Dawn of the age of robots
TylerDurden said:
In what way is Public Education not being supported sufficiently? We spend quite a bit of $$ on it.
The situation we have now is exactly the reasoning why we couldn't have free market education. Is it not? If you live in a rich zip code, you are very likely to get a decent education. Alas, for people like Millburn, even then they would be better served by Private education.
But let's face it. The main argument is for the kids in poor neighborhoods. Yet, they are not getting educated.
It strikes me intellectual cowardice to write this off with rather cheap cliches like "bad neighborhood" or "kids with no hope". What does that mean. And even if that were the case. Does a system where we lump the kids capable of learning in good homes in poor neighborhoods with those who are not going to get educated seem wise to you? It sure doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
I posted this last Saturday.
Which brings up a whole raft of problems you are ignoring,
Will all private schools have the same restrictions as public schools and be required to accept any and all students who apply – even those who cannot afford the tuition which is more than the funds they have received? This includes handicapped students, non English speaking students, known truants, students with a criminal record etc. etc.
Will private schools not be allowed to expel students and return them to the public schools?
Do you think private schools would do so well if they had to operate under the same rules and restrictions as the public schools?
These are just some of the problems that arise from your suggestion and they aren't new.
TylerDurden said:
In what way is Public Education not being supported sufficiently? We spend quite a bit of $$ on it.
The situation we have now is exactly the reasoning why we couldn't have free market education. Is it not? If you live in a rich zip code, you are very likely to get a decent education. Alas, for people like Millburn, even then they would be better served by Private education.
But let's face it. The main argument is for the kids in poor neighborhoods. Yet, they are not getting educated.
It strikes me intellectual cowardice to write this off with rather cheap cliches like "bad neighborhood" or "kids with no hope". What does that mean? And even if that were the case. Does a system where we lump the kids capable of learning in good homes in poor neighborhoods with those who are not going to get educated seem wise to you? It sure doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
From Bill Moyers, not a well known conservative crank.
BTW what do you do with the ones who will not get educated, and why won't they?
June 7, 2013
by David Sirota
http://billmoyers.com/2013/06/07/new-data-shows-school-reformers-are-getting-it-wrong/
Here's the thing. If you give people choice those who actually care will be the ones who pursue better educational options. I see this as axiomatic. Alas, the ones who don't care will not pursue these better choices. I don't think there is a great solution to this in our current system or in a better system. I'm not ignoring these problems, but they may transcend the issue of education. To address those problems let's get rid of policies that break apart families and present rather perverse economic incentives(drug laws, welfare state, work restrictions, etc).
In my preferred system, could we leverage parochial schools? I don't see why not. If that is what the parent thinks is best for their child, I don't see why it is a problem. But, all schools would be chasing these funds. Public(if there really were a need for this) and private.
TylerDurden said:
If you were to impose the same restrictions on private schools they would not work well. The teachers are not the problem. The system is the problem.
Here's the thing. If you give people choice those who actually care will be the ones who pursue better educational options. I see this as axiomatic. Alas, the ones who don't care will not pursue these better choices. I don't think there is a great solution to this in our current system or in a better system. I'm not ignoring these problems, but they may transcend the issue of education. To address those problems let's get rid of policies that break apart families and present rather perverse economic incentives(drug laws, welfare state, work restrictions, etc).
In my preferred system, could we leverage parochial schools? I don't see why not. If that is what the parent thinks is best for their child, I don't see why it is a problem. But, all schools would be chasing these funds. Public(if there really were a need for this) and private.
If I read your comments correctly you are saying it is not the schools and not the teachers but the system that is the problem. The system is dysfunctional because the issues transcend the issue of education. Therefore we have to address those issues.
I believe that is what I have been pointing out.
As to 'leveraging' parochial schools , correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are suggesting using public funds to pay for those schools.
The simple answer to that is, there is a compelling public interest for all children in a democracy to be educated, which is why even people who have no children, or have none in school, pay a school tax. The is NO compelling public interest for any child to receive a religious education. Parents have the right to send their child to one, but have no right to expect you and me to pay for it.
As miserable the performance of our schools are, most Americans would not go for a private system where parents get to choose, and most parents would not choose failing schools. Americans have known this system where your zip code decides where children go to school, and seem to be fine even though in most cases the results are sub-par(remedial coursework required for college) and in a good portion of the cases the results are disastrous(illiteracy, etc).
If there's one thing you don't have a right for me to pay for is sub-bar education. As an agnostic, I'd gladly trade teaching a little religion when the parent desires it if it increases the likelihood that more children get a better education.
It reminds me of a story of John Chubb who was doing a study on the NY Public schools. It took 6 phone calls to get an answer regarding how many Administrators worked for the NYC Public Schools. The answer on the 6th call was about 6 thousand. The archdiocese in NYC educates about 1/6th of the students. So, Chubb calls the archdiocese with the same question. The person who answers says "hold on". He says "here we go again". And she then says "I don't know....let me count". The answer? 26.
And I know, I know. Its for the children. What a better cause for waste, fraud and abuse then our children.
This is just an anecdote about one student in one school district serving a lower-income community.
My spouse had a student in Elizabeth, who was living with his mother in a car for some time. He was trying to keep up with school work, turning in his homework, etc., but that's a challenge that one does not often find in Millburn.
Public schools have enough money to make the leaders of groups like the Pacific Education Group rich while the sprout the most stereotypical and wrong headed garbage imaginable. But they get paid because they do the heavy lifting in maintaining the statist leftist's need for dependency in the populous.
ramzzoinksus said:
Public schools have enough money to make the leaders of groups like the Pacific Education Group rich while the sprout the most stereotypical and wrong headed garbage imaginable. But they get paid because they do the heavy lifting in maintaining the statist leftist's need for dependency in the populous.
I think this came from the robot and a circuit got crossed or something. Makes no sense to me and I'm not talking about whether I agree or disagree (although most likely the latter) ... I just have no clue what this is trying to say.
6000 administrators for 1600+ schools does not sound like a crazy number to me. Especially given that Webb most likely had a broad definition of "administrator," given his personal and political biases.
TylerDurden said:
It reminds me of a story of John Chubb who was doing a study on the NY Public schools. It took 6 phone calls to get an answer regarding how many Administrators worked for the NYC Public Schools. The answer on the 6th call was about 6 thousand. The archdiocese in NYC educates about 1/6th of the students. So, Chubb calls the archdiocese with the same question. The person who answers says "hold on". He says "here we go again". And she then says "I don't know....let me count". The answer? 26.
That's a silly anecdote, and misleading, to say the least.
First of all, if one uses "The Google", one finds that there are over 1700 public schools in the NYC system. So, even with just a Principal and assistant Principal, that 3400 administrators right there.
The legal definition of an "administrator" covers a lot more people, of course. That's probably why random phone calls didn't get an answer right away. Somebody had to count heads, so this guy could put together his anecdotes.
As for the Archdiocese of New York - they have MORE THAN 26 HIGH SCHOOLS within the city (so, obviously, that doesn't even begin to number the elementary schools). Obviously, to anyone who did any real research (unlike Mr. Chubb), there would be more than 26 administrators. That count was probably central office officials.
And, not for nothing, but one needs to keep in mind that the schools of the Archdiocese are NOT run by the central office. They are run by parishes, or religious communities, with people who probably don't show up in that count.
As I said, a silly anecdote, from a source who apparently couldn't be bothered about little details such as how Catholic school education actually operates. I suggest you not trust Mr. Chubb on this.
sac said:
ramzzoinksus said:
Public schools have enough money to make the leaders of groups like the Pacific Education Group rich while the sprout the most stereotypical and wrong headed garbage imaginable. But they get paid because they do the heavy lifting in maintaining the statist leftist's need for dependency in the populous.
I think this came from the robot and a circuit got crossed or something. Makes no sense to me and I'm not talking about whether I agree or disagree (although most likely the latter) ... I just have no clue what this is trying to say.
Try Googling that odious group that gets rich at taxpayer expense.
nohero said:
TylerDurden said:
It reminds me of a story of John Chubb who was doing a study on the NY Public schools. It took 6 phone calls to get an answer regarding how many Administrators worked for the NYC Public Schools. The answer on the 6th call was about 6 thousand. The archdiocese in NYC educates about 1/6th of the students. So, Chubb calls the archdiocese with the same question. The person who answers says "hold on". He says "here we go again". And she then says "I don't know....let me count". The answer? 26.That's a silly anecdote, and misleading, to say the least.
First of all, if one uses "The Google", one finds that there are over 1700 public schools in the NYC system. So, even with just a Principal and assistant Principal, that 3400 administrators right there.
The legal definition of an "administrator" covers a lot more people, of course. That's probably why random phone calls didn't get an answer right away. Somebody had to count heads, so this guy could put together his anecdotes.
As for the Archdiocese of New York - they have MORE THAN 26 HIGH SCHOOLS within the city (so, obviously, that doesn't even begin to number the elementary schools). Obviously, to anyone who did any real research (unlike Mr. Chubb), there would be more than 26 administrators. That count was probably central office officials.
And, not for nothing, but one needs to keep in mind that the schools of the Archdiocese are NOT run by the central office. They are run by parishes, or religious communities, with people who probably don't show up in that count.
As I said, a silly anecdote, from a source who apparently couldn't be bothered about little details such as how Catholic school education actually operates. I suggest you not trust Mr. Chubb on this.
I found an article by Mr Chubb. Here is an excerpt:
This is not just a matter of theoretical speculation. The New York City public schools, for example, employ more than 6,000 central office personnel—an administrator/student ratio of 1 to 150. The Catholic schools of the Archdiocese of New York, a smaller system than its public counterpart but nevertheless the twelfth largest school system in the country, employs only 30 central office personnel—a ratio of 1 to 4,000. Political control of schools encourages bureaucratization; market control dramatically discourages it. If reform aspires to create a school system that is based not only on accountability for results but on school autonomy and the professionalism of educators, a system organized around the principles of competition and choice is doubly desirable.
And here are a few more interesting passages:
To make matters worse, performance has stalled or fallen despite aggressive government efforts to turn it around. Since the launch of the Soviet Sputnik more than thirty years ago, school reform has been an ongoing enterprise. President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the cornerstone of his Great Society program and the beginning of aggressive federal efforts to upgrade the schools of children living in poverty. President Carter formed the Department of Education in order to raise the political profile of federal education policy. President Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education spurred nearly a decade of ambitious school reform when it warned, in a landmark report of the same name, that the United States is "A Nation at Risk." Most recently, President Bush introduced "America 2000," a comprehensive reform plan that, if implemented completely, would create an entirely new system of education.
All of this political attention has brought many changes. Annual inflation-adjusted expenditures per pupil have tripled since 1960, surpassing $5,500 in 1991. Over the same period class sizes were reduced by about 30 percent. Teachers have become much more experienced—fifteen years on average now versus eight years in 1971—and have acquired more formal education. Only a quarter of the nation's teachers held master's degrees in 1971, while more than half do today. Since 1980, virtually every state in the union has raised its high school graduation requirements, and students are now taking more academic courses than they did a decade ago.
....
The fact is, as school performance has eroded over the last several decades, bureaucracy has grown larger. Instructional expenditures account for a rapidly declining share—now less than 60 percent—of local school expenditures. Full-time classroom teachers account for less than half of local school employment, while administrators represent about 15 percent. The number of nonclassroom personnel is growing at seven times the rate of classroom teachers.
The system has also become more centralized, with the states surpassing local governments as the major source of school funds. An average state today pays for 50 percent of public elementary and secondary education; an average school district pays for 45 percent. In 1960, school districts averaged 60 percent, states only 35 percent. Although the federal share of school funding has actually fallen 3 percentage points since 1980, the number of special programs that the federal government implements has remained constant at roughly eighty, and the volume of regulation it promulgates has grown.
....
Public opinion polls indicate that the concept of educational choice is supported by a majority of Americans, especially poor Americans and racial minorities who are often trapped—without choice—in collapsing urban school systems. The business community is panicked about the quality of the work force and has grown impatient with traditional school reforms. As educators come to see that there is little hope for acquiring autonomy without also providing the accountability that choice allows, educators, too, may become supporters of the idea. In any event, choice will be the focus of educational debate over the next decade.
Again, I wouldn't trust Mr. Chubb, or his count (edited to add - did the wording of his question change to "central office" or was that his gloss for his article, after he asked for "administrators"?). And the article does not justify trusting him. Sorry. I think he's being deceptive as to the count, and the excerpt you provided shows that he does not understand how Catholic education is managed at the parish and religious community level.
That is quite a counter-argument you've mustered there. To counter it, I will now stick my fingers in my ears and say.
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
:-D
TylerDurden said:
That is quite a counter-argument you've mustered there. To counter it, I will now stick my fingers in my ears and say.
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
:-D
You obviously started doing that hours before, but at least you are admitting it now.
CHS has 1 principal and 3 asst. principals for over 1900 students. Buried on top of this are a set of mandated operations that are not funded by the state or federal government. We have PARCC which is at this point a huge cost with no apparent benefit; teh State of NJ mandates an end of year bio test that (a) does not count for students, (b) does not count for teachers, (c) does not count for schools. Schools are disrupted for no gain. At this rate -- more than 6 years and counting to create 1 end of year exam -- a child born today will see the full set of end of year exams ready to go approximately 10 years after graduation from high school. We have enormous mandates on a ton of things which require administrators. Take PARCC -- we had top buy a few thousand chromebooks so the test can be taken on-line. The vendor is Pearson -- last I heard it was a corporation not a school administrator and this year alone many millions went to Pearson for what was a botched interface. The District was not reimbursed for PARCC costs, chromebooks, or the lost time due to kids being taken out of classes for two sets of three week periods. So less educational time for tests that many kids simply ignore while testing -- they are opting out without formally doing so. This crap goes on with Republicans and Democrats alike who can only thing in lockstep fashion -- test the kids.
On top of the high school there is the Board of Ed which will have a superintendent and two asst superintendents -- one for admin and one for curriculum -- for a district of 6 elementary schools plus the Annex, 2 middle schools and the high school, more than 6000+ students. We have directors for maintenance and construction, a business manager and a few others.
By no stretch of the imagination do we have too many administrators. With all of the tests and special ed requirements and various needs for tech integration, athletic teams, equipment, and on and on and on -- these administrators work very hard, do a very good job overall and, judging by comments on various threads, are soundly criticized if decisions don't go one' way immediately. These jobs are not easy and they are overloaded with work. Hardly the instance of a vast unfeeling bureaucracy feeding off the public trough.
Here's an ironic secret about IEP's - working class parents generally frown on them because they fear stigma. Power parents generally like them because their kids get extra help, extra time on tests, etc.
ramzzoinksus said:
What are you saying? That there are fewer or more IEP's in Millburn? Because IEP's run like water in Millburn. They are hardly rare.
Double B.S.
ramzzoinksus said:
They could be everywhere if the unions did not prevent it. Parents in places like Millburn have the juice to prevent unions from applying their mediocritising magic that parents elsewhere do not.
Chubb's math is also way off, even if his basic facts are correct (which they probably aren't). There are appr. 1.1 million students in the NYC public schools, so 6000 administrators is a ratio of 1/1833, NOT 1/150. Must not have paid much attention in math....
Millburn parents get more for their money because they generally think of teachers as overpaid hired help who drive up taxes with lousy educations and sometimes as an impediment or a bump in the road to a higher GPA and thus admission to university. Parents with the time, education, and money to "run" school systems "like a company" they work for. I've found over the years that the poorer the parent the more respect they have for teachers and vice versa.
I think one side of this multi-faceted argument belongs to someone who is basically an anarchist, someone who wants to keep more of his money and if society verges towards collapse in a generation because of huge numbers of uneducated, illiterate and unemployable children wandering the streets who inevitably turn to lives of crime as adults -- well it won't be his problem because he'll be long deceased.
The New York Times did a survey a few years ago and found the average cost of private school tuition, nationwide, was $18,000 a year. Is there any conservative plan floating out there that would provide that level of financial assistance? It would need to be re-evaluated annually because increased demand would lead to higher prices.
There isn't? Then conservatives' plans for "school choice" are hogwash. They're simply con games designed to make the rest of us to pay for something for them -- private school education -- they were going to buy anyway.
ramzzoinksus said:
Public schools have enough money to make the leaders of groups like the Pacific Education Group rich while the sprout the most stereotypical and wrong headed garbage imaginable. But they get paid because they do the heavy lifting in maintaining the statist leftist's need for dependency in the populous.
Your education views are the most irresponsible of your beliefs, and that's saying something.
tom said:
And as for "free market education," one question: who are the customers?
Disillusioned kids on government loans who show up at school to find it's out of business and they owe 50K...in other words, the logical ending to for-profit schools. And at K-12 levels, governments and their schools "in business" with testing companies who sell books, training, tests, coaches, etc. Capitalism at work. Sucking the taxpayers' collective teat and calling it business.
weirdbeard said:
Chubb's math is also way off, even if his basic facts are correct (which they probably aren't). There are appr. 1.1 million students in the NYC public schools, so 6000 administrators is a ratio of 1/1833, NOT 1/150. Must not have paid much attention in math....
LMAO! 6000 X 1833 =10,998,000. I'm pretty sure there aren't 11 million students in NYC schools.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
In what way is Public Education not being supported sufficiently? We spend quite a bit of $$ on it.
The situation we have now is exactly the reasoning why we couldn't have free market education. Is it not? If you live in a rich zip code, you are very likely to get a decent education. Alas, for people like Millburn, even then they would be better served by Private education.
But let's face it. The main argument is for the kids in poor neighborhoods. Yet, they are not getting educated.
It strikes me intellectual cowardice to write this off with rather cheap cliches like "bad neighborhood" or "kids with no hope". What does that mean? And even if that were the case. Does a system where we lump the kids capable of learning in good homes in poor neighborhoods with those who are not going to get educated seem wise to you? It sure doesn't seem like a great idea to me.