Investing in Schools Creates More Than Twice as Many Jobs as Military Spending

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
While I agree in cutting military spending, I disagree that the answer to our school problems is throwing more money at them. Investing to me means physical involvement not checkbooks.

james[/quote]

The answer IS money, but not in the way most would assume when we say put more money into education. Give teachers a higher salary while getting rid of the tenure system, or at least making the job more of a merit-based one where good teachers are not earning the same as some shithead teacher with no motivation to help students anymore. Pay scales based on seniority, combined with tenure, just breed complacency.

More money needs to be used for educational tools rather than school lunches or paying a bunch of administrators who don’t actually do much in terms of educating students. Like virtually everything else these days, the bureaucracy involved with public education has run rampant, and that is where the money always ends up. It doesn’t go toward teacher salaries that would entice more people with the talent to teach and it doesn’t go toward educational tools like computers or high quality, up-to-date textbooks.[/quote]

THIS.[/quote]

x2

usually when money is given to schools the money is used for other things than actual education in the classroom. Everyone wants to help the children get an education, but that is not where the money goes. It goes to education.

If you included all school districts in the state of Texas and made it one employer it would have one employee per student. The classes get bigger but so does the administration.

82

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The answer IS money, but not in the way most would assume when we say put more money into education. Give teachers a higher salary while getting rid of the tenure system, or at least making the job more of a merit-based one where good teachers are not earning the same as some shithead teacher with no motivation to help students anymore. Pay scales based on seniority, combined with tenure, just breed complacency. . . [/quote]

i worked as consultant in education for about 10 years. I was so disillusioned with what I saw that I now work an extra job to keep my kids out of the public school system.

I agree with most of what you said there. I agree that teachers pay needs to be increased in order to attract better talent. The current pay does not exactly leave us with the best and brightest. Sure I ran across some high performing teachers (maybe 1 in 50), but they were the rare exception. Most fell into education because of the benefits or they could not really do anything else (ie. they liked chemistry, but were not good enough to get a job as a chemist). A couple got into education because they wanted to be able to participate in social engineering. None of these reasons inspire confidence in the system.

I also think that teachers need a reality check as well. The teachers union has turned teachers into blue collar workers, and have convinced them that they are one of the most oppressed segments of the workforce. The work hours and continuing education requirements are not burdensome for salaried employees. If anything they are bit lite. What is interesting is that when I would bring these things up, most teachers would circle back to “But I became a teacher so that I would not have to work the summer. . .” mantra. Well, then you need to accept the rest of what goes with that choice as well. All employers that strive for “work life balance” expect there employees to accept lower salaries as a part of that agreement.

83

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning machines in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Don’t lump the dumb sluts you were clever enough to trick into sleeping with you into the teacher crowd. You were probably dating the ones who focused on the degree pathway that sets them up to teach 2nd grade or some bullshit like that. I attended Pepperdine and then transferred to Chico State my senior year and saw chicks like that at each school since a couple of my classes had some of those types in them. Those are the types of students that graduate and then substitute for a year or so while they figure out what they want to do in life until they get knocked up. Most of them don’t even end up teaching at all. I didn’t see a single one of them in any of my teaching credential classes.[/quote]

Please coopy, you would have been naked is .2seconds.

2nd grade or some bullshit? Are you saying primary teachers are not worthy?

1 of them is a principal and 1 teaches high school, so yep, you are grouped right in with them.

yet you didnt address the work volume. hmmm…

84

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]

Absolutely on the accountability. Unions are the hiding place of those that cannot stand on their own merit.

my expectations of teachers is practically non-existent. Just dont confuse my kid so much that i cant actually teach him the right way of doing things. That is all I ask.

What is so astounding going on behind the scenes?

85

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

Above the line would count as anecdotal evidence-I agree with the general sentiment of what you’re saying about the potential effectiveness of homeschooling, but you can’t act like you’re backing up your claims with hard evidence. It’s out there, just not in your post.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Again though, I believe that if you normalized for parental involvement/commitment in a child’s education, this gap would close considerably. I shudder to think about what the scores of those who are already scoring in the 40th percentile would look like if their education were in the hands of their parents (whether being taught directly by the parents or by an instructor who the parents had to find themselves).[/quote]

The hundreds of home schoolers line was meant to be an absurd reply to the complete ignorance of DB’s assertion that home schoolers are socially awkward because he played baseball with two socially inept home school kids.

My facts were facts. They just weren’t cited. There’s a difference. I should have cited my facts - but my omission doesn’t make the facts less factual.

[/quote]

Gotcha, and I agree on the second point, thus the links.

86

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning machines in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Don’t lump the dumb sluts you were clever enough to trick into sleeping with you into the teacher crowd. You were probably dating the ones who focused on the degree pathway that sets them up to teach 2nd grade or some bullshit like that. I attended Pepperdine and then transferred to Chico State my senior year and saw chicks like that at each school since a couple of my classes had some of those types in them. Those are the types of students that graduate and then substitute for a year or so while they figure out what they want to do in life until they get knocked up. Most of them don’t even end up teaching at all. I didn’t see a single one of them in any of my teaching credential classes.[/quote]

Please coopy, you would have been naked is .2seconds.

2nd grade or some bullshit? Are you saying primary teachers are not worthy?

1 of them is a principal and 1 teaches high school, so yep, you are grouped right in with them.

yet you didnt address the work volume. hmmm…[/quote]

I can’t speak for the workloads of those students. I had a very large workload, considering that I was majoring in both history and political science while playing baseball at the same time. When my baseball career was done with I took 18-21 units per semester.

It sounds like the ones you were banging were getting a multiple-subject credential, which is basically the most watered-down route you can go. You get a smattering of all the subjects and don’t get very in-depth in any of them.

87

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
While I agree in cutting military spending, I disagree that the answer to our school problems is throwing more money at them. Investing to me means physical involvement not checkbooks.

james[/quote]

The answer IS money, but not in the way most would assume when we say put more money into education. Give teachers a higher salary while getting rid of the tenure system, or at least making the job more of a merit-based one where good teachers are not earning the same as some shithead teacher with no motivation to help students anymore. Pay scales based on seniority, combined with tenure, just breed complacency.

More money needs to be used for educational tools rather than school lunches or paying a bunch of administrators who don’t actually do much in terms of educating students. Like virtually everything else these days, the bureaucracy involved with public education has run rampant, and that is where the money always ends up. It doesn’t go toward teacher salaries that would entice more people with the talent to teach and it doesn’t go toward educational tools like computers or high quality, up-to-date textbooks.[/quote]

THIS.[/quote]

I beg to differ.

We are spending more than enough money on education. What needs to happen is introduce competition. A free market will find efficiencies and innovations to yield the best product (education) for the lowest cost to tax payers.

There are three things that need to happen before any serious discussion can be held wrt saving public education:

  1. Abolish the Dept. of Education

  2. Abolish the Dept. of Education

  3. Abolish the Dept. of Education

88

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
California is about to be the test case for Socialistic funding for schools. Schools with more money will now be giving it to schools with more poor and minority students.

[/quote]

We don’t even know this… Just because money is going to schools it doesn’t mean money is going to classrooms and books. Give schools money, but make sure it doesn’t end up paying for a new building when kids are using books that are 30 years old (like me when I went to elementary public school here in one of the most wealthy towns in the state/ possibly country).

The problem isn’t getting affluent or wealthy people educated via homeschool or private school… If you have the free time and money to invest in your child, then that’s awesome, and you people who can do such are great for giving that to your children. But, there are also folks who are going to come up like me, who maybe spend weekends fishing or doing some under the table roofing work when you are 15 years old pushing around hot tar on unstable roofs for a little spending cash and something to give to moms to help pay for food (single parents are a reality).

It’s not going to matter that you sent your kid to some private school or homeschool when the majority of our populace is dumber than the majority in say China. It’s about having an educated populace as well as super intelligent individuals. The way we are going now, only wealthy folks are going to be able to afford to send their children to college. Only reason I could entertain education was because of military service, and I still owed money after I graduated with the GI bill.

89

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]
So someone who wants to be a chemistry teacher doesn’t take the same courses as someone who is working toward a chemistry degree without wanting to become a teacher? [/quote]

Let’s leave aside the fact that my post you quoted was in defense of teachers and giving them more money…

Not even close. Here’s for biology licensure. You get college algebra, trig, DESCRIPTIVE physics (lol), descriptive astronomy (lol), earth science (double lol!), Chem 1, chem 2, general org. chem. --that’s nothing but a freshman level of chemistry…ok fine fine maaaaybe a 1st semester sophomore—

Bio courses: principles (thats bio 101), organismic (bio 102/202), public health bio, fundamentals of ecology (Eco 101) , GENERAL microbiology, cell bio, genetics.

There are only 3–THREE–courses that are above a freshman level of “introduction to the topic” biology (micro, cell, genetics) and the overall biology load is one that I would firmly expect ALL biology students to finish by the end of their freshman year (or first semester soph. year if they took general ed requirements).

Similar for chemistry, but even worse: chem 1, chem 2, general organic, general physical, basic stats for chemistry, then only TWO biology courses TOTAL, and a bunch of survey classes. So only TWO chem classes above basic introduction chemistry in the whole damn program–not to mention the time spent between chemistry courses doing education courses is going to rob you of all recall of your subject matter. The only thing that’s good about it is they require calculus to be taken instead of college algebra (bwahaha). A chemistry student should have those done in 3 semesters. 2 bio courses total, bio 101 and one midlevel bio, only 2 chemistry courses that rate above freshman introduction and only 4 chemistry courses total.

And yes, this is a big time university, major division 1 conference, major research university. Home of one of the best engineering programs and a great architecture and great high ranking vet med programs as well.

Remember, my post was defending teachers.[/quote]
I don’t know what school you are talking about but my wife wants to teach biology and her bio degree is no different than any other bio major but she needs to add to it the education courses needed to get certified.

90

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]
So someone who wants to be a chemistry teacher doesn’t take the same courses as someone who is working toward a chemistry degree without wanting to become a teacher? [/quote]

Let’s leave aside the fact that my post you quoted was in defense of teachers and giving them more money…

Not even close. Here’s for biology licensure. You get college algebra, trig, DESCRIPTIVE physics (lol), descriptive astronomy (lol), earth science (double lol!), Chem 1, chem 2, general org. chem. --that’s nothing but a freshman level of chemistry…ok fine fine maaaaybe a 1st semester sophomore—

Bio courses: principles (thats bio 101), organismic (bio 102/202), public health bio, fundamentals of ecology (Eco 101) , GENERAL microbiology, cell bio, genetics.

There are only 3–THREE–courses that are above a freshman level of “introduction to the topic” biology (micro, cell, genetics) and the overall biology load is one that I would firmly expect ALL biology students to finish by the end of their freshman year (or first semester soph. year if they took general ed requirements).

Similar for chemistry, but even worse: chem 1, chem 2, general organic, general physical, basic stats for chemistry, then only TWO biology courses TOTAL, and a bunch of survey classes. So only TWO chem classes above basic introduction chemistry in the whole damn program–not to mention the time spent between chemistry courses doing education courses is going to rob you of all recall of your subject matter. The only thing that’s good about it is they require calculus to be taken instead of college algebra (bwahaha). A chemistry student should have those done in 3 semesters. 2 bio courses total, bio 101 and one midlevel bio, only 2 chemistry courses that rate above freshman introduction and only 4 chemistry courses total.

And yes, this is a big time university, major division 1 conference, major research university. Home of one of the best engineering programs and a great architecture and great high ranking vet med programs as well.

Remember, my post was defending teachers.[/quote]
I don’t know what school you are talking about but my wife wants to teach biology and her bio degree is no different than any other bio major but she needs to add to it the education courses needed to get certified. [/quote]

The same held true for me when I was in school. In California a single-subject credential option is no different than any other major, except for a few extra classes. My history degree is technically called the social-science credential option and it’s all the same courses any other history major is required to take plus a couple upper-division poly sci classes, a couple upper-division geography classes and about 7 extra classes geared specifically toward the education field. One was a religious studies class that was specifically about how to teach religion in public schools (more like how to avoid it at all costs) and another was a very intensive course about the California Social Science Standards that also required a minimum of 45 hours of time as an assistant instructor in a local high school. I took that one when I was taking 21 units my second-to-last semester.

And to get into the teaching credential program there is a minimum GPA requirement of 3.1 within your major. And in many cases even that isn’t enough to get into the credential program. A friend of mine was denied despite having a 3.3 GPA because the rest of her application was lacking.

91

The thing everyone is missing is reality. What is reality? Get rid of the unions. OK. Now what? That will make teachers better? Look at it this way: if a school has to decide between hiring two new teachers, one has a great GPA, graduated near the top of his class, throw in a Master’s degree as well (PhD too), maybe has some experience teaching, the other has a BS, a mediocre GPA, no experience. Which one will get hired? The one who will work for less. That’s reality.

Where I live teachers get paid more if they have a Master’s. A teacher who doesn’t have one has 6 years, I believe, to get one in order to keep the job. If you already have one prior to getting hired you will start at a higher rate than someone who doesn’t and guess what happens? Those who already have one are less likely to get hired.

So it never really is about getting the best but getting the cheapest. In the “real” world people try to make themselves as qualified as possible in order to separate themselves from the competition for a job. Employers look to hire the most qualified and are willing to pay more to attract them. That’s the opposite of teaching in which being “overqualified” is seen as a negative.

Besides, teachers are somehow taking the blame for educational failings when the real problem is politicians, parents and administrators poking their unqualified noses in the business of education. Kids get less homework not because teachers don’t want to assign it but because some parents complained that too much homework interferes with their kids’ social lives.

All the testing that is done is thanks to politicians who want a tool to measure success or failure without providing anything to actually address and fix the failures. Now teachers are spending time teaching kids how to take tests instead of teaching new material. If a child has done poorly and the school is considering holding him or her back in some schools they have to leave that decision to the parents. A kid can get promoted although he is not prepared for the next grade because mommy says so. Who came up with that? Teachers or administrators who gave in to parents?

I’m not saying all teachers are great but since personal experience seems to be the only proof we need here, I can say that I had good teachers growing up. They not only taught me but gave me good advice. I look at what my kid is now doing in school. I look at my own teaching experience. I look at the college students I tutor. I see that things have changed. Students learn less and know less at the same age when I was in school. And in fact the curriculum has changed.

This is not about teachers because they don’t make policy decisions. In some cases they have very little input. But the differences I see are not just from the schools. The biggest difference I see from when I was growing up is the parents. Today’s parents (and I guess I’m one of them) are not like the parents I grew up with and around.

92

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]

There are a lot of good teachers out there. What stops them from teaching is the infrastructure and this so called ‘accountability’ bullshit. You have bureaucrats who don’t know jack shit about education making teachers accountable on measures that have little to with education. Standardized testing and holding teachers accountable to that red herring is retarded on many levels. It would be much simpler for teachers to just ‘teach the test’ and hence their kids will do well and will look good, but it doesn’t say anything about the actual improvement of the student or the quality of the instruction. A proper measure is to measure the improvement of a teacher’s class from the beginning of the year, to the middle to the end. This is how you can tell if a teacher is doing well.
If a teacher gets a class of misfits, unless the teacher teaches the test all year, the kids aren’t going to do well. And they will do poorly relative to a class full of star students. This unbalance across classrooms is the norm, not the exception.
Measuring where the kids were when they started vs. when they finished is a far more accurate measure.

I got a little off point. I agree that throwing money at it alone is not enough, but right now the coffers are empty and they need money. So in the short term, money would fix a lot. It takes more than money to fix education, but right now money is in short supply so it would make an immediate impact and I think it should be done, WITHOUT taking money from other areas. It’s not a zero sum game.

I normally would not before government based programs and such, but the reality is the genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in. So we can either make it the best we can, or we can fuck it up. Public education is the norm, it’s not going anywhere, so rather than fight it on ideological principles, I would rather make it right.

That’s the problem with ceding control of something to the government, once you do, you never get it back. So don’t ask the government to fix anything for you., do it yourself.

93

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]

There are a lot of good teachers out there. What stops them from teaching is the infrastructure and this so called ‘accountability’ bullshit. You have bureaucrats who don’t know jack shit about education making teachers accountable on measures that have little to with education. Standardized testing and holding teachers accountable to that red herring is retarded on many levels. It would be much simpler for teachers to just ‘teach the test’ and hence their kids will do well and will look good, but it doesn’t say anything about the actual improvement of the student or the quality of the instruction. A proper measure is to measure the improvement of a teacher’s class from the beginning of the year, to the middle to the end. This is how you can tell if a teacher is doing well.
If a teacher gets a class of misfits, unless the teacher teaches the test all year, the kids aren’t going to do well. And they will do poorly relative to a class full of star students. This unbalance across classrooms is the norm, not the exception.
Measuring where the kids were when they started vs. when they finished is a far more accurate measure.

I got a little off point. I agree that throwing money at it alone is not enough, but right now the coffers are empty and they need money. So in the short term, money would fix a lot. It takes more than money to fix education, but right now money is in short supply so it would make an immediate impact and I think it should be done, WITHOUT taking money from other areas. It’s not a zero sum game.

I normally would not before government based programs and such, but the reality is the genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in. So we can either make it the best we can, or we can fuck it up. Public education is the norm, it’s not going anywhere, so rather than fight it on ideological principles, I would rather make it right.

That’s the problem with ceding control of something to the government, once you do, you never get it back. So don’t ask the government to fix anything for you., do it yourself.[/quote]

One of the wackiest things I’ve seen are these bullshit STAR tests. I don’t know if it’s a California-specific thing or some relic from No Child Left Behind, but they’re a complete waste of time.

Each grade level takes this standardized test that focuses on reading, writing, history, math and science. A lot of the general grading of a teacher’s teaching ability is how well their students do on these tests. Well, guess when the test are.

The middle of fucking April, about six weeks before the actual end of the school year. But does the material cover stuff they learn up to April? No, it covers the entire year’s worth of material, so you have teachers basically forced to get a year’s worth of material pounded into these students’ heads in six weeks less than a year. And what do you do after the tests, since they’ve ostensibly covered the entire year’s worth of material already? Practically anything you want. I took those six weeks to have the students focus on stuff they’d need to know for the next year that could be connected to the current year’s curriculum so that they’d have a head start on their studies for next year. Most teachers at my school gave them some bullshit group project to work on that basically degenerated into social hour with a bullshit group presentation at the end of the year. I saw a few of them and it was absolutely shocking to see what little those students had accomplished in six weeks’ time.

94

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]
So someone who wants to be a chemistry teacher doesn’t take the same courses as someone who is working toward a chemistry degree without wanting to become a teacher? [/quote]

Let’s leave aside the fact that my post you quoted was in defense of teachers and giving them more money…

Not even close. Here’s for biology licensure. You get college algebra, trig, DESCRIPTIVE physics (lol), descriptive astronomy (lol), earth science (double lol!), Chem 1, chem 2, general org. chem. --that’s nothing but a freshman level of chemistry…ok fine fine maaaaybe a 1st semester sophomore—

Bio courses: principles (thats bio 101), organismic (bio 102/202), public health bio, fundamentals of ecology (Eco 101) , GENERAL microbiology, cell bio, genetics.

There are only 3–THREE–courses that are above a freshman level of “introduction to the topic” biology (micro, cell, genetics) and the overall biology load is one that I would firmly expect ALL biology students to finish by the end of their freshman year (or first semester soph. year if they took general ed requirements).

Similar for chemistry, but even worse: chem 1, chem 2, general organic, general physical, basic stats for chemistry, then only TWO biology courses TOTAL, and a bunch of survey classes. So only TWO chem classes above basic introduction chemistry in the whole damn program–not to mention the time spent between chemistry courses doing education courses is going to rob you of all recall of your subject matter. The only thing that’s good about it is they require calculus to be taken instead of college algebra (bwahaha). A chemistry student should have those done in 3 semesters. 2 bio courses total, bio 101 and one midlevel bio, only 2 chemistry courses that rate above freshman introduction and only 4 chemistry courses total.

And yes, this is a big time university, major division 1 conference, major research university. Home of one of the best engineering programs and a great architecture and great high ranking vet med programs as well.

Remember, my post was defending teachers.[/quote]
I don’t know what school you are talking about but my wife wants to teach biology and her bio degree is no different than any other bio major but she needs to add to it the education courses needed to get certified. [/quote]

The same held true for me when I was in school. In California a single-subject credential option is no different than any other major, except for a few extra classes. My history degree is technically called the social-science credential option and it’s all the same courses any other history major is required to take plus a couple upper-division poly sci classes, a couple upper-division geography classes and about 7 extra classes geared specifically toward the education field. One was a religious studies class that was specifically about how to teach religion in public schools (more like how to avoid it at all costs) and another was a very intensive course about the California Social Science Standards that also required a minimum of 45 hours of time as an assistant instructor in a local high school. I took that one when I was taking 21 units my second-to-last semester.

And to get into the teaching credential program there is a minimum GPA requirement of 3.1 within your major. And in many cases even that isn’t enough to get into the credential program. A friend of mine was denied despite having a 3.3 GPA because the rest of her application was lacking.[/quote]

Well, I’m glad you guys went to killer education programs. Seriously. Just to remind you though, even at major research universities the education degree programs are not all created equal, and that’s why people like me and others scoff at a lot of education majors—maybe it ain’t right, but where we went to school the programs were a joke so we are negatively biased.

Note that I am not saying there aren’t any great teachers that come from these programs. One of my friends mentioned earlier was from my school and teaches very well and loves his job. But yeah–some of the criticism is warranted when you go to schools like ours. Really good at a lot of things, education degrees are NOT one of them…and there are a lot of programs out there like that…

95

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
California is about to be the test case for Socialistic funding for schools. Schools with more money will now be giving it to schools with more poor and minority students.

[/quote]

We don’t even know this… Just because money is going to schools it doesn’t mean money is going to classrooms and books. Give schools money, but make sure it doesn’t end up paying for a new building when kids are using books that are 30 years old (like me when I went to elementary public school here in one of the most wealthy towns in the state/ possibly country).

The problem isn’t getting affluent or wealthy people educated via homeschool or private school… If you have the free time and money to invest in your child, then that’s awesome, and you people who can do such are great for giving that to your children. But, there are also folks who are going to come up like me, who maybe spend weekends fishing or doing some under the table roofing work when you are 15 years old pushing around hot tar on unstable roofs for a little spending cash and something to give to moms to help pay for food (single parents are a reality).

It’s not going to matter that you sent your kid to some private school or homeschool when the majority of our populace is dumber than the majority in say China. It’s about having an educated populace as well as super intelligent individuals. The way we are going now, only wealthy folks are going to be able to afford to send their children to college. Only reason I could entertain education was because of military service, and I still owed money after I graduated with the GI bill. [/quote]

Pure bullshit.

I came to this country not knowing English, and both my parents worked. There were no ESL classes at the time, so I had to figure it out. And believe me, there wasn’t a huge Italian pipeline of information in Los Angeles growing up.

This is purely a cultural phenomenon. Certain cultures value education, more so than others, it’s really that simple.

You could send me to Pluto, and within 3 months I would have a decent grasp of the language, a productive plan for getting educated and employed, and a hot little Plutonian chicky with a 3rd eye ball on her forehead walking around in a thong.

My dad brought us here with a wife, 2 kids, and $500 cash in his pocket. Both my brother and I earned scholarships to USC, because we were hungry for it.

No excuses, if you saw what education is like in other educated countries, you might fall on your fainting couch.

96

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]
So someone who wants to be a chemistry teacher doesn’t take the same courses as someone who is working toward a chemistry degree without wanting to become a teacher? [/quote]

Let’s leave aside the fact that my post you quoted was in defense of teachers and giving them more money…

Not even close. Here’s for biology licensure. You get college algebra, trig, DESCRIPTIVE physics (lol), descriptive astronomy (lol), earth science (double lol!), Chem 1, chem 2, general org. chem. --that’s nothing but a freshman level of chemistry…ok fine fine maaaaybe a 1st semester sophomore—

Bio courses: principles (thats bio 101), organismic (bio 102/202), public health bio, fundamentals of ecology (Eco 101) , GENERAL microbiology, cell bio, genetics.

There are only 3–THREE–courses that are above a freshman level of “introduction to the topic” biology (micro, cell, genetics) and the overall biology load is one that I would firmly expect ALL biology students to finish by the end of their freshman year (or first semester soph. year if they took general ed requirements).

Similar for chemistry, but even worse: chem 1, chem 2, general organic, general physical, basic stats for chemistry, then only TWO biology courses TOTAL, and a bunch of survey classes. So only TWO chem classes above basic introduction chemistry in the whole damn program–not to mention the time spent between chemistry courses doing education courses is going to rob you of all recall of your subject matter. The only thing that’s good about it is they require calculus to be taken instead of college algebra (bwahaha). A chemistry student should have those done in 3 semesters. 2 bio courses total, bio 101 and one midlevel bio, only 2 chemistry courses that rate above freshman introduction and only 4 chemistry courses total.

And yes, this is a big time university, major division 1 conference, major research university. Home of one of the best engineering programs and a great architecture and great high ranking vet med programs as well.

Remember, my post was defending teachers.[/quote]
I don’t know what school you are talking about but my wife wants to teach biology and her bio degree is no different than any other bio major but she needs to add to it the education courses needed to get certified. [/quote]

The same held true for me when I was in school. In California a single-subject credential option is no different than any other major, except for a few extra classes. My history degree is technically called the social-science credential option and it’s all the same courses any other history major is required to take plus a couple upper-division poly sci classes, a couple upper-division geography classes and about 7 extra classes geared specifically toward the education field. One was a religious studies class that was specifically about how to teach religion in public schools (more like how to avoid it at all costs) and another was a very intensive course about the California Social Science Standards that also required a minimum of 45 hours of time as an assistant instructor in a local high school. I took that one when I was taking 21 units my second-to-last semester.

And to get into the teaching credential program there is a minimum GPA requirement of 3.1 within your major. And in many cases even that isn’t enough to get into the credential program. A friend of mine was denied despite having a 3.3 GPA because the rest of her application was lacking.[/quote]

Well, I’m glad you guys went to killer education programs. Seriously. Just to remind you though, even at major research universities the education degree programs are not all created equal, and that’s why people like me and others scoff at a lot of education majors—maybe it ain’t right, but where we went to school the programs were a joke so we are negatively biased.

Note that I am not saying there aren’t any great teachers that come from these programs. One of my friends mentioned earlier was from my school and teaches very well and loves his job. But yeah–some of the criticism is warranted when you go to schools like ours. Really good at a lot of things, education degrees are NOT one of them…and there are a lot of programs out there like that…[/quote]

A degree in education is different than a degree in history or math with a teaching credential. The education degrees are generally what people get who want to teach multiple subjects, which means they’re teaching below the junior high level. Great for them. We need teachers at all grade levels. But I think the overwhelming majority of this thread is geared toward the high school level, where the teaching that goes on is directed toward students who are very close to hitting either the job market or the university level. So the teaching that goes on in high school is VERY important in that respect, since in many cases it is the last education that students receive before heading out into “the real world”.

Personally, I think they should completely abolish the education degree. The general education requirements in college are enough to put you FAR ahead of what level of knowledge is necessary to teach below the junior high level. So why not get a degree in a specific subject so that you have some sort of other options once you’ve graduated, both in the teaching world and in the job market in general? I don’t have an education degree, but I am still more than qualified to teach 1st through 6th grade if I wanted to. But because I have a specific degree, I have gained much more knowledge in those two areas than someone with an education degree and stand a FAR better chance of getting a teaching job at the junior high or high school level than someone with a credential and an education degree.

97

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
California is about to be the test case for Socialistic funding for schools. Schools with more money will now be giving it to schools with more poor and minority students.

[/quote]

We don’t even know this… Just because money is going to schools it doesn’t mean money is going to classrooms and books. Give schools money, but make sure it doesn’t end up paying for a new building when kids are using books that are 30 years old (like me when I went to elementary public school here in one of the most wealthy towns in the state/ possibly country).

The problem isn’t getting affluent or wealthy people educated via homeschool or private school… If you have the free time and money to invest in your child, then that’s awesome, and you people who can do such are great for giving that to your children. But, there are also folks who are going to come up like me, who maybe spend weekends fishing or doing some under the table roofing work when you are 15 years old pushing around hot tar on unstable roofs for a little spending cash and something to give to moms to help pay for food (single parents are a reality).

It’s not going to matter that you sent your kid to some private school or homeschool when the majority of our populace is dumber than the majority in say China. It’s about having an educated populace as well as super intelligent individuals. The way we are going now, only wealthy folks are going to be able to afford to send their children to college. Only reason I could entertain education was because of military service, and I still owed money after I graduated with the GI bill. [/quote]

Pure bullshit.

I came to this country not knowing English, and both my parents worked. There were no ESL classes at the time, so I had to figure it out. And believe me, there wasn’t a huge Italian pipeline of information in Los Angeles growing up.

This is purely a cultural phenomenon. Certain cultures value education, more so than others, it’s really that simple.

You could send me to Pluto, and within 3 months I would have a decent grasp of the language, a productive plan for getting educated and employed, and a hot little Plutonian chicky with a 3rd eye ball on her forehead walking around in a thong.

My dad brought us here with a wife, 2 kids, and $500 cash in his pocket. Both my brother and I earned scholarships to USC, because we were hungry for it.

No excuses, if you saw what education is like in other educated countries, you might fall on your fainting couch. [/quote]

I’m going to try and reply to this without being offensive… I think there is something that maybe you failed to understand…

Imagine everyone had parents just as good as your own, and everyone in your situation was just as intelligent with identical potential etc. Applied for the same scholarship, etc. Would you still be able to get that scholarship? Or would it be more a roll of the dice and up to chance?

