they don't have kids? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I still don't quite see why you can't attack the real problem then instead of choosing a proxy which may not even be effective.

---

I think the problem of sclerotic teacher unions is intertwined with the problem of sclerotic bureaucracies. Like any large corporation, massive urban school systems become bloated, crusty and slow. They institutionalize their existence more than their actual job.

Education needs flexibility, new ideas and constant experimentation. These attributes need to be part of the workforce of teachers, as well as the actual practice of teaching.

There's nothing more detrimental to kids than educating them in a massive corporatist network with an entrenched bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

At uni lecturers attend each others' lectures from time to time so as to help each other become better lecturers (rather than for the purpose of setting salaries)

---

Indeed. :up: