Public Education, and why it sucks

I can trivially google for all the stats that show our education system is a miserable performer compared to other modern nations (and even some that aren't so modern). I assume we can stipulate that this is true.

I attended at least a dozen school board meetings while my daughter was attending public school in Mountain View California. I reviewed all the financial statements, and particularly took part in their debate about why they weren't using money they had allocated to them to build a library and a computer lab for the kids. I toyed with running for the school board myself, and had quite a bit of support from the other parents who attended these meetings with me. In the end, I didn't because it was futile.

You see, public education is about THE SYSTEM, and not about THE KIDS. If you propose any changes that benefit the kids, the argument thrown in your face is how it'll hurt the system. Well, I don't care about the system as a first priority, the kids come first in my book.

Particularly of interest in Mountain View is the population is about 2/3 hispanic, and there are 3 schools. The state in all its wisdom forces the schools to teach all these non-english speaking kids english and then teach them in english. They call the program "english as a second language" of all things. Boy does that fly in the face of Reason.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that 2 of the 3 schools could teach courses in spanish. You don't have to know english to be a rocket scientist, a lawyer, a judge, a teacher, an accountant, etc. They obviously have smart people in those roles in nations that don't speak english, right? So you'd have 3 schools, all teaching at 100% their ability to teach, providing the libraries and computer labs the kids need to advance themselves.

When I was in school, we had to take a foreign language AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. My choice was between spanish, french, and latin, and I ended up taking 4 years of french in HS and another 2 in college. What was good for me is good for these hispanic kids - they can learn math and science and history and every other subject (even sex education - bleh) in spanish, and learn english AS A SECOND LANGUAGE, as advertised.

The thing about immigrants, and realize I have no issue with immigrants legal or otherwise, is that the first generation speaks their native tongue (spanish). The second generation speaks two languages (spanish at home, english everywhere else). The third generation speaks english. Where's the beef? That aside, I've been to Chinatown in SF, and there is a robust and thriving class of people there that speak chinese. The point being that english isn't some sort of requirement to succeed. On the other hand, the parents that really care about their kids will see to it these kids learn english as early as possible. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Instead of building the library and computer lab, the school district spent all that money teaching english, and whatever money they had left over, the state came along and emptied the bank accounts at the end of the year anyway. On top of that, the schools had many millions of dollars in their "capital" budget, so they could paint the buildings, pave the playgrounds, and keep the roofs from leaking. They didn't spend but a fraction of that money.

The legislature in all its collectivist wisdom, and on behalf of the lobbyists of their biggest supporters (teachers' union!) enacted these rules. All I can say is they're morons for doing so. We at the local level had the first clue about how the money could be spent. The legislature clearly had no clue at all.

I have nothing against public education, but I do have a lot against a massive bureaucracy that we've put in place that assures that only a tiny fraction of education spending makes it to the kids.

Those on the left claim we're not spending enough on education. This is far from the truth. We're not spending enough on the system, but who cares on that score? They also claim the classrooms are too crowded and the student/teacher ratio is too high. Some classes have 40:1!

Allow me to present some simple back of the envelope calculations. According to the 2006 census report, the average amount of education spending PER PUPIL is over $10,000, so I'll use that $10K figure along with that 40:1 ratio.

Per homeroom of 40 students, we're talking 40 x $10K = $400K. How about we take half that and give $100K each to TWO teachers? That still leaves $200K to buy books, paint the classroom, heat/cool the classroom, buy desks when needed, pay for field trips, and chip in some contribution toward paying the administrators.

Granted, this math is dirt simple, but you should get the idea that we're spending plenty.

The problem is THE SYSTEM. We have a politically powerful teachers' union that obstructs anything anyone does to modernize the system. Their interests are in things like tenure and turf instead of what actually benefits the kids. I would submit that there are far too many teachers that simply don't care if the kids learn anything at all - it shows in the test results and in how horribly many kids graduate high school (or don't) without even learning to read.

There's such an "I give up" mentality, that sex education isn't something that augments a proper curriculum, it's there because the kids give up too and are ready to move on before the law permits them to quit school. Speaking of the law, I cannot fathom how anyone can appreciate truancy laws that force parents to send kids to bad schools if they can't afford to send them to a good private school. Since the lobbyists have the power they have to run the schools as a system, they may as well hold a gun to peoples' heads to force them to participate. And fail.

Barak Obama may or may not be elected president, but I am quite confident that if he is elected, his kids will be enrolled at Sidwell Friends elite private school and not attending a public school. Do as I say, not as I do!

The SYSTEM is corrupt. You can't fire a teacher who sucks because they have tenure. You can't pay a great teacher good money to keep them around, because it's against the union contract and surely legislated because the legislature knows the union can get out the vote (and supports a certain Party). There is graft all the way from the local level to Washington and then back again, as the money for education passes through many hands with a tidy chunk taken by each. And then there's the downright frightening and repugnant practice of directing funds away from inner city schools to where the bigger campaign donors' children go to school.

A perfect case in point about the people at the grass roots trying to change the system for the better is vouchers. The argument for them is it allows parents from those inner city schools to elect to send their kids to the same schools the campaign donors do. The parents want vouchers by a wide margin, when polled. Why the hell aren't we giving parents and students the choice of gonig to schools they actually want to go to, especially when you have that truancy law gun to their heads?

The arguments against them typically involve the system and ignore the welfare of the kids. "If all the kids leave the bad school that's educating nobody, then that school will close." I say GREAT!

Then there's the argument that you can't give parents a voucher to attend a private or parochial school. Why not? Students can get Pell Grants and other public funding to go to Notre Dame. Do explain why we allow it for Notre Dame and won't allow it when it means more kids can actually get a chance to go to Notre Dame in the first place?

 

Yeah public education blows. My dad has worked in public education for almost 40 years so I've heard about all of the cluster fuck action that goes on at every level of the public education system. I can't disagree with any of your points, There are a lot of lame duck teachers out there who should be flipping burgers at McDonalds but its impossible to can them. And like you said Denny, there are a lot of fantastic teachers whom schools aren't able to retain because they can't pay them among other reasons.

The system is screwed up but I wouldn't keep the kids and parents from blame too. Lots of parents seem to genuinely not give a shit a lot these days and while the kids are just kids you can't completely take the individual out of the equation. I went to public school from K-8 then switched to private HS and of the group of friends I had in 8th grade only four of about 10-12 kids haven't dropped out or been transferred to "continuation school". In their cases I don't think the system failed them- in my opinion it was their fault and their parents' fault. For the most part education is what you make of it, I know a lot of people who did fine in public high school because they were motivated either by their parents or other factors.

I will say though that being in public school is a disadvantage when trying to get into college. The local HS here is a real shit hole in basically every sense of the imagination- academics, athletics, graduation rate was below 50%, they set a county record for the most fights in a single school year, there were two stabbings at school in the last 4 years. As you mentioned Denny, they just had a massive renovation so half of the school at least looks nice but why drop that kind of money on making the campus look nicer when they're so sorely behind the curve in every other area that matters? Back to the point, in my opinion a lot of the people who went there could have been put in a better position to get into a 'better' college if they went to a private high school for various reasons. That being said, the dedicated students did make it to CSUs or UCs so it does come back to how motivated you are. Its difficult to get kids to learn who resist education. Especially if their parents don't give a shit either.

I do think public education works pretty well on the college level though (at least in California). The problem is its hard to get kids motivated enough to go to college.

 

They seem to find teachers to teach the kids english as it is, if they could recruit and pay teachers to teach in spanish, they'd have no problem filling the jobs.

As for HS, they should have two kinds of high schools or at least two tracks through the same high schools. One would be technical, the other would be academic. The kids/parents would choose one track or the other. The academic one would prepare the kids to go on to college. The technical one would teach things like auto mechanics, home economics (cooking), welding, and that kind of thing. The kids who go through the technical track would come out with a skill they could leverage to get honest and decent paying jobs.

Vouchers in one form or another have always been the one kind of government program that actually works. The GI Bill and VHA Loan programs are vouchers, and they sent countless people to college or helped them buy homes of their choosing. If the secondary education system (colleges) work, it's because of vouchers and other financial aid programs.

The things I talk about here and propose here are not with the intent of killing public education. I don't care about "the system" though, I do care about the kids getting the most they want and care from the opportunities a good education (technical or academic) that should be provided.

 

I do think the school districts know how to spend the money, I just think they're hands are tied by legislation that is lobbyist (UNION) influenced or by legislatures that have no clue what's best at the community level. And that the money is funneled away from where it needs to be allocated for political gain.

 

You win. There are no spanish speaking people that know anything at all, I guess. I have it on good authority!

 

How about you back your "truth" with some sort of substance? You're opinion is hardly the final authority on the subject.

How about the teachers that are already teaching them what "addition" means teach them math. The ones that teach them what "biology" means teach them science.

We're already training lots of people from all over the world, including Mexico and the rest of the Americas in our universities.

The kids that go through the education system and speak spanish at home are fantastic candidates to be teachers.

 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cu...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED017926

 

All of it.

Based upon what? Your opinion?

http://www.partnership4learning.org...s-spanish-speaking-elementary-school-rise-top

The teachers are already there. How the hell do you manage 3 schools where 2/3 of the students barely speak english?

 

What studies of education practices have you read that support one iota of your claims? From reading what you write, zero.

Studies absolutely show that Hispanic students do well with Hispanic teachers. They do even better when taught in Spanish. Studies show that UNACREDITED teachers do as well as the credited ones throughout the education system. Studies show that ELL students absolutely lag behind other students by every measure. Not only do the ELL students do worse, but so do the rest of the students who attend the same schools. Studies also show that Latino parents are more involved in the education of their kids than white parents.

Based upon simple probability, when you have 2/3 of the population that's hispanic, you will have no problem finding good teachers. In a town with 100K population, 67K are hispanic, and you need 100 teachers.

The census data shows that 46% of white kids go to college and 42% of hispanic kids go to college. They don't all mow lawns or work at jobs white people won't take.