They'll never support Republicans or libertarians. I suspect this is a counter-threat to certain Democrats flirting with school vouchers such as DC mayor Anthony Williams.

I'm sure that the NEA would rather support strong, pro-public school Republicans than those Democrats who are willing to give private school choice a chance. After all, political ideology is important, but not as important as avoiding competition that could put you out of a job. All this tells me is that the NEA believes that private schools can do a better job educating kids than public schools can. After all, if public school teachers could get the job done, they'd have nothing to be afraid of.

"I'm sure that the NEA would rather support strong, pro-public school Republicans than those Democrats who are willing to give private school choice a chance."

True. But they would never admit such a thing exists. Rebublicans are out to destroy the public education system in this country. Didn't you get the memo?

Some time ago, there was a flap inside AARP over the idea that the left leaning management/lobbying efforts of the organization were well off the political views of the membership. I can't help but wonder if there is a similar divergence among teachers vs. the NEA.

I think STEPHEN hit the nail on the head. I know several teachers. Fewer and fewer think the NEA is relevant to their personal reality. Lets face it, even average teachers with non-criminal credentials don't need anyone's help in today's job market. If school vouchers lead to a sudden outbreak of private schools, those same private schools will have to hire teachers from somewhere. Its bizarre that the NEA is so agressively liberal while so many of the teachers I know are moderate/conservative. Its almost as confusing as used car salesmen dismissing women customers. (Don't they get it that women pay money, just like men, for cars too? But thats another story entirely ...)

My fiance's daughter is a public school teacher and I've yet to hear a kind word from her about the NEA. Its a racket, anyways...all unions are these days. Back when people worked a 12 hour day for a dollar, a union was a vital necessity...these days when burger flippers can make 8 dollars an hour, unions are of much less import. But, just as in all things, our problems stem from people who have their snouts in the public trough. Half of all union members these days are government employees - and while our vastly over-compensated government employees are not in need of union protection, the union bosses are in desperate need of keeping themselves on the gravy train and this, in turn, entails making sure that the unions are protected in their restraint of trade monopolies....

The long-term solution is for we conservatives to team up with moderates and just provide the money for school choice. Eventually, the teachers union bosses will be crushed under the weight of competition and they'll go away.

Um, Mark, I hate to break it to you but eight bucks an hour ain't all that much anymore... At least, I would hate to have to support myself on that. :)

Also, saying that all unions are rackets is like saying that all lawyers are scum.

Ok, all lawyers are scum, but that isn't the point!! :))

Sometimes unions are necessary; although I'll agree that many have become as overbearing as many of the company executives they used to battle, and certainly government employees shouldn't have unions; they're already civil service!

I am no big fan of the NEA, but I've seen enough "teachers get paid too much" rhetoric over the past few weeks to make me sound like an NEA apologist. I know enough about teaching to know that if there were no union, the teachers would get walked on, or they'd form a new one.

And, Dean, since when do regular teachers get judged on the letters after their name? I thought that was in higher ed?

Bryan, I've worked in the public (well, semi-private--details some other time) schools, had many friends who are public school teachers, and am a former dues-paying NEA member.

To answer your last question first: what is typical in most union-run public schools is that teacher pay is graded on two things and two things only: 1) Years of service, and 2) How many degrees and certifications you have achieved. That's it, nothing else. Period.

You can also see a strong correlation: most of the worst schools in America have some of the highest-paid teachers. In the city of Detroit, for example, the average teacher makes about $45,000/year. This, mind you, including a very generous benefits package, including a pension. That also gets you your summers off, as well as the spring and winter breaks. Of course, like a lot of Union shops, you have to be there for something like 10 years before you make it up to that $45K/year level.

Many supplement their income by working summer school, but many do not.

I have seen, in action, teachers who cannot do the basic math they are teaching their students. I have seen, in action, teachers who do not understand the grammar lessons they are teaching the children. I have witnessed incidents where teachers molest students and, because the union is so tough, the teachers just get sent to a different school to cool down the political problems, rather than have to go through the difficulty of firing the scum.

I have also seen good teachers ground into the dirt by administrative bureacratic hassles and lock-tight union rules that make it impossible for them to do anything to really control their classrooms or really teach.

The most pathetic part? Some of the school systems with the most money are the ones with the least classroom resources for the teachers. In the city of Detroit, where they get well over $9,000/year for each student, teachers are often scraping around to find chalk or even toilet paper for their kids. Because the administration is so irresponsible and stupid in how it spends its money--quite often in attempts to "reform" things in inappropriate and ineffectual ways, by adding more layers of bureaucracy. Why not fix the actual problems? Because the union makes fixing the real problems impossible, so the bureaucracy invents new workarounds that do nothing but add to expenses anyway.

There is no organization in America that I have a more deep and abiding loathing for than the National Education Association. They are a bunch of despicable self-serving toadies who mouth platitudes about helping children but do everything possible to prevent anything being done that would empower parents to take real control over their schools.

Test teachers to make sure they can pass the exams they give their students? The NEA will have none of it. Rank pay based on student test scores? Nuh-uh. Give parents the choice of getting their kids out of classrooms or even whole schools that are failing their kids? The NEA considers that an evil plot by despicable wealthy Republicans to destroy the public school system.

Amen, Brother.

But the Camel of Accountability has wedged its big, wet nose under the tent flap. It is now only a matter of time . . .

I don't think any other union, in any other field, has behaved as irresponsibly as the teachers unions. Do the autoworkers unions try to protect welders who don't know how to weld, and don't want to learn? Does the air traffic controllers association try to protect the jobs of controllers who fail to understand the rudiments of their responsibilities? My impression, in both cases, is "no". Comments would be welcome, especially from union members and from managers who have worked in union environments.

Hey David:

The main rationale I hear from rational teachers which oppose success-based compensation is that they feel their activities in the classroom have a small relative influence on the child's willingness/ability to learn. They fear that basing their success on the success of their students places them at the mercy of bad parenting, student apathy, Nintendo, etc.

I also suspect that teachers frequently have lower cognitive horsepower, on the average, than members of other white-collar occupations. We can all think back and remember some brilliant teachers who influenced our lives in a hugely positive way, but there's also a significant bunch of stinkers taking refuge from the rigors of the private sector.

My suspicion only, I have no backing statistics.

>The most pathetic part? Some of the school systems with the most money are the ones with the least classroom resources for the teachers. In the city of Detroit, where they get well over $9,000/year for each student, teachers are often scraping around to find chalk or even toilet paper for their kids. Because the administration is so irresponsible and stupid in how it spends its money--quite often in attempts to "reform" things in inappropriate and ineffectual ways, by adding more layers of bureaucracy

Dean,

You hit the nail right on the head. Just spending more money does not guarantee quality education any more than spending more money than your opponent guarantees you a campaign victory. It just means you are spending more money.

The Republican controlled Michigan legislature audited Detroit public schools after Engler and the Michigan state government took over Detroit public schools. They found one classroom where kids had no textbooks whatsoever. Upon investigation, they found the schoolbooks still loaded on the railroad car in the rail yard! Detroit school administrators did not even have the decency to move these textbooks into the school basement. That tells you exactly the priority of educators in Detroit public schools.

In December 2002, the channel 7 Action News ferret investigated spending in one Detroit public school. After the principal told him to ask media services where the new computers were, he then moved indoors. The office secretary he addressed ran away from the television camera when asked where her computer was. He then said that this school purchased 164 pieces of computer equipment. Only 16 pieces of this equipment made it into the classroom. That is 2.6% of all the computer equipment. The other 97% went home with janitors, office staff, and teachers.

My hometown of Tecumseh, Michigan recently finished building a new high school for over $30 million. The taxpayers turned them down for a Headley override millage increase this year. I guess that was to pay for the new teacher’s contract this year. Taxpayers also defeated a new 1.25 mil increase for our local library that recently separated from the school system. If you only understood how these people pissed away money the past six years you will understand why. The school system purchased brand new flat panel monitors for every office staffer in the high school at a cool $1000 apiece. Then they ran out or printing paper at the end of the year. Now multiply $1000 by say five people. That equals $5000, right? Do you not believe that would have covered the cost of printer paper the last month? These school administrators are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They have no experience in business where they actually have to budget large sums of money. And they are always short of money. They just know how to spend some poor sons of bitches money.

Dean, et. al.,

My wife teaches second grade. she's taught for 10 years in two different states. No one with 10 years experience that she knows is making $45,000. In fact, she's making approx. $10 grand less than that.

I'm well aware of the insanity that is the NEA. She used to have to pay dues to NEA and TSTA and I was the one who read the joke that they call a member magazine.

I've also experienced a number of the situations you list as reasons for anger. I agree with all of them. But I also see the flip side of the coin in some ways. I see teachers who get on the wrong side of principals who are given bad assignments and forced to meet unreasonable demands. I see teachers who don't even get a lunch break because there's noone to watch their students (despite the law that you are supposed to get a duty-free lunch). I see teachers who come to work early and stay late for bus duty at least one day a week, and have to sit through interminable weekly staff meetings that prevent them from getting their room ready for the next day. I see teachers who struggle to maintain classroom discipline with unsupportive parents, administrators who have little recourse, and students who know the situation. I see teachers who handle classrooms full of students who are medicated up to their gills just so they'll stay in their seats. I see teachers who spend their own money on school supplies because the school district thinks $150 is enough to pay for a year's worth of teaching supplies (including overheads). I see teachers who keep track of mounds of paperwork that goes with every student (the "permanent record"), often after "work hours" are over.

Your mileage may vary.

I have read all of the above comments and it makes me sick to my stomach. I am not a teacher although I know many. You could pay me a million dollars a year and I still would not teach in the public schools. My reasons are simply that I will not put myself in the position of being spit on, cursed at and falsely accused and then have to remain respectful while some parent tells me that they "pay my salary" so that gives them the right to dictate what I can and can't do and then to have the principal not back me up. That situation was related to me by my friend who teaches 4th grade in a very good, affluent school district. Even worse are the stories of teachers who have to spend their own money on supplies. Does anyone have any solutions? All I can see is that we need to scrap the entire system and start over.

Bryan:

Dean was talking Detroit avg. salary. I don't know where you live but it's not on par with the national average teacher salary in 1999-2000, the average teacher salary was $41,820.

Connecticut had the nation's top average teacher salary at $52,410. The other highest-paying states were New York, at $51,020; New Jersey, at $50,878; Michigan, at $48,729; Pennsylvania, at $48,321; and Washington, D.C., at $48,304.

Go here to check out the numbers from 3 years ago. Teacher salaries

Holli:

I wouldn't want to be a teacher either...that's why (gasp) I'm NOT A TEACHER!!!!

Teachers choose to be teachers they aren't appointed. Every job sucks in some way so I'm not really all that sympathetic.

You need to remember a few things. Parents do pay their salary. Teachers are in charge of educating our children. It is the parents responsibility to make sure that is happening. If the principal won't back up a teacher - makes me wonder if the teacher was wrong. Course if she is your friend - you won't think so.

The system needs major overhaul and vouchers would be a great start. Won't happen cuz the NEA and most teachers are against it.

Casey,

Well, the point is that with 8 bucks an hour being really about the bottom of the wage scale (adjusted for cost of living, yadda, yadda, yadda), there's just not much need for a union. My dad does point out, however, that if the large industrial unions didn't exist, the larger corporations would create them...much easier for a GM to work with a union. Unions, of course, do bad in two vital areas - in restraint of trade which prevent innovation and, of course, in working out back-scratching deals with politicians (ever had anyone look into how NYC deals with its Unions? Geesh, that'd be fun...no one will investigate it, of course, because to do so would get ya dead).

I can't imagine a single area in which unions are necessary - I work at a non-union shop and my pay and benefits are in some ways superior to my fiance's, who works in a union shop ("shop" is a fungible term these days, of course; both I and fiance would be considered white collar workers in a normal world...but the union will unionize anyone they can sucker into it, right?)

First off, you should be thankful that there are people who choose to put up with our little brats despite the pay, poor parental support and mountains of paperwork.

I am well aware of the "average," which was part of my point. There are a whole helluva lot of teachers who are *not* making the average. Try Texas and South Carolina. Of course, one of the advantages is I don't have to live in one of the areas with the highest salaries. I believe if you look at the salaries you'll also find very high costs of living in those areas as well.

Which is why talking about how "overpaid" teachers are is ridiculous, because there is no "average" teacher. Some teachers are overpaid, just as some basketball players are overpaid (okay, all basketball players are overpaid), but there are a lot of teachers who are emphatically *not* overpaid. In fact, they are paid too little. I can think of some inner city areas of Fort Worth and Dallas where this is definitely the case.

Also, related to the pay issue is merit pay. Someone raised the point earlier: how will it be determined? It's not like teachers are putting out widgets. Will principals determine merit? Where's the standard for who gets a raise or not?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a cost-of-living raise based on number of years service. Most of the time, this rewards people who have some knowledge of the system and provide continuity to the school. There is, obviously, room for abuse. But "merit" is likewise a sticky proposition from the standpoint of teacher pay.

Also, you would do well to remember a few things, Rosemary. Teachers *also* pay their own salaries. Many of them have children in the school district. It's not like they are free agents with no interest in the team. Teachers are not "in charge of" educating our children. Parents are ultimately "in charge of" that whole arena. A teacher usually has an impact on a student for one year - if that. And then, the teacher is usually guided in his/her performance by state- and federally-mandated curriculum, district policies and procedures, state-mandated text selections, and school policies and calendars, minimum numbers of grades that must be obtained, etc. Teachers have very little that they are "in charge of," to be honest.

Within that range, I'm amazed that this country continues to function considering how apparently piss poor our teaching profession is. (that's sarcasm, btw)

"It is the parents responsibility to make sure that is happening. If the principal won't back up a teacher - makes me wonder if the teacher was wrong. Course if she is your friend - you won't think so."

This is precisely part of what makes parental complaints fall on deaf ears among teachers. Do you think children are always right? Do you think a principal *wouldn't* fail to back up a teacher for fear of parental conflict *despite* the clear facts? I'd beg to differ.

I'm under no illusion that the teacher is *always* right, but I also know countless cases where the teacher *was* right, but the parent wouldn't believe it because little Johnny or Jill would *never* do something like that.

Or, better yet, a parent who won't make their child do homework, works the night shift, the father is in jail, and then wants to meet with the teacher because little Johnny or Jill is going to fail a grade.

Finally, I don't think anyone asked you for sympathy. But you would do well to refrain from indiscriminately bashing good and dedicated people along with the bad apples.

On the subject of vouchers, I think vouchers would certainly be a good idea, but there are some issues that are going to arise related to pay that are not being considered. Do you really think private schools are going to be able to maintain the academic standards they have when they are admitting low performing students with troubled family lives?

Do you think the teachers who work in these schools are going to work for half to two-thirds what a public school teacher is making, especially when they know the school is getting more money?

Even if students have vouchers, are they going to find classrooms to enter in better performing schools within the public school district? After all, if a school is already operating at close to 25:1 student-teacher ratios, are they really going to be able to add all these students with vouchers and maintain academic standards? And who's going to teach these extra students? Maybe they'll transfer in teachers from schools that suddenly have a shortfall in students. Wouldn't that be ironic.

Finally, a word about accountability. I think there is a mistaken notion that because teachers do not have some form of measurement for how "effective" they were in educating their students, that they do not have an internal accountability. I believe many do.

My wife has often obsessed over helping a student learn better. She has tutored students for free after school. She has worked with other teachers who have similar experiences. (Again, I'm not expecting sympathy. I only want to give you a more complete picture of the "teaching profession") I know firsthand how many teachers worry over their charges. To think that all, or even *most* teachers are somehow cavalier about the educational attainment of their students is cynical at best, unreasonable at worst.

Bryan:

1) If the teacher takes the job voluntarily and is paid by my tax dollars, "gratitude" is appropriate only if the teacher is successfully imparting knowledge to the child.

2) You are worth what the market pays you and what you accept. I believe that there's a case to be made that in a unionized environment, many teachers are "overpaid" in the sense that they are paid despite sucking, while other teachers are "underpaid" relative to their contributions. Vouchers are aimed towards redressing that inequity, and helping the bad teachers to starve faster so they seek other professions.

3) One reason there is so much paperwork and a state- and federally-mandated curriculum is that the educational establishment is lagging the rest of society in terms of its efficiency. The private sector consumes the time of fewer workers and generates more product every year, though productivity enhancements. The public school system, on the average, does the opposite. In fact, the private sector regularly creates innovations (e.g. Spell Check) specifically to compensate for the failure of the public school system to prepare children for the marketplace. This is why so much attention is focused on reforming education.

4) Your whole line of questioning regarding vouchers suggests you are confused/uninformed about the workings of the free market. I would expect average teacher salaries to rise, net-net, in a voucher-intensive school environment, as the incompetent teachers are fired and the solid ones are compensated more for achieving greater results with more children. Private schools have already shown a willingness to take on disadvantaged and learning-disabled children so long as these childrens' starting level of knowledge is well-documented and the school is compensated in proportion to the extra effort needed to teach them.

5) The student:teacher ratio is only one of many predictors of student success. I have seen superior teachers teach effectively at higher ratios and inferior ones fail to teach effectively one-on-one. I had an Economics professor as an undergrad who was a freeking Pied Piper in an auditorium of 600, and I walked away from his class with a very strong grounding in Microeconomics.

6) "Internal Accountability" is an oxymoron. You aren't a monarchist, are you? I believe not, and I think that's because you understand that when a leader sucks, he/she needs to be taken out and replaced. No profession is any different.

Rosemary,
The teacher I was speaking of would never do the things she was accused of. First of all this was not a major accusation. The kid basically said that she called him a name related to his race. This is a person who won't even say "pissed off" because she thinks it's vulgar. I have known her for close to thirty years so I think I know her personality pretty well. Granted this is just her side of the story. Anyway, as you said we do pay their salaries, and the principal's too, which is why this particular administrator was hesitant to go against the parent.

Also, I get your point about teaching not being either of our chosen professions. The point I was trying to make is that most of these teachers do a job that none of us would want to do and they get very little support or thanks from us as a community. It drives me up a wall when my daughter brings home a note about a fundraiser the school is doing. They did three last year! And our taxes are already too high, what are they doing with our money? The schools are overcrowded and the teachers are frustrated. And Bryan's right. You may be surprised to learn how little the teacher is actually in charge of in his/her own classroom. The state even mandates, in some cases, what words the teacher must use to teach certain lessons.

I am all for the voucher system simply for the fact that as a parent I will be able to choose to place my child in a different school if I want to! Bottom line is that teachers are not to blame. The system needs to be fixed. This country used to be able to educate children. What happened?

Jonathan,

1. Put your time where your mouth is.

2. "You are worth what the market pays you and what you accept. I believe that there's a case to be made that in a unionized environment, many teachers are "overpaid" in the sense that they are paid despite sucking, while other teachers are "underpaid" relative to their contributions. Vouchers are aimed towards redressing that inequity, and helping the bad teachers to starve faster so they seek other professions."

That's B.S. I don't care what way you slice it, no one is *worth* $90 million in endorsement money (as LeBron James was recently paid by Nike).

As to the second part of your point, re: vouchers, you assume (incorrectly, I believe) that the bad teachers would somehow disappear if vouchers were used to shuffle around teachers. I don't think it would work that way. I could be wrong. Would you admit you could be also?

3. "In fact, the private sector regularly creates innovations (e.g. Spell Check) specifically to compensate for the failure of the public school system to prepare children for the marketplace. This is why so much attention is focused on reforming education." ROFL. Arguably, spell-checker creates as many problems as it solves. It fosters laziness and gives false assurances of spelling perfection. But I think you give too much credit for that being the reason for spell-checking. Was the calculator invented because people couldn't add? No. But it's had the effect of worsening the mathematical abilities of the general populace.

4. Yes, I admit I am somewhat uninformed about vouchers. That's why I ASKED THE QUESTIONS!!!! But I maintain they are valid questions.
If the educational system sucks as much as people maintain that it does, then you're going to have a hard time coming up with all these wonderful teachers to teach all these mobile, voucher-laden students.

BTW, the issue of students and space is not something I posited on my own. It's been a problem in at least one school district where students are using a limited voucher program (wisconsin?).

5) The student:teacher ratio is only one of many predictors of student success. I have seen superior teachers teach effectively at higher ratios and inferior ones fail to teach effectively one-on-one. I had an Economics professor as an undergrad who was a freeking Pied Piper in an auditorium of 600, and I walked away from his class with a very strong grounding in Microeconomics.

Gee, I knew student:teacher ratio was only one predictor. My whole point is that there are *many* predictors of student learning success. But people want to hang all the blame on the teacher when johnny can't read. It's not that simple. You know it as well as I do.

You assume that students will respond in larger classrooms. I don't think that will work, especially at lower age levels. Your 600-person econ class was a *college level class* You did not tell me how all 600 students did, but that's really beside the point. Let's throw 600 first graders in a room together and see how much of a "pied piper" ANY teacher could be. BTW, it's "freaking," not "freeking." Guess you should have used spell-check.

Certainly, larger classes could be implemented at higher grade levels, but you again assume that there will be a significant mass of students who are going to want to perform, who will have adequate parental support to do so, and will have enough *good teachers* to keep them on their toes.

Not to mention the amount of classroom space available. Where are you going to put the students? There aren't a lot of 600 (or even 100)-seat rooms in high schools and junior high schools in America.

Additionally, there's not a high school teacher in America who currently teaches a class of that many students. You are talking about more grades, more paperwork, more effort on classroom management, etc. Do you get to hire Teaching assistants, Jon? You'd better add that to your bottom line.

Private schools have already shown a willingness to take on disadvantaged and learning-disabled children so long as these childrens' starting level of knowledge is well-documented and the school is compensated in proportion to the extra effort needed to teach them.

Where? The most willingness I've seen among private schools to take on disadvantaged children is when they have a really good jump shot. That, or their parents are a member of the parish, or they are showcasing their "commitment to the poor." Forgive me for sounding cynical, but I would like to see some hard statistics (like percentages of such students) to back up your contention.

And we're not talking about 1 or 2 kids. If the mass exodus of students is such that some people propose, these schools are not going to be so open-armed.

6) "Internal Accountability" is an oxymoron. You aren't a monarchist, are you? I believe not, and I think that's because you understand that when a leader sucks, he/she needs to be taken out and replaced. No profession is any different

Jonathan, I'm not a monarchist, but I also know that not all leaders suck, and you'd better make damned sure that the leader you're aiming for *does* suck by some observable, quantifiable standard before you take them out and replace them. That's all I'm saying.

Hello Bryan:

1) “Put your time where your mouth is.” What, precisely, is that supposed to mean in this context? I work hard, earn a decent amount of money, have always paid my taxes and do not as yet have any children I the system. I am a net contributor by any rational definition.

2) The beauty of the free market is that, if you really think teachers are underpaid, you can personally pay them out of your own pocket with the money you earned by serving the needs of your fellow citizens and receiving payment from them. If you are certain that LeBron James is overpaid, you are free to convince everyone who agrees with you to boycott Nike commercials. If LeBron James continues getting his paycheck, I will assume (as I currently do) that yours is a minority opinion.

As to your other point: I have huge faith in market forces, and if good test standards are in place (reflecting the knowledge that private sector employers demand of graduates) and if administrators are given total accountability for school success by this measurement and total authority to hire, fire and compensate teachers at will, I am completely convinced it would result in a quantum improvement vs. the current system. If any of these elements are lacking, you could totally be right.

3) Actually, yes, the calculator was invented precisely because people couldn’t add . . . and subtract and multiply and take square roots of gigantic numbers, or at least not as quickly as they can with the help of a calculator. If they could do this in their heads (or identically quickly on pieces of scrap paper) they probably wouldn’t bother carrying calculators around, right?

4) No, I do not suggest you are “uninformed about vouchers” (you and I could be on equal footing here) but rather “uninformed about free-market economics.” I think we may be getting hung up on semantics here. I,too, am disenchanted with the “system,” such that I propose that it be eviscerated and replaced. I think the good and even mediocre teachers will prosper under the revised system. I bear them no ill.

5) I’m not suggesting that 600:1 is a viable ratio for 1st-graders. I think that a great deal of experimentation will be needed to see what the optimally-efficient class sizes which enable teachers of various skill levels to teach subjects of various difficulty levels to students of various maturity levels. BTW, neither “freaking” nor “freeking” is a recognized word in any AHD I’ve ever seen (the various Webster’s are pieces of crap) and of the two spellings, I think “freeking” is the cuter one. Personal preference.

I don’t have ready statistics supporting my claim that private schools have been historically willing to take on disadvantaged and special-needs children . . . the last time I looked seriously at this topic was over three years ago. I’ll research and get back to you. But your “we’re not talking about 1 or 2 kids” comment again suggests that you don’t fully understand how businesses run. If I am running a private school as a business and each student that I voluntarily accept brings more incremental revenue than incremental expense, I have what’s called a “scalable model” and I want to be swamped with students. In fact, the success of my enterprise may in fact depend on my reaching a “break-even” number of student/customers, below which level I am unable to attain profitability. However, at extremely large levels of production, the concept of "diseconomies of scale" can manifest and I could have to stop accepting more students unless I raise tuition. Since we are below 100% employment and raising teacher salaries should draw more people to the teaching profession, I discount this risk in the medium term.

6) I totally hear you on the need for observable, quantifiable standards as the measurement of success. I actually think you and I are closer to being aligned than either of us may realize, and that your comments reflect your perception that I disrespect the work of the good teachers, which I hope I do not.

Jonathan,

I'm sorry, man, but I'm not as big a believer in the free market as you seem to be. I have been the victim of too many graduates of the Dilbert School of Management. (only half joking) My theory is great things tend to happen often in spite of the wonders of the free market. Having said that, a modified free market is still the best of the alternatives.

You haven't really resolved any of the issues to my satisfaction.

1. Private schools: I am troubled by the suggestion that somehow letting schools balloon to ever larger sizes would help anyone.

2. You seem to have two contradictory notions regarding teacher quality. On the one hand, there are a lot of teachers who suck who should be fired. On the other hand, there are all these other people (the less than 100 percent employment people) who would make better teachers than the ones we have. While I have no doubt that there are *some* such individuals, I highly doubt that there are sufficient quantities who a) want to, b) know how to, and c) could pass an elementary background screening.

3. Regarding the "we?re not talking about 1 or 2 kids? comment. I'm suggesting that running a school is not precisely analogous to running a business. the stakes are much higher in terms of customer involvement, for one thing, and every increase in students *will* require hiring more (and presumably better) teachers. But you don't have a supply of such teachers available to begin with. What happens in the meantime?

Additionally, large influxes of students from different backgrounds *will* change the culture of the school. Will the current parents of the school (and trustees or owners) support such changes? remember, the private school principal answers to constituents as well. People who are *already* paying the bills who don't see these schools as businesses in the sense that the Dry Cleaners' is.

I have other questions, but I also thought I'd point out this info:

freak·ing    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (frkng)
adv. & adj. Slang
Used as an intensive: Traffic was a freaking nightmare.
[Alteration of frigging, present participle of frig.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freaking

sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

Also, on the calculators, if you would notice, the calculator was invented to facilitate faster computations, not that people couldn't compute at the time. In fact, we could compute better then than we can manually now. Remember the slide rule! Your contention was that spell check made up for a deficiency in spelling skill. I see those as two different starting points.

The hand-held pocket calculator was invented at Texas Instruments, Incorporated (TI) in 1966 by a development team which included Jerry D. Merryman, James H. Van Tassel and Jack St. Clair Kilby. In 1974 a basic patent for miniature electronic calculators has been issued to Texas Instruments Incorporated. The patent is for personal-sized, battery-operated calculators which have their main electronic circuitry in a single integrated semiconductor circuit array, such as the popular "one-chip" calculators.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/handcalculator.htm

I think it should be clear that I'm certainly not a fan of the current system. But there are a lot of variables that will need to be considered, and this post is rapidly scrolling off dean's main page.

Bryan:

Because your wife is a teacher - I will excuse your overreaction and accusatory tones. You obviously take these comments a bit personally.

If you'll remember that I'm a parent and a former student. And, give me the respect of remembering that I'm not a complete moron.

I remember my education - I was there. I'll just say that I had plenty of really shitty teachers. I also had a few really great ones and many mediocre ones.

First off, you should be thankful that there are people who choose to put up with our little brats despite the pay, poor parental support and mountains of paperwork.

To be honest with you - I don't *have* to be thankful for shit. I am fully prepared to pull my son out of school and homeschool him if it becomes necessary to do so. I am more than capable and highly educated so it really wouldn't be any trouble. We are only doing the *school thing* because my son wanted to go.

Second, I am a parent volunteer along with working full-time. I do every field trip and party plus I help out with class prep at home in my spare time because I want to be involved. My son's elementary school is BIG on parental involvement.

Third, my son is not a brat. If he were he wouldn't have 175 great behavior badges. I get what you are saying - but when you address me in the manner that you did you elicit this type of response.

Which is why talking about how "overpaid" teachers are is ridiculous, because there is no "average" teacher. Some teachers are overpaid, just as some basketball players are overpaid (okay, all basketball players are overpaid), but there are a lot of teachers who are emphatically *not* overpaid.

Oh buddy! There too many *average* teachers. That is why we bitch that they are overpaid. Teachers are paid based on a 9 month work year with summers off.They can also earn more money by picking up summer school or a part-time gig. If an underpaid teacher earns 35K/year that breaks down to 3888 a month plus summer off to earn more money. There ain't a lot to cry about, IMHO.

In fact, they are paid too little. I can think of some inner city areas of Fort Worth and Dallas where this is definitely the case.

It is all a matter of perspective. No one becomes a teacher with visions of grandeur.

Finally, I don't think anyone asked you for sympathy. But you would do well to refrain from indiscriminately bashing good and dedicated people along with the bad apples.

Well, that was certainly uncalled for. I think you have been doing nothing but asking for symapathy but that is beside the point. My comments were addressed to Holli - so you need to sit back and chew on some Xanax and relax.

I didn't bash ANYONE. Don't you dare presume to preach to me about manners or anything else. I don't bash people willy-nilly. I'm very precise with my acerbity. I'm like a sniper with insults.

If you must butt in at least read the actual lines don't try going in between them.

Holli:

I was only supposing since you didn't give a lot of info on what happened. I take your word for it that your friend didn't do that. It's too bad that she didn't get any administrative support. Unfortunately, race accusations always seem to defer to the *victim* whether he was innocent or not.

Bottom line is that teachers are not to blame. The system needs to be fixed. This country used to be able to educate children. What happened?

Teacher are there to teach. If kids aren't learning - the teacher must share that blame. Just like she must share the credit if the kids are wildly successful.

I think there are many factors. Too many two parent breadwinners. When both parents work the children lose out in little ways that add up. Single parents that have to work and aren't there for the kid or worse treat schools like free daycare rather than a child's job. Too much red tape, too much union involvement and too many burned out teachers that show up physically but not mentally on the job.

The system needs repairing. Teachers need periodic re-certification to make sure they can still teach at an acceptable level, updates on techinique (just like doctors get). Charter Schools are starting to compete and vouchers will help. Making vouchers available will make the schools work harder to keep there student body in place. A little healthy competeion might do the trick!

Hey Bryan:

Thanks for the long and detailed reply.

1) The schools should be allowed to expand or contract to whatever size is economically optimal for educating the students such that they pass the objective tests of needed knowledge. It that can only be done one-on-one, well, God help us. If it can somehow be done by one oratorical genius in a zeppelin hangar the size of South Dakota, so much the better (though you and I would share equal amazement).

2) Remember that everyone is a consumer first, producer second. We have no choice (while living) as to whether we consume food, water, oxygen, ambient heat. We have millions of choices as to what we choose to do. As the financial rewards for teaching become higher relative to other professions (check out the software industry these days) many highly-intelligent, well-qualified people will present themselves. And having quizzed my fiance on the Texas EXCET test, I can tell you that the hurdles for becoming a teacher are both arbitrary and miserably low with regard to subject matter expertise.

3) Running a school is running a business for those running private schools. As long as the goals are clearly defined, the private sector will deliver to them. You feel that government agencies are the only entities capable of handling high-importance ventures? Check out NASA.

If the constituents define “success” as “making Johnny happy” vs. “making Johnny read,” then they have that right, but I don’t want Johnny coming around looking for part of my tax dollar when he can’t find a job. This is why I’m in favor of national standards set by a private sector-appointed panel (or better yet, a distillation of the qualifications in the highest-paying Help Wanted adds) as the principals’ goals. And to your other point, I see the cutover as incremental. I am certain that once you fire the teachers and re-post their jobs in Monster with higher salaries for higher demonstrated success rates, the candidates will come. They have never failed to do so in response to any private sector call. Even where illegal, black markets thrive.

Will the parents and trustees/owners support the changes? It depends on the changes. I don’t see what changes could possibly be a problem. The curriculum is set by the panel by the private sector, the parents choose the school which they think offers the best chance of success for their child, the administrator hires and fires at will, and the teacher is accountable for teaching successfully. The curriculum itself, being devoid of communist political diatribe, should be inoffensive to everyone seeking a real education, and discipline problems will be addressed by the parents, teachers and (if necessary) the administrator with expulsion. How is this not airtight?

I stand corrected on the “freaking” post, but I am willing to bet you (per Dean's linguistics thread higher up) that my version will eventually become standardized and more popular. : )

People couldn’t compute as fast and/or accurately as desired at the time. I’m not sure if your article doesn’t actually support both our points of view on this. It is, admittedly, chicken-and-eggish.

Rosemary,

(chewing Xanax) sorry, I've been reading the same "teachers are overpaid" meme at three different sites in the past three weeks, and perhaps it's getting to me.

You will note my use of the collective "our" before the word "brat" so that I wasn't singling out "your" children. I have a three year old myself. He's an angel at times, and a brat at others. All children are.

As to you homeschooling, I'm glad you're in a position to do that. Not everyone is intelligent enough, or educated enough, or financially in a position to do so.

I'm also thrilled that you are one of the parents who are so actively involved in the life of their school. I'm sure you're aware not all parents are.

As for being thankful, well it's true. You don't have to be thankful for anything. But it sure helps a person's attitude. I'm thankful for a lot of things, like living in this country and having an educational system that we can complain about. But hey, it's all a matter of perspective, right?