Your argument seems to be that, you are so good at pulling yourself up from your own bootstraps that you could do it from Pluto, or any situation but if you think about it honestly, you will see the truth. The only reason you got that scholarship was because you had exceptional parents, and are an exceptional individual with great drive. Had you been ordinary, or had everyone been as exceptional as you, then your claim is false and up to chance rather than hard work. I too had a great parent who valued education, it drive myself and my sister to earn scholarships, perhaps we (my sister, myself, yourself and your brother) are exceptional individuals, or perhaps we are just ordinary with great parents? Combination? Who knows?

Not all of us have it, be it great parents or being great individuals or the combination, or have the best influences in our lives. So long as you are competing against someone like me (at least when I hit highschool) where I have no father to seek advice from, who’s coaches just want performance, and who’s mother is busy working two jobs to pay for what the scholarships didn’t cover, you might have a different opinion.

Things worked out well for you, but don’t pretend like you aren’t the exception. You are…

End of the day, we can’t rely on the, “thousand points of light.” For education and scholarships. It doesn’t even make sense for everyone without their parents money to earn a scholarship… Scholarships are designed to pick out exceptional individuals and give them an opportunity at a high level education, that by default means that not everyone can earn one…

What we need to maintain is an overall intelligent populace. If that means having better junior colleges and tech schools then fine… But pretending like things are working right now the way they are isn’t a very wise way of looking at the world or the history of our nation… Our nation is built on being intelligent, hard working, and having natural resources… This is changing, in order for us to stay on top (of the world) our general populace needs to be educated, moreso than our competitors in other countries.

Guess what? Having more private schools and homeshooling doesn’t do a thing unless people can afford it, or have time to educate their own children vs. putting food on the table.

98

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Yes, teachers work hard. Just like everybody else. I cant remember the last time i put in an actual 40 hour week, and the same goes for all of my peers.

Teachers dont have a monopoly on hard work or extra hours, so get off the cross.

You DO however have a monopoly on a summer vacation. So yes, you do work less than anyone else total because of that schnazy little vaca.

And lets face it, you coasted through college. I dated a lot of teachers - they were easy - and I recall one complaining about her work load because she had to make a poster board. A god damn poster board. I built functioning electromechanical systems in undergrad, but her workload is hard because of a poster board. And that carries right into the whole “hard work” and “extra hours” crap.

you arent special, get over it.[/quote]

Hey man no argument from me–you’re looking at a guy who spent all his time in the books or in lab while the education students were out partying. To this day I still have a damned hard time not verbally ripping someone a new asshole when they complain about work in education degree programs.

But lets be honest–To fix education you need better teachers on a wide scale (not that there aren’t a lot of good ones out there now), and that comes with more money and more accountability. Also if we’re being honest we are currently expecting a lot from teachers but also simultaneously hamstringing them. There’s a lot that people don’t see happening behind the scenes if you’re a teacher.[/quote]

There are a lot of good teachers out there. What stops them from teaching is the infrastructure and this so called ‘accountability’ bullshit. You have bureaucrats who don’t know jack shit about education making teachers accountable on measures that have little to with education. Standardized testing and holding teachers accountable to that red herring is retarded on many levels. It would be much simpler for teachers to just ‘teach the test’ and hence their kids will do well and will look good, but it doesn’t say anything about the actual improvement of the student or the quality of the instruction. A proper measure is to measure the improvement of a teacher’s class from the beginning of the year, to the middle to the end. This is how you can tell if a teacher is doing well.
If a teacher gets a class of misfits, unless the teacher teaches the test all year, the kids aren’t going to do well. And they will do poorly relative to a class full of star students. This unbalance across classrooms is the norm, not the exception.
Measuring where the kids were when they started vs. when they finished is a far more accurate measure.

I got a little off point. I agree that throwing money at it alone is not enough, but right now the coffers are empty and they need money. So in the short term, money would fix a lot. It takes more than money to fix education, but right now money is in short supply so it would make an immediate impact and I think it should be done, WITHOUT taking money from other areas. It’s not a zero sum game.

I normally would not before government based programs and such, but the reality is the genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in. So we can either make it the best we can, or we can fuck it up. Public education is the norm, it’s not going anywhere, so rather than fight it on ideological principles, I would rather make it right.

That’s the problem with ceding control of something to the government, once you do, you never get it back. So don’t ask the government to fix anything for you., do it yourself.[/quote]

the problem with just throwing money at the problem is the huge waste that goes on in schools, much like the government.

Some school districts around here had lost so many levys they were almost taken over by the state. Teachers were still getting 8% raises, but i digress. When they finally did get a levy passed, the football team got new unis and equipment. Makes perfect sense.

99

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
While I agree in cutting military spending, I disagree that the answer to our school problems is throwing more money at them. Investing to me means physical involvement not checkbooks.

james[/quote]

The answer IS money, but not in the way most would assume when we say put more money into education. Give teachers a higher salary while getting rid of the tenure system, or at least making the job more of a merit-based one where good teachers are not earning the same as some shithead teacher with no motivation to help students anymore. Pay scales based on seniority, combined with tenure, just breed complacency.

More money needs to be used for educational tools rather than school lunches or paying a bunch of administrators who don’t actually do much in terms of educating students. Like virtually everything else these days, the bureaucracy involved with public education has run rampant, and that is where the money always ends up. It doesn’t go toward teacher salaries that would entice more people with the talent to teach and it doesn’t go toward educational tools like computers or high quality, up-to-date textbooks.[/quote]

Oh how did I miss this gem.

I’m all for a higher salary. Sounds great. I’m all for merit pay too, if reliable indices of teacher performance can be developed. I’ve yet to see them however.

My school has pretty cool computers. I have two macs in my room that are as nice as the one I am typing on right now. I have access to ipads and laptops for every student if I want. We also have many right up to the minute curricula, including shiny new textbooks, that all cost bank believe me. I’d love to read the authoritative sources you’ve obviously pored over on the procurement of classroom materials and the vendor approval process though. You seem to know so much!

I’ve also always felt pretty supported by administrators too. They do this other shit that teachers hate. Stuff like running the school so we can teach, that type of thing. I think they work pretty damn hard too. For example, let’s take the line of battle in the unit of my school that I work in:

10 teachers
20 classroom assistants
2 deans of students dealing with crisis intervention (this is a teacher line, just a different job title)
1 unit coordinator (teacher line, but not a classroom position)
1 teaching coach (teacher line but not a classroom position0
1 assistant principal (administrator line, in fact, the only administrator in the unit)

I don’t think that is a bureaucracy run rampant whatsoever. Of 35 members of staff you have 32 who are in the classrooms all day. The others have different responsibilities but they are in and out of classrooms themselves constantly. I think it’s pretty efficient as it goes. If a military unit had that ratio of combatants to support personnel it would be considered extremely toothy in the tooth to tail calculation.

The upshot of that is that the administrators are working very early mornings and very late nights. I know this cos I am too. The contract runs from 8.20-3.10 but in reality it’s more like 7-4.30 for me. On average we’re all putting in about 11-20 unpaid hours a week. Time I could be spending with my son. So if there’s any spare cash floating about you could just start paying teachers for the work we do.

Actually, this came true for me this very year. There’s a web based computer program called SESIS that I have to use and since I don’t have enough hours in the day to do my work on it I would often log in after hours or on weekends and complete my work. It wasn’t a biggie, just another thing we all do to make sure we’re on top of shit. Now, only a month or two ago the DOE decided we would get paid for all the extra work we did on this program this year - and I got a nice check in the mail for 600 dollars. You gotta bear in mind none of us knew it was coming so we couldn’t have put in extra time just to bump up our paycheck. And now they’ve banned SESIS use out of school time so that gravy train is off the rails already. But yeah, my 600 bucks windfall was pretty sweet.

Except… it only covered my work for half the school year, I have another 600 bucks coming soon! Awesome! that’s 1200 bucks for work I did that I didn’t even expect to be paid for!

Except… I’ve been doing that shit for the last five years too and the DOE isn’t gonna give me my 5x1200 dollars for those years. Hasn’t even been mooted as a possibility. Boo!

Except… My work on SESIS is not even a tenth of the total work I do out of hours. conservatively estimating, that’s about 12000 bucks I missed out on this year. Boo!

Except… I’ve maintained the same level of activity for the last 5 years! Add that 5x12000 bucks and it’s 72000 dollars worth of work that I have performed that I haven’t been paid for. Money I could have saved for my son’s future. Boo!

Nah, no boo really. I never thought I would get paid for it. I just did it cos that’s what it means to be a public educator these days and that’s how we roll.

But you think we could get more efficient by eliminating lunch? Really, you’ve identified feeding the students as an example of profligate waste? Maybe… but you’ll have to explain why and do go into detail on the topic. I’m not confident this strategy would improve student outcomes which is what it’s all about when your an actual educator. Seems a little stupid but I’d love to hear what you think!

100

I’m a bit late to this party, but I thought I’d share some of the words of John Taylor Gatto, one of the most lauded teachers in the public school system, and one of its most eloquent critics. He is the author of “Dumbing us Down”, a scathing critique of the “institution” of public education, whose unspoken ultimate agenda is no different from that of any other institution, namely, institutionalization.

One need only look at this or any other Internet forum to see that the systematic dumbing-down of the American people has to a huge extent been accomplished. The number of people who are practically illiterate in their native language, unable to comprehend even the most basic phrases in a foreign language, woefully ignorant of history and its implications on the present, and contemptuous of scienctific theories, other cultures and religions, the teaching profession in particular and intellectualism in general, is staggering. Internet forums may be a poor place to draw a statistical sample, but there is enough evidence in real life to conclude that it is indicative of conditions in society at large.

This situation, Gatto reasons, is not a result of the public education system’s failure, but rather its success beyond the dreams of its progenitors. Arguing, therefore, that all we need to “fix” education in America is to “invest” more money into it is tantamount to claiming that all we need to put out the oilfield fire is to “invest” more gasoline.

No, to put out a gusher fire, one needs dynamite.

Gatto provides some here.

http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm