Education is not Discretionary

[lmjhitman]

lmjhitman, female math/science and any special education teachers are highly sought after here. My friends in those disciplines had no problems finding a position. I plan to become certified for special education.

chicago, eh?

do i have to cheer for the blackhawks?

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

chicago, eh?

do i have to cheer for the blackhawks?

Lord no. Nobody cheers for the blackhawks.

 

[melon]

Actually, the laws are always changing. I am not a special education teacher so I do not know the in's and out's of the most recent law(s) but I do know they are there to ensure students with special needs are given the same educational oppertunities as their peers who do not have an Individual Education Plan or a 504 plan (which covers pregnent teens as well as students who have other extenuating circumstances ie: emotional disorders, physical handicaps) A school for pregnent teens is a great idea but what about other students with special needs? Inclusion is not going away, nor should it. Isolating special education students in a separte school is not the answer.

I know the usual answer in America is to isolate and neglect. It's the "neglect" that brought in the inclusive reasoning.

However, I think with the right mindset, having different schools for people with different needs is a good idea. Treating remedial students as students who need additional attention and different learning methods to overcome their obstacles is a good idea. Treating honors students as those who deserve additional challenge and should be introduced to exciting opportunities is a good idea (after all, we have all this talk about keeping up with Asia and all). Taking students with perennial discipline problems and putting them in a separate and restrictive environment (i.e., NOT automatically lumped with the remedial students who are otherwise well-behaved) with a teaching staff prepared to deal with these kinds of students are a good idea. Mixing everyone in the same classroom, as much of America currently does, is not working.

Like I said, the wealthy in America have all these alternatives at their disposal in the private realm. Why should poor people just suck it up and deal with it?

Melon

 

[anitram]

lmjhitman, have you considered Ontario? We've had a teacher shortage for years and female math/science secondary teachers are in very, very high demand.

 

[Dreadsox]

The whole country including wealthy communities will benefit from having their poorer counterparts better educated. Plus, you could do it without actually raising their taxes.

You may not be raising taxes, but if you live in a wealthy community, you would not be able to maintain the level of services if you redistribute the $$$.

 

[martha]

Have you considered Indiana, martha? We need good teachers desperately and the cost of living is low here...

Two words: snow and tornadoes

 

[martha]

I think with the right mindset, having different schools for people with different needs is a good idea. Treating remedial students as students who need additional attention and different learning methods to overcome their obstacles is a good idea. Treating honors students as those who deserve additional challenge and should be introduced to exciting opportunities is a good idea (after all, we have all this talk about keeping up with Asia and all). Taking students with perennial discipline problems and putting them in a separate and restrictive environment (i.e., NOT automatically lumped with the remedial students who are otherwise well-behaved) with a teaching staff prepared to deal with these kinds of students are a good idea. Mixing everyone in the same classroom, as much of America currently does, is not working.

See my posts about this in the Exit exam thread. Here in California, we have cookie cutter students. Voc Ed is gone because everyone must take and pass algebra. Those who can't, aren't allowed to graduate. Many drop out. We have a certain set of "standards" and if you can't meet them, you're fucked. They're some of the toughest in the country.

 

[yolland]

However, I think with the right mindset, having different schools for people with different needs is a good idea. Treating remedial students as students who need additional attention and different learning methods to overcome their obstacles is a good idea. Treating honors students as those who deserve additional challenge and should be introduced to exciting opportunities is a good idea (after all, we have all this talk about keeping up with Asia and all).

At what grade level and using what criteria would we decide which students get tracked into which school, though? GPA alone? Test scores? I would bet the "remedial" schools would de facto wind up being poor students' schools, while the "honors" schools would de facto wind up being the province of middle and upper class students. In other words, it would probably just reinforce the socioeconomic trends associated with the tracking that already exists. Had I switched into a school system like what you describe from the economically and academically poor one I attended K-8, I can't imagine I would have passed an "honors" entry test--on the other hand, my high GPA would've been misleading compared to those of students from wealthier, more academically rigorous schools.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You may not be raising taxes, but if you live in a wealthy community, you would not be able to maintain the level of services if you redistribute the $$$.

Its tax $$$, which naturally should be benefiting the whole state or country, not a select community. If the wealthy community really desire's a certain level of services beyond what taxes equally distributed for such services around the state would provide, then they can privately fund a system that would raise the services to the desired level.

 

[Dreadsox]

Its tax $$$, which naturally should be benefiting the whole state or country, not a select community. If the wealthy community really desire's a certain level of services beyond what taxes equally distributed for such services around the state would provide, then they can privately fund a system that would raise the services to the desired level.

Income Tax is tax $$$ raised by the state and federal governement. This money is redistributed and helps fund education but it does not come close to funding it all.

Property Tax is the money the TOWN raises for its services. Education is one of them. A majority of the school budget is funded by TOWN $$$. If you equally distribute the money that is already funding a level of services, you will not be able to afford the level of school system currently in place. The School Budget is the largest operating cost for towns. There is no way you can keep the level of service that you have if you are going to redistribute the $$$. If you increase class sizes, then you have an increased chance that you state scores will decrease. If they decrease, your property value decreases. If that happens your tax base decreases. If that happens, you have less to redistribute.

If you are saying they must PIRVATELY fund a system, you are raising taxes.

 

[BonosSaint]

And if I forgot to say it, I would have been delighted to have had several of the teachers and would-be teachers in this forum.

 

[melon]

Property Tax is the money the TOWN raises for its services. Education is one of them. A majority of the school budget is funded by TOWN $$$.

I think this is one part of the problem. I know that in my town, we consistently reject every property tax increase mainly because it's already too high.

I think that education funding needs to be more at the state and federal levels, instead of the local levels; because I know for a fact that the pukey little town I grew up in plain does not have the resources to fund the top-level education that all children deserve.

It's also why my parents almost went broke sending me to Catholic schools for 13 years. When I think about this, how can I honestly tow the usual liberal line and say that our public schools are just fine? Because they're not. The one I would have had to attend was atrocious and still is.

But I know...with the Orwellian "war on terror" and the tax cuts for the wealthy, who the fuck cares about education?

Melon

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

At what grade level and using what criteria would we decide which students get tracked into which school, though? GPA alone? Test scores? I would bet the "remedial" schools would de facto wind up being poor students' schools, while the "honors" schools would de facto wind up being the province of middle and upper class students. In other words, it would probably just reinforce the socioeconomic trends associated with the tracking that already exists.

Exactly. There is a link between poverty and education. My school has the highest poverty rate in our district (around 69%) and also has the highest number of special education students. (around 34%) The state audited the distict last year and told the district that its schools it did not have enough special education students mainstreamed. We were operating effectivly as a school within a school.

As a result we are now moving towards detracking and co-teaching.

The other thing that bothers me about specialty schools is the stigma that will come with them. Who wants to be known as the kid who went to the "dumb" school? Some students who have IEPs are college bound. How will colleges look at transcripts from these schools? Will they be valued as much as a college prep school? It's doubtful.

 

[melon]

At what grade level and using what criteria would we decide which students get tracked into which school, though? GPA alone? Test scores? I would bet the "remedial" schools would de facto wind up being poor students' schools, while the "honors" schools would de facto wind up being the province of middle and upper class students. In other words, it would probably just reinforce the socioeconomic trends associated with the tracking that already exists. Had I switched into a school system like what you describe from the economically and academically poor one I attended K-8, I can't imagine I would have passed an "honors" entry test--on the other hand, my high GPA would've been misleading compared to those of students from wealthier, more academically rigorous schools.

Like I said, I know the existing connotation is to "separate and neglect." I think with the proper planning and education of the teachers and administration, we could eliminate the "neglect" portion. And that would also eliminate the concern about cutting off funding.

I don't know. All I'm saying is that throwing everyone into a classroom and expecting everyone to learn isn't working. Perhaps the solution isn't to make them separate schools as much as to ensure separate classes different levels in the same school? Private schools already do this (Honors, regular, remedial for the same subject); so, like I said, the rich don't have to play by the rules like everyone else and they get away with higher caliber education as a result.

The average American child should not be forced to deal with sub-standard education as the result of someone's politically correct definition of "integration." And those who are falling behind in "remedial" levels? The response shouldn't be to shove aside and neglect. In fact, they need MORE attention and education to catch up. That's my philosophy, at least, and private schools certainly make overtures in this direction. If someone's child is being neglected, some pissed off parents will pull out their money and go somewhere else. I guess this is where I think competition in public education like in Belgium would be a great thing for America, because, as it stands, there's no incentive for public schools to be accountable in any way. The realistic threat of children being able to easily pick up and go to a different school might make them think about changing their failures.

Melon

 

[melon]

By the way, I love all these discussions. I find that FYM, in general, is an easy way for me to throw out a lot of unconventional ideas and then refine them based on people disagreeing with me. All this will come in handy if I ever wanted to run for political office...lol.

Melon

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I don't know. All I'm saying is that throwing everyone into a classroom and expecting everyone to learn isn't working. Perhaps the solution isn't to make them separate schools as much as to ensure separate classes different levels in the same school? Private schools already do this (Honors, regular, remedial for the same subject); so, like I said, the rich don't have to play by the rules like everyone else and they get away with higher caliber education as a result.

Melon

Most public high schools have different tracks for the same course. This is not uncommon at all.

As far as private schools providing a better education, I would beg to differ. (not only because I'm a public school teacher but because I have attended both public and private schools )

Private school education is only markedly different in high poverty areas. Private schools in middle class suburban areas are suffering because the public schools can provide more oppertunity for their students. (as far as class choices, activities/athletics, and educational support) The current trend in the Chicagoland area sees once private boys schools opening enrollment to girls to keep the school full.
Moreover, private schools do not receive funding for students that may have learning disabilities, so often they go undiagnosed and unaccomodated. In order to be tested for a LD a student must set up an appointment with one of the public schools in the area. ( there is no cost) Private schools also have the luxury of kicking low performing students out. (they don't play by the "Every child is entitled to an education" rule because they are not taking funds from the gov't) This has happended to at least 4 people I know.

There is also the problem of turnover at private schools. Unless a teacher can find a position at an ultra elite school the pay will most likely be poor. My friend teaching at a private school makes just over half of what I make with the same experience and education. She is looking for a better paying job for next year.

All that said, I enjoy teaching in a high poverty area and I enjoy teaching the lower track kids. Well, most days. Oh the stories I could tell. I think many of them will struggle terribly next year in detracked classes.
As side note, the school board pushed and pushed and pushed for detracking until they found out how much it would cost to buy all new text books for the world civilization classes. (we currently use 2 different books) As a result, we will continue to track world civ.

 

[anitram]

I don't know. All I'm saying is that throwing everyone into a classroom and expecting everyone to learn isn't working. Perhaps the solution isn't to make them separate schools as much as to ensure separate classes different levels in the same school? Private schools already do this (Honors, regular, remedial for the same subject); so, like I said, the rich don't have to play by the rules like everyone else and they get away with higher caliber education as a result.

This is what's done in Ontario in high school.

The students are streamed into classes. When I went to school, the levels were: advanced, general, basic, but they've since renamed them, presumably to something more politically correct. The advanced stream was for students who were on track to go to university - the universities did not accept G or B classes for purposes of admission. The general stream was for students who were either planning on attending a community college (2 yr diploma) or entering the workforce or a trade. The basic stream was for remedial studies, these classes were very small, usually less than 15 kids and the whole purpose was to just basically get them through to their high school diploma. Special ed students had their own classes.

 

[lmjhitman]

lmjhitman, have you considered Ontario? We've had a teacher shortage for years and female math/science secondary teachers are in very, very high demand.

is that the same in t.o., anitram?

i could easily go out and teach in a little town here in alberta, and i did for a couple of years until the isolation nearly did me in. but getting a job in a decent-sized city here is nearly impossible, unless you have the right connections or are less-qualified than i am.

i would definitely consider toronto, though.

i just wanted to throw in my bit on private education:

if you look at what this province has done with education (and i can't claim to know what's done in the states), it pretty much boils down to a real decimation of the system, in terms of funding, class size and composition, constant additions to curriculum (without taking anything away), and the increasing burden on schools to teach children what parents used to teach them (things like health and safety, and character education), it's a wonder that more kids aren't falling through the cracks.

this government is doing a fine job of making private school look like a very attractive option.

and i'll echo what wha said about teacher salaries. here, while private schools may deal with the creme de la creme who have paid an arm and a leg to be there, the teachers make considerably less than their public school counterparts.

 

[anitram]

Yeah, it's the same in T.O. This is mainly because a few years ago the unions restructured the retirement rules so that suddenly you had a wave of senior teachers retiring earlier than they would have previously been eligible. This created such a shortage that we actually had unlicensed teachers in some classes - people from overseas who didn't have Canadian diplomas and so on. A rash of students here also went down to Buffalo and Australia where admissions policies are low, tuition is expensive, but you could get your teaching degree in 6 months.

I am not sure how the situation is now - definitely not as bad as a few years ago, but you would not be unemployed in Ontario. Even in our admissions, you are given bonus points if you are a female teaching math/science at a senior level or a male teaching primary level. Additionally, minorities like Southeast Asians are given points in admissions because they are underrepresented and in some school boards, like the one my Mom works, there are schools which are predominantly populated by Southeast Asian students, so there is an effort to recruit more teachers of the same background.

 

[lmjhitman]

um, wow. that's got my name ALL OVER it.

i'm not premium, so i can't pm you, anitram,

but if you wouldn't mind shooting me an email, i've got a few questions for you.

U2Chick [at] gmail [dot] com

thanks!!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Income Tax is tax $$$ raised by the state and federal governement. This money is redistributed and helps fund education but it does not come close to funding it all.

Property Tax is the money the TOWN raises for its services. Education is one of them. A majority of the school budget is funded by TOWN $$$. If you equally distribute the money that is already funding a level of services, you will not be able to afford the level of school system currently in place. The School Budget is the largest operating cost for towns. There is no way you can keep the level of service that you have if you are going to redistribute the $$$. If you increase class sizes, then you have an increased chance that you state scores will decrease. If they decrease, your property value decreases. If that happens your tax base decreases. If that happens, you have less to redistribute.

If you are saying they must PIRVATELY fund a system, you are raising taxes.

If all local taxes that are raised are redistributed through out the state, you can eliminate the uneven level of services seen between the wealthiest communities and the poorer communities. For your average community, such a redistribution will probably have little effect.

But, the point here is that you could raise the level in poorer communities without an increase in taxes. Why should people in wealthy communities expect that their taxes should provide them with services above and beyond the majority of the country? Wealthy communities taxes provide a bigger share of spending on national defense and other programs, why shouldn't they also be providing more for education or even local services through out a state as well?

As a country, would we benefit more by having the minority of wealthy communities keep tax dollars in their local area just for their own benefit, or would the country be better off if such tax dollars were redistributed?

Would rich communities be really upset if such a redistribution meant their level of services would fall to that of your average middle class community?

Would rich communities prefer to keep the current system, and simply have their income taxes increased to the level needed to provide poor community schools with the proper funding that is needed?

The public school system in any state should be able to provide students with the same level of education whether they go to school in the inner city or a wealthy community. The current system allows the wealthy community to send their childern to what is essentially a private school, from the perspective of people living in a poor community. The public school system is never going to be fixed until poorer communities schools receive the funding necessary to bring them to the level of other public schools. Its absurd that you would have a different level of funding per student, at various public schools around the state. The funding should be equal. If someone in a wealthy community desires a higher level of funding for the school their childern go to, then they can send them to a private school.

The United States spends more on education per student than any country in the world. Yet, what we find when we look at the problem in detail is that much of this funding is going to schools in wealthy communities. The United States could make a big move forward in solving its education problem if it would find a way to provide adequate funding for schools in poor communities. I think redistribution of the local tax money is a way that this could be achieved.

If someone in a rich community thinks that prevents them from having a gold plated level of service, then they should pay themselves for whatever additional service they desire, beyond what is found in your average community. That is not a tax either. Rich people buy and receives services beyond what most normal people have all the time, and its not considered to be a tax.

 

[Dreadsox]

You totally miss the point....

Local taxes do not have anything to do with the defence budget.

Local taxes are determined by the town.

Local taxes are collected by the town.

If you start redisributing what the local town raises, they will lower the taxes.

If you start redistributing, the level of services will drop.


Currently, towns set their own tax rate on property. the state has no say as to how much property taxes go up or down. State and federal governement have sales and income taxes depending on the state you live in to raise thier money.

 

[martha]

unexciting old public university

Are you at IU in Bloomington? My husband's uncle taught in the psych (?) department for years and his aunt was the mayor for a decade or two.

 

[martha]

By the way, I love all these discussions. I find that FYM, in general, is an easy way for me to throw out a lot of unconventional ideas and then refine them based on people disagreeing with me.

You do have some interesting ideas here, melon, but a little more research into current federal NCLB BS would help you refine them and understand the incredible limits placed on both teachers and students right now.

 

[Dreadsox]

You do have some interesting ideas here, melon, but a little more research into current federal NCLB BS would help you refine them and understand the incredible limits placed on both teachers and students right now.

They are about to push for new improvements to it Martha!!!!

Yeah!!!!!

 

[martha]

If all local taxes that are raised are redistributed through out the state, you can eliminate the uneven level of services seen between the wealthiest communities and the poorer communities. For your average community, such a redistribution will probably have little effect.

Don't forget that the state will see this as revenue and take a cut of the money. NO MATTER WHAT RESTRICTIONS YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON IT.

Why should people in wealthy communities expect that their taxes should provide them with services above and beyond the majority of the country?

Because that's what rich people do.

Would rich communities be really upset if such a redistribution meant their level of services would fall to that of your average middle class community?

 

[martha]

They are about to push for new improvements to it Martha!!!!

Yeah!!!!!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You totally miss the point....

Local taxes do not have anything to do with the defence budget.

Local taxes are determined by the town.

Local taxes are collected by the town.

If you start redisributing what the local town raises, they will lower the taxes.

If you start redistributing, the level of services will drop.


Currently, towns set their own tax rate on property. the state has no say as to how much property taxes go up or down. State and federal governement have sales and income taxes depending on the state you live in to raise thier money.

That is the way the system currently works, I was suggesting altering the system and redistributing the tax money. The State should alter the tax system so that all tax money for schools are equally distributed. I realize the State does not currently have jurisdiction over local taxes, but I think that should be changed so this redistribution can occur.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

That is the way the system currently works, I was suggesting altering the system and redistributing the tax money. The State should alter the tax system so that all tax money for schools are equally distributed. I realize the State does not currently have jurisdiction over local taxes, but I think that should be changed so this redistribution can occur.

I just don't think that's realistic. The state shouldn't have jurisdiction over local taxes. Each town should be able to have some say in how their tax money is spent.

 

[Liesje]

................

Private school education is only markedly different in high poverty areas. Private schools in middle class suburban areas are suffering because the public schools can provide more oppertunity for their students. (as far as class choices, activities/athletics, and educational support)

................

There is also the problem of turnover at private schools. Unless a teacher can find a position at an ultra elite school the pay will most likely be poor. My friend teaching at a private school makes just over half of what I make with the same experience and education. She is looking for a better paying job for next year.

I don't have much to add to this discussion except as a college student who has attended a private school since age three, including the best high school in the area, all of what you said is true. Within our city limits, the public education is a fucking joke. No one in their right mind would subject themselves to it. My elementary school was the only one in our local private school association located in the inner-city part of town (last year we had two drive-by shootings, both with fatalites, occur literally on the front steps of our school), so I've known a lot of kids who's parents couldn't stand the public schools trying to afford the private schools. Now, look 20 miles in any direction and the public schools are fine. The Christian high school still gets the highest standardized test scores and is the most competitive academically, but the public schools in the suburbs come significantly closer than the ones within the city where only 50% of their senior class is passing when an 89% is still a straight A. However, ALL of the public high schools have easier access to technology and sports or fine arts facilities because of government funding. My Christian high school doesn't know how lucky we have it since we have a few of the wealthiest families in the country on our side routinely donating millions to update the gym, sports fields, auditorium, etc.

As for the teacher thing, that's also a large issue in the private schools here. Most of my high school teachers worked full time at other jobs all summer. Several of them had their own paint crew. Not to mention, our association fucked up big time with marketing. They just assumed everyone who went through the system would stick around and send their kids through. It's not happening and now we've got a previously well-establish private school system in a metro area of over one million people and there's a SINGLE person working PART TIME on marketing. They're cutting schools and combining schools every year and great teachers are losing their jobs. Most are already looking for employment in the public school system before their time comes.

Anyway, just my observations based on what you said. I've read several of your posts on teaching issues and I've always been impressed with your genuine passion for teaching and children in general.