From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,misc.education,talk.politics.misc,sci.edu
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:31:06 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1993Jan21.112126.2519@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
> > 
> > 	The problem is there are too many hacks demanding more money and not
> > showing any results.  I was fortunate enough to attend school in a district
> > that is nationally ranked scholastically.
> 
> Where?  The $10,000 salary I received was in the early eighties.  I am not
> aware of current first year salaries now.  I do know different salaries are
> offered for different cities.

I think it's in administration where too many people are getting way too much for
doing little of positive worth and possibly a great deal of negative worth.

> > 	But right down (up?) the road in Dayton, they spend twice as much per
> > pupil, yet score half as high on achievement tests.
> 
> You got facts to support that?

Well I have facts on the New York City public school system.  In fiscal year '92,
they spent $7414 per student, only 32 percent of which went to classroom
instruction (teachers' salaries, books, supplies, etc.).  Most of the rest went
to administration.  And I don't have figures on their test scores, but I think the
failure of the NYC public schools is well enough known that I can be forgiven
for that.
> > 
> > 	Which is why people say "money isn't the solution".
> > 	In a way, they are right.  Throw open the field to anyone (not just
> > those who have plodded through the certification process) and you'll get more
> > qualified people.  The level of teaching in all schools will improve and we'll
> > see kids with better educations.
> 
> Oh, I see...do you mean hire non-teachers, such as business people for example,
> to teach math or business, and so on?  I have heard of that theory....there is
> a certain skill/art to *teaching* that non-teachers sometimes lack.  For
> example, *talking to someone* doesn't mean that they're learning anything. 
> That theory may be OK in the college level, where lecture is more standard, and
> practical knowledge very useful.  I think K-8 need to have some teaching
> theory/practicum.
>
I agree with that, but I also think the teachers need to know a lot about the
subject they are teaching.  Some of my teachers in high school were excellent and
knew a great deal.  Some of them were poor and really didn't know much of
anything.  I also think that teacher certification could be streamlined a good
deal.  I think a couple of months of teaching practice with concurrent classes in
teaching technique would be sufficient for a lot educated people to learn what
they needed to jump in.  Right now, one to two years of classes is just too much
of a time commitment for a career that I'm not sure I want to be my life's work. 
So I'm very unlikely to become a teacher for that reason.  Incidentally, my
experience tutoring makes me think I would be a pretty good teacher - but there's
just too much in the way.

By the way, I think you may be right about K-8, like you said, more than about
9-12.  Someone like me could probably do pretty well with high school teaching,
whereas working with younger students takes a lot of skill and technique with
which I'm unfamiliar.  
> 
> My opinion is that teachers and parents really don't expect enough out of a
> student.  I think they (the students) have a far greater capacity for learning
> but people just don't want to spend the energy 'making' them or getting them
> to learn.

I have an example of that: in my high school, for two years, there was a very
good teacher, Dr. Meckler; he had a PHD in math.  He was fairly demanding, but
not unreasonably.  He definitely made his students work and if they wouldn't work
to maintain a passing average, then they would fail.  He also didn't have the
most winning personality.  Still, he was really a good person and a good teacher.
Some lazy seniors who didn't like to have to do work during their senior year got
together with their parents and ganged up on him.  The administration cooperated,
and he wasn't rehired for the next year.  It was a real loss to the school, in
my opinion and the opinion of my friends.  I think the administration and school
board in my town were idiots - of course, I thought so before then.
> 
> Anyway, I think everyone's expectations have gone to the mediocre, lowering 
> our standards to teach the generic child.

Here's another example:  in my public school system, when I went through it,
Algebra I was normally taught in 9th grade, but good students could take it as
early as the 7th grade, which I did.  Then, going through the rest of the
sequence without repeating any courses, I was able to take A.P. Calculus in my
junior year of high school.  The high score I got on the A.P. Calculus exam was a
big plus for my college applications.  Intellectually, taking it in my junior
year was a big plus as well, because it let me study more advanced math and
physics the following year independently.  Also, I had much more stress on me
during my senior year and would probably not have done as well in the course if I
had taken it then.

So the administration and school board, for whom I've already expressed my
admiration, in their infinite wisdom decided that since some of the students who
accelerated like that didn't always do well in the later math courses, Algebra I
would no longer be made available to seventh graders, only to eight and ninth
graders.  What idiots!  For no good reason they diminished the educational
opportunity available in the school.  This is in my opinion a perfect example
supporting school choice.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu