The Perfect "Public" School System

[bluebell]

2. Decrease summer vacation. Increase the school year. This is only a benefit, no other conclusion can reasonably be discerned.

Decreasing summer vacation would cause me to seriously consider homeschooling. One of the things i HATE about public school is how they act like they own your children. We do a ton of stuff together as a family during the summer and if the school district started to infringe on that, i'd cut loose of them if it was at all possible.

I'm of the opinion that more time in school is not the answer in most cases. I have kids in elementary school and for the past two years, the entire last month of school has been spent going on field trips to parks/bowling alleys/movie theaters and in parties. Two summers ago my 2nd grader watched 4 movies in 2 weeks time.

If schools have the time to be doing all of that stuff, then they don't need my kids summer break to teach.

Other than my personal thoughts on it though, i think some have lost sight of why summer break even exists. If i understand correctly, it was first created so that children would be available to help out their families on the farms/ranches during the busy planting/harvest season.

While some parts of the country might have the impression that that's a practice for a bygone era, it's important to realize that there are still many communities which rely on the help of the older children in the summer to this day. There would be protests in the streets in a few places i'm thinking of if the school even tried to do away with, or shorten, that break.

[Calm]

Decreasing summer vacation would cause me to seriously consider homeschooling. One of the things i HATE about public school is how they act like they own your children. We do a ton of stuff together as a family during the summer and if the school district started to infringe on that, i'd cut loose of them if it was at all possible....

While some parts of the country might have the impression that that's a practice for a bygone era, it's important to realize that there are still many communities which rely on the help of the older children in the summer to this day. There would be protests in the streets in a few places i'm thinking of if the school even tried to do away with, or shorten, that break.

Due to the problem of retention and having to spend the first few months getting the kids back to the place they were prior to summer, I can understand in principle the justification for year round school. However, it has been put into place horribly in most places I've seen as the school board is mostly concerned about saving money and there is no real effort of consistency of scheduling of children to match their parents and other siblings' schedules so that they can all have real vacations during the breaks and not just end up in daycare (if their parents can't take care of them) or sitting in front of the tv or computer because there is no one available to play with them and there is no opportunity for the family to take a trip or do something else together.

So it just ends up penalizing the kids in my opinion. I would think that schools would be one place in this world where the children's needs come first and they are not forced to fit their lives into the conveniences of the adults who are supposedly there to help them.

Also, it is harder for teachers to supplement their income with the shorter breaks if their pay is not adjusted to account for taking them out of the summer labour market. I've known quite a few that get by on their regular paycheck (it's the long term benefits that make the job worthwhile from what I've been told in most places....financially speaking) and buy the extras for the home and family by taking a job during summer break.

[thesometimesaint]

subgenius:

1. We do test teachers. They go to 5 years of formal school then have to teach another 2-5 years before tenure is given. A truly bad teacher can be fired for cause at any time. We don't treat them like other professionals. We don't require doctors, lawyers, to continue their formal education(often at their own expense) in order to just continue practicing their profession. It's a good idea, but it is not required. We don't pay a doctor based on the outcome of a proceedure.

2. Teachers are paid for the days they are in the classroom. There is no such thing as a paid vacation for teachers. Other professions have paid vacations.

3. I think that public institutions should be nonprofit. Private ones need to be held very high standards of what is being taught.

4. Agreed.

5. I have no problem with student organized clubs, groups, etc., as long as they don't violate law, or tample on the rights of others to a safe learnng environment. IE; I'd have a problem with a junior KKK club on campus.

[Calm]

A truly bad teacher can be fired for cause at any time.

"Can be" but how often does it actually happen?

My son's first grade teacher was so bad (including screaming at the kids) that every last parent that had already had a kid in her class and any parent who knew a parent who had a kid in her class before transferred their kid to the other teacher's class. Thus we ended up with over 30 kids in one class and about 15 in the other. I went into speak to the principal having learned too late of the problem and she begged me to just make do with it just as she had to do. The woman had three years left till mandatory retirement and she was staying until the bitter end because her husband had diabetes and what could the principal do about it if that was what she chose?

I felt sorry for her personal situation, but did that really outweigh what would probably amount to about 200 kids (given an average of 20 kids per class for 10 years as she got worse and worse over time) being significantly traumatized and having to start 2nd grade behind unless they were self starters or had parents who were willing to make up for her lacks? I went in every day practically to help out and because I figured she wouldn't have a meltdown in front of a parent...it helped, there were only a few of them that year. She wouldn't let me near the kids, but sent me off to xerox worksheets. By the end of the year, the entire counter was filled at least a foot high with them, if she had used any I couldn't see. In December she bragged to me that she had managed to teach one young girl how to write her name (this is first grade remember) in just one afternoon when she gave her full attention. Made me ill to see how delighted she was because she had refused time and time again from practically the first day of class any offer of mine to work with the young lady on her own because in her view the girl was just slow and personal attention wouldn't help.

[KevinG]

"Can be" but how often does it actually happen?

My son's first grade teacher was so bad (including screaming at the kids) that every last parent that had already had a kid in her class and any parent who knew a parent who had a kid in her class before transferred their kid to the other teacher's class. Thus we ended up with over 30 kids in one class and about 15 in the other. I went into speak to the principal having learned too late of the problem and she begged me to just make do with it just as she had to do. The woman had three years left till mandatory retirement and she was staying until the bitter end because her husband had diabetes and what could the principal do about it if that was what she chose?

I felt sorry for her personal situation, but did that really outweigh what would probably amount to about 200 kids (given an average of 20 kids per class for 10 years as she got worse and worse over time) being significantly traumatized and having to start 2nd grade behind unless they were self starters or had parents who were willing to make up for her lacks? I went in every day practically to help out and because I figured she wouldn't have a meltdown in front of a parent...it helped, there were only a few of them that year. She wouldn't let me near the kids, but sent me off to xerox worksheets. By the end of the year, the entire counter was filled at least a foot high with them, if she had used any I couldn't see. In December she bragged to me that she had managed to teach one young girl how to write her name (this is first grade remember) in just one afternoon when she gave her full attention. Made me ill to see how delighted she was because she had refused time and time again from practically the first day of class any offer of mine to work with the young lady on her own because in her view the girl was just slow and personal attention wouldn't help.

This is just laziness or inept management on the part of the principle. I don't believe the bad classroom management just cropped up in the last few years before retirement. This teacher probably left a trail of toxic classrooms for decades. If the principle valued her expertise he could have used her as a teacher resource, put her in a less intensive tutoring environment, moved her to a pseudo-administrative position, etc.

They have no trouble laying off newer teachers (non-tenured) when finances become a problem.

[Calm]

My sister used to be a college English prof. She switched to teaching grade 5 about 10 years ago. She goes into school about 7 AM or so and comes home on average about 12 hours later. Spends tons of her own money bringing extra stuff in to add to her teaching. She sees teachers that spend their time politicking with administration and parents getting the rewards, the teachers whose kids get higher test scores and who bring in grant money are ignored.

I spent my kids' school years being room mother and volunteering in practically every area there is, tutoring kids and being an aide and helping with the choir and in the library, etc. etc. Unfortunately from what I saw and heard reported, her experience is a common one.

If you want good teachers, a better system needs to be put in place. Good teachers should not be promoted into administration for one thing (or even worse bad teachers) as some sort of reward (or to get them away from the kids), but good administrators should be hired.

[Calm]

This is just laziness or inept management on the part of the principle.

Totally agree.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I am sorry for your childs' experience. Sounds like she was burnt out, and just working for the medical benefits to her sick husband. There are plenty of positions in my school district that don't require that level of contact with children, and would still take care of her sick husband insurance needs.

But to answer your question before tenure. The school district just doesn't renew their contract. After tenure actual crimes are the usual key.

[Calm]

After tenure actual crimes are the usual key.

Unfortunately bad teaching is not a crime.

She refused to take a change of job (she saw herself as a wonderful teacher) and apparently scared everyone so much they backed down.

PS: I'm not sorry for my child's experience. I was able to be there for him and he learned some good coping skills that year (he had always been very sensitive prior to that year, afterwards while sensitive, he understood he didn't need to take other people's problems personally or think it was his fault). It's the rest of the 200 or so kids (assuming it was only her last years and not all along an issue with her, which I doubt like Daddy) who had to deal with her I felt sorry for.

[bluebell]

After tenure actual crimes are the usual key.

THis is what i don't get. Why does the teaching profession have to have something like tenure. It seems to just make things worse.

I also wanted to mention, in regards to continuing education, that i would be very surprised if doctors don't have to continue to take classes in order to remain licensed. A good friend of mine has to take continuing education classes to keep her massage therapy license and my mother, a nurse, also has mandatory classes she must take to keep hers. Maybe doctors are unique, but that seems odd.

[KevinG]

Unfortunately bad teaching is not a crime.

Neither is being a terrible boss and I've had a few of those.

Having worked in education, private industry and government I can attest that teachers are not as downtrodden or protected as some will portray. In the last analysis people are people in any setting and you will see the good, the bad and the ugly. Unfortunately all too often we protect bad behavior and excuse it for reasons completely unrelated to the job. That creates problems in any industry or practice.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I don't know how outside of actual crimes how to measure bad teachers.

When I was in Jr. High the "meanest" teacher in the school was Ms. Hall. She was feared by one and all before they had as a teacher.

She was strict in that she expected, and demanded that her students work and learn something in her class. Even after all these years I still look back and think. "I actually learned something in her class", and the work ethic she gave me lasts to this day.

[Calm]

THis is what i don't get. Why does the teaching profession have to have something like tenure. It seems to just make things worse.

I can see tenure being a positive thing among professors who do research or work among college age kids where there should be some sense of protection of academic freedom. However, I don't see this as necessary for grades K-12 as it's a different dynamic.

My husband has worked with profs who have worked hard, worked well with their students and coworkers, done research, etc. etc. until they got tenure and then proceed to coast. The idea that the evaluation period prior to tenure is sufficient to weed out bad teachers only works on those with poor techniques, not with those with poor attitudes.

[Calm]

Neither is being a terrible boss and I've had a few of those.

Having worked in education, private industry and government I can attest that teachers are not as downtrodden or protected as some will portray. In the last analysis people are people in any setting and you will see the good, the bad and the ugly. Unfortunately all too often we protect bad behavior and excuse it for reasons completely unrelated to the job. That creates problems in any industry or practice.

In general I adore teachers and think they deserve to be much higher paid and supported in their work. It's the system that I dislike because it needs more checks and balances for the less effective elements and more rewards for the best elements.

Oh, and it needs to start later in the day as kids' natural sleep cycle has them wake up later in the day (especially teens) or at least have the first two class periods easy ones.

[LeSellers]

1. We do test teachers. They go to 5 years of formal school then have to teach another 2-5 years before tenure is given. A truly bad teacher can be fired for cause at any time. We don't treat them like other professionals.

That’s because they are not truly professionals. Professionals don’t have unions. Professionals don’t have job guarantees. Professionals police their own ranks.

We don't require doctors, lawyers, to continue their formal education(often at their own expense) in order to just continue practicing their profession. It's a good idea, but it is not required.

On the other hand, we don’t give professionals three months to do that “continuing education”, either. Professionals do it evenings, on the weekends, or quit their practices (or take leaves of absence) to do it. As you said, probably unintentionally, they do it at their own expense.

When a professional is sick, he has to take care of business anyway. Teachers just call the school and the school handles it.

We don't pay a doctor based on the outcome of a proceedure.

In a very important way, we do. If a doctor keeps killing his patients, people stop going to him. If a lawyer doesn’t win cases, he doesn’t get new clients.

When a teacher doesn’t teach, I mean that he fails to actually impart knowledge to his (captive) students, he comes back next year anyway, year after year, after year. He has tenure. He cannot be fired.

2. Teachers are paid for the days they are in the classroom. There is no such thing as a paid vacation for teachers. Other professions have paid vacations.

Again, this is not accurate. True, their summer vacation is “unpaid”, but their Christmas (sorry, Winter) break (two weeks or more) is paid. Their Easter (oops, Spring break) is paid, another week. They get an unholy number of paid holidays, far more than professionals (or hourly workers) get.

And in spite of the howling, they usually only work 6~7 hours a day. I’ve checked homework, tests, and done tutoring on Saturdays, unpaid. Still the work is not strenuous: it’s barely demanding.

3. I think that public institutions should be nonprofit. Private ones need to be held very high standards of what is being taught.

Why? Their clientele would be more than capable of requiring high standards.

On the other hand, gctf-welfare schools have no way for clients to demand high quality. They have no recourse when a school fails to teach their children. The ultimate master of the private business, whether a school or any other, is the client/customer. In the gctf-welfare school, the highest master is the bureaucrat.

5. I have no problem with student organized clubs, groups, etc., as long as they don't violate law, or tample on the rights of others to a safe learnng environment. IE; I'd have a problem with a junior KKK club on campus.

Who made you the arbiter of which student club should be allowed in the schools their parents pay for? If not the Jr KKK, why should Jr Black Panthers be allowed? Or Rotarians, or Eagles Scout, or Homosexual recruiters?

The government schools create more problems than they pretend to solve. And, when the truth comes out, it shows that gctf-welfare schools fail at their most trumpeted task: educating children. However, around back, where the real agenda is worked out, they are divorcing children very effectively.

And that is the reason I oppose any government involvement in schools; any at all, including all forms of regulation. Customers regulate shoe stores, doctors’ offices, dental practices, food stores, building contractors, and every other market offering there is. Why is education so special that a bureaucrat should be permitted to wrest control of a child from his parents?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

This is just laziness or inept management on the part of the principle.

Sorry, it's not just poor management, it's union contracts, it's politics, it's a host of things.

The fact is, it is almost impossible to fire a tenured teacher. At the best, it might take three-to-five years with many reviews along the way. Each review is typically attended by a union rabble-rouser whose job is to make it even more difficult. This is part of the union contract, that every potential firing be blocked as long as possible. It's what I mean when I say teachers do not police their own ranks.

Lehi

[KevinG]

Sorry, it's not just poor management, it's union contracts, it's politics, it's a host of things.

The fact is, it is almost impossible to fire a tenured teacher. At the best, it might take three-to-five years with many reviews along the way. Each review is typically attended by a union rabble-rouser whose job is to make it even more difficult. This is part of the union contract, that every potential firing be blocked as long as possible. It's what I mean when I say teachers do not police their own ranks.

Lehi

I'm not a huge union fan. having worked with untion and non-union workforces I agree with much of what you have said. But ultimately the blame for retaining bad employees or losing good ones falls upon the direct supervisor. Even with union rules it is possible to document poor performance and reassign or fire bad employees.

[LeSellers]

But ultimately the blame for retaining bad employees or losing good ones falls upon the direct supervisor. Even with union rules it is possible to document poor performance and reassign or fire bad employees.

I know what you mean. I had to fire a guy once (no fun) and it took two attempts, he even got the union to force us to pay his "back pay" for the time he was out. I got him fired the next day. the first time, the old documentation was thin.

Nonetheless, the power of government unions far exceeds that of others I've dealt with. And the contracts are written so as to insure it's more difficult. It's not "management's" money, after all, so they really don't care.

Lehi

[TAO]

Lehi, I've had some teachers with some pretty long overtime... I had one who arrived 6 every day, and then went home at 8 or 9 each evening... not mentioning the weekends. She did not only grading, but tutoring and extracurricular activities as well. And she taught very well. And very fast. You had to pay attention in her class. I had another teacher in high school of similar caliber (though didn't stay so late at night), who taught me Calculus, and she was very dedicated to her students as well. You could basically come in at any time, and she'd be willing to help, and she bought all of her classes pie on pi day. Along with being an insanely good teacher. And in the evening she taught exercise in a city 20 or more miles away. And supported her kids who were in a very prestigious dance program, etc.

So while it'd be good to say some teachers are overpaid, some really really do a good job and are more than worth what the school pays for them. If you know what I mean XD. Some of them REALLY go the extra mile. =)

I do agree though that the unions do put too much pressure on the school to get the smallest of things. One of my high school teachers wanted to do an extra 'program' for us, without getting paid, and the union wouldn't let him, even though he wanted to. Because it would 'okay' the school to require more unpaid work. Which could happen... but they could have probably solved it another way. =P

It is a very messy issue, I'd think we'd all say =P.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[LeSellers]

I had [a teacher] who arrived 6 every day, and then went home at 8 or 9 each evening... not mentioning the weekends. She did not only grading, but tutoring and extracurricular activities as well. And she taught very well. ... I had another teacher in high school of similar caliber (though didn't stay so late at night), who taught me Calculus, and she was very dedicated to her students as well. You could basically come in at any time, and she'd be willing to help, and she bought all of her classes pie on pi day. Along with being an insanely good teacher.

Either of these teachers would have earned much more in a private setting because they would be in demand.

I pity gctf-welfare teachers because they, too, are at the mercy of the state, just as taxpayers, students, and families are. I was going to say, I pity the good teachers, but I pity the poor ones, too.

In free-market education, such as I envision, good teachers would be paid well, poor teachers would become street sweepers (or whatever they are good at—and thus would be better paid, too—it might even be something they enjoy), and children would receive much better education than they do now, even in the best schools.

Lehi

[TAO]

Either of these teachers would have earned much more in a private setting because they would be in demand.

I pity gctf-welfare teachers because they, too, are at the mercy of the state, just as taxpayers, students, and families are. I was going to say, I pity the good teachers, but I pity the poor ones, too.

In free-market education, such as I envision, good teachers would be paid well, poor teachers would become street sweepers (or whatever they are good at—and thus would be better paid, too—it might even be something they enjoy), and children would receive much better education than they do now, even in the best schools.

Lehi

Perhaps, perhaps not. It'd be interesting to try in the least.

I suppose it could be done where the state supplies a supplement to those who don't really have the money to choose the school of their choice, or something like that.... not sure. =P I wonder if the prices would be high (causing this) or low (where this wouldn't be demanded).

[ldsfaqs]

I think that other than an "LDS" sponsored focused school system per Church values etc., which would be the ideal, if we are speaking of the public, these are my thoughts.

I think we should get the government completely out of the game, save only as an overseer, i.e. ensuring institutions are meeting basic standards of society education.

I think we should still be taxed, but the taxes instead go to Private Schools, i.e. Charter Schools. They run things better, they teach the children better, the money goes further, teachers tend to be paid more, etc.

Thus, I think private companies should completely take over the system.

This would also allow "specialized" focus also, more vocational training, etc. Not everyone needs to go to College for example. The whole educational system would benefit, cost of college would go down, etc. You would also have more people that are actually "skilled" and thus can create, innovate, etc.

[Calm]

Either of these teachers would have earned much more in a private setting because they would be in demand.

Not always. I've had friends who have taught in private schools who were not allowed to discipline kids or give them the grades they deserved because it would have upset their parents who expected good grades so the kids could get into prestigious colleges.

There is no system I know of that works well at this point, not even homeschooling because you have a lot of parents who can't discipline their kids or who aren't really cut out to be teachers.

I think the current school system problems are just a reflection of the greater cultural issues where it seems like so many think the right way to live is to try and get as much out of life for yourself (and those you care about) with the least amount of effort.

[subgenius]

Decreasing summer vacation would cause me to seriously consider homeschooling. One of the things i HATE about public school is how they act like they own your children. We do a ton of stuff together as a family during the summer and if the school district started to infringe on that, i'd cut loose of them if it was at all possible.

Cant have your cake and eat it too. An increased school year would not likely impede family activities to any detriment. It seems unlikely that there is a drought of activity when school is in session. I am not calling for the eradication of summer vacation....just a pruning.

I'm of the opinion that more time in school is not the answer in most cases. I have kids in elementary school and for the past two years, the entire last month of school has been spent going on field trips to parks/bowling alleys/movie theaters and in parties. Two summers ago my 2nd grader watched 4 movies in 2 weeks time. If schools have the time to be doing all of that stuff, then they don't need my kids summer break to teach.

my proposal assumes that "teaching" would be what was increased, not simply "being present". I think your experience is indicative of the problem, but not of the solution.

Other than my personal thoughts on it though, i think some have lost sight of why summer break even exists. If i understand correctly, it was first created so that children would be available to help out their families on the farms/ranches during the busy planting/harvest season.

we have also stopped giving them whiskey at recess to "calm them". <------true

While some parts of the country might have the impression that that's a practice for a bygone era, it's important to realize that there are still many communities which rely on the help of the older children in the summer to this day. There would be protests in the streets in a few places i'm thinking of if the school even tried to do away with, or shorten, that break.

well, you cant please all people all of the time. Again, i did propose that individual States be responsible for their own design, thus allowing for cultural and environmental nuances.

[subgenius]

I think that other than an "LDS" sponsored focused school system per Church values etc., which would be the ideal, if we are speaking of the public, these are my thoughts.

I think we should get the government completely out of the game, save only as an overseer, i.e. ensuring institutions are meeting basic standards of society education.

but this has shown that schools will only perform to that minimum or "basic standard". path of least resistance.

I think we should still be taxed, but the taxes instead go to Private Schools, i.e. Charter Schools. They run things better, they teach the children better, the money goes further, teachers tend to be paid more, etc.

not sure how you can justify the economic theory you propose here. Giving Public Taxes to Private Schools sounds absurd. Can i start one just to get a check?

Thus, I think private companies should completely take over the system.

make educating children a "for profit" enterprise? What do we do with the kids that are not "cost-effective"?

This would also allow "specialized" focus also, more vocational training, etc.

are you saying that the Public system is incapable of specialized focus?

Not everyone needs to go to College for example.

and currently, not everyone goes.

The whole educational system would benefit, cost of college would go down, etc. You would also have more people that are actually "skilled" and thus can create, innovate, etc.

? speculation