After all, Stossel is such an unbiased, informed source himself (yeah, right)...Nobody in the mainstream media bothered to call him on his flawed reporting, but the points made by those being linked to are valid. Just because something is on TV doesn't automatically make it accurate and fair. Stossel is notorious for this kind of skewed reporting, and he banks on people taking it hook, line and sinker.
Perhaps you could view his opinion simply as balance to the opinions coming from the other side.
Agreed. At least in CA, a student can't be held back more than once. So even if he is in 6th grade and cannot read, if he's been held back before, he goes on regardless.
Just when is an individual responsible for his deficiencies?
Steve is totally 100% right. From an outside perspective, the arrangement of USA public schools in INSANE and WRONG and HURTS CHILDREN.
America is a rich country. We spend a lot of money on education. Personally, I went to a private school that cost $10k per year. Guess what, public schools ALSO cost $10k per year. I can tell you, my private school was wonderful. The teachers loved it. They were nonunion. The kids were happy, we had tons of supplies and the school was almost luxurious.
One thing interfering in public school budgets is so-called "special education" which is really a new phenomenon that is overgrown in America compared to other countries. Our first priority should be normal classrooms, because that's where the payoff happens. Sorry.
All I'm trying to show you is that for what public schools cost, the private sector can create a wonderful product. In 1978, the government de-regulated airlines. Today, it is time to deregulate schools (with the voucher program so opposed by teachers). This is the key to allowing all people to enjoy a private school education, just like they enjoy privately made films, TV, food, shelter and other life necessities.
So, chin up. You don't need to use public schools. It is a predictable phenomenon that public schools under union control will crumble, devolve and suffer gross inefficiency. If you study dynamic systems, you can model this mathematically. You may notice the plight of GM, Ford and Chrysler. But their unions do not even begin to compare with the mighty power of the National Educator Association (NEA), a large corporate monster whose shareholders are the teachers. Union damage is a definable area of mathematics, and Steve probably knows this.
It's not a money shortage. American has excellent universities, companies and nonprofit organizations. Mediocrity cannot survive unless there is something keeping it alive. In this case, it's the NEA, who are EVIL and should be destroyed for the good of our kids.
Teachers probably don't agree. They have good salaries especially when you include retirement benefits and 3 to 4 months off every year (NEA meetings are strictly vacations, ethically). But teachers' welfare is a total distraction. Who cares what they want... screw them (and indeed, screw me. my employer is what matters when it comes to its governance). Teachers should be wary of acting like their opinion is more important than the users of their system.
The ultimate measure of success is NOT how happy the teachers are. But rather, how effective the school is. My school was exceptional. Schools that aren't good should be allowed to fail, close, and be replaced by private bidders. You might think inner city kids can't be taught for $15k a year they cost. I believe otherwise, because I have seen otherwise in the private sector.
After school, I have to walk my students out to get picked up (those that don't stay for day care). When their parents drive up in $60k+ SUVs or a Lexus, it's pretty ridiculous. A very sad situation. Their parents take no responsibility for them, they never do homework, and in turn, don't learn much of anything. Is that my fault?? ABSOLUTELY not. A teacher can only do so much with what they are given, especially when the parents don't give a crap about them.
I agree with what you're saying, but sort of unrelated to that: just because someone drives a 60K car doesn't mean they have lots of money. It's pretty much the American way to buy stuff you don't have the money to pay for and then spend the rest of your life making payments on it and go into unrecoverable debt. American's don't seem to know Jack about managing their money.
Steve is totally 100% right. From an outside perspective, the arrangement of USA public schools in INSANE and WRONG and HURTS CHILDREN.
...
...
...
...
...
The ultimate measure of success is NOT how happy the teachers are. But rather, how effective the school is. My school was exceptional. Schools that aren't good should be allowed to fail, close, and be replaced by private bidders. You might think inner city kids can't be taught for $15k a year they cost. I believe otherwise, because I have seen otherwise in the private sector.
Excellent post, Crazygopher. People outside of teaching have no clue about what it's actually like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
every 6 years.
Treat them like Senators. After 6 years they have to be re-tested, along-side all in academia which will test their qualifications.
You obviously have no clue about being a teacher - they ALREADY DO EXACTLY THIS for teachers, only it's more often than every six years. To stay a teacher, you pretty much have to keep taking classes on a regular basis.
And imagine if every industry was like this - how many of you have mandatory testing/education (out of your own pocket, no less) to keep your job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
If they wanted more money, they should have been smart enough to work hard and get on at a private school where most of the teaching takes place in the U.S. today. Sorry guys/gals, but that is the truth. With my niece starting K this year, I had to eat crow on the public school systems after reviewing options (I use to think the opposite), because they are so bad at what they do as a whole.
Except that private schools generally pay *worse* than public schools. Private schools provide a better eduation because they keep out the poor kids. Sad but true.
Heh, I changed the end of my post but right on, thanks.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
All I'm trying to show you is that for what public schools cost, the private sector can create a wonderful product. In 1978, the government de-regulated airlines. Today, it is time to deregulate schools (with the voucher program so opposed by teachers). This is the key to allowing all people to enjoy a private school education, just like they enjoy privately made films, TV, food, shelter and other life necessities.
I am totally in favor of vouchers.
I have two kids. One in private school and one infant.
My wife's a teacher in public school. One of the wealthiest in California and great school district. Unfortunately, we live in a different neighbor and we can't take our kids to her school. My district La Jolla is part of San Diego schools district that are a completely mess. Teachers are bad paid and the classrooms are old and falling apart in La Jolla. (Hey, this is a wealthy neighborhood).
Since my kids are and will be in private schools, I should either get vouchers or a discount on my property taxes. It's just crazy that I save the government good money for having my kids on a private school and I still get stuck pay the same taxes. Same applies to families without kids or single people without kids.
It's a huge discussion on my household. My wife's says that vouchers would kill public schools and destroy the current system. She says there is no money and schools are in trouble. In her case because her district is wealthy and still hard the way it is. But imagine in a poor district. she tells me.
So I am really not sure if this will ever happen or if the system will ever change. I agree with Jobs point but since education is such a touchy subject for teachers, unions and the government, I have hard time believing we will see any changes in the near future.
I agree with what you're saying, but sort of unrelated to that: just because someone drives a 60K car doesn't mean they have lots of money.
Yes, that's definitely true. Most of us live out of our means, I won't argue with that. And I have no problem with people having nice things, except when they spend money on unneeded things and make me foot the bill. When I see a student of mine getting into a $60k (more or less) car with 3-4+ other brothers/sisters, all of which have had their 4 school meals completely paid for by me/us (taxes) - that's my major problem. The school I'm at has over 3,500 kids, and 100% are on the free-lunch program. Not one of them brings any money to pay for their lunch; their parents have applied for the program very intentionally by filling out the proper forms - it's not by accident.
I have 2 children, both in elementary school. Each and every day I send a snack with them, and either a homemade lunch or money to buy a lunch at school. I also foot the bill for their daycare/afterschool program. I wouldn't expect to get this for free, but obviously this is a different mindset for some people. And I do understand that there are plenty of valid times that reduced or free lunch programs make sense, and many families do deserve this. But in my area, this is just not the case.
Back to my original example, most of their cars cost more than I'd make in a year. So do they really need/deserve 4 free meals, school supplies, daycare, and more? Seriously, how much does a pencil cost? Just out of principal, can't these damn parents even buy a single pencil to send? No - because we supply it for free. That's what is wrong with our system.
I won't even get into the other tax-funded programs that go on. Spanish translators for parent/teacher conferences, ESL programs (if you don't know what that whole thing is, it means "English as a Second Language") - which all of my students are on. Mind you, this isn't the projects or a low-income slummy area; this is merely what is happening in much of the Southwest with the rise of the hispanic illegal immigration epidemic.
Not to get off topic, but I think this goes to the very root of the problem. When you have a class full of non-english speaking children, no matter how good of a teacher you are, how can you be expected to have their test scores on par with a native english speaking population? And when they aren't, am I really the one that deserves to be fired?
Private schools provide a better eduation because they keep out the poor kids. Sad but true.
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
Heh, I changed the end of my post but right on, thanks.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
Wait a second.
It's not like that anymore.
Healthy benefits has been steady declining in the past 7 years. I remember my wife (a teacher is a wealthy district) had a $800 monthly health PPO insurance paid by the school. That was a great perk.
Now, we are paying out of our pocket $500, the school contributes with $300 for a piece of sh*t HMO plan. Her salary did not increase to accommodate that.
What, I am saying is that benefits are not the same anymore, teachers don't make that great money as you say and on top of that my wife spends at least US$1500 p/year from her money to buy things for her classroom and books etc. And she's in a great district. Now tell me a teacher from a bad area, dealing with kids with problems, gangs etc.
If teaching was such an wonderful job, the demand would be huge. That's not the case.
Yes, teachers have a lot of time off, that's a perk, but that's pretty much it.
In my district, we have an almost useless HMO plan. And we still have to pay into it and retirement just like everyone else's profession that provides health care and retirement/401k. Our contract was just up for renewal and our salaries were decreased even more, with even more of a downgrade to our already bottom-of-the-line HMO health plan.
Heh, I changed the end of my post but right on, thanks.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
Please read my earlier post about just how many days teachers work compared to other professionals with similar educational requirements. As far as retirement is concerned, you can't generalize because it is so different from state to state. I just retired in Maine. The retired individual pays 55% of the retirement health insurance. Other individuals who retire under the state retirement system ( Dvm employees etc.)have 100% paid. Why? Who knows? Other states pay all of the retired health care. It is very different from state to state so please don't generalize. As far as the unions are concerned, that too varies somewhat. Here in Maine we do not have the right to strike. I always viewed the union as some protection from a principal or school board member who didn't like you. Very few professions are as vulnerable to personality clashes. Maybe its not like that everywhere. I taught for 36 years in Massachusetts and Maine and retired at the end of first semester this year.
As a public school teacher with 17 years experience (so far) let me add my 2-cents worth.
First, As Mr. Dell and others have pointed out, employee unions were formed to prevent abuses by management. The abuses today may be more subtle in light of labor laws, etc, but they're still present and unions are still necessary as long as there are workers ready to put a short-term buck before safety or community, and as long as management and stockholders are willing to put profit and productivity before worker rights. Have unions abused their power? In many instances, yes. Bad employees get protected along with the good. And as Bob Dylan pointed out in Union Sundown, "seemed like a good idea/'til greed got in the way." And this from the guy who worshipped at the alter of the Union hero, Woody Guthrie.
Second, I have little patience for the nonsense line of AM radio reasoning that goes basically like this: "I don't get/ I never got ______ (fill in blank), so they shouldn't either." Unions fought hard and shed blood to get basic rights like a living wage, time off, and health care for dependents. You don't have decent health care? I'm sorry - you should. Get a different job, get organized with your fellow employees, vote diffferently in the next election, but please, stop blaming the unions for what you don't have - it's counter-productive and doesn't get you what you need anyway.
Third, I'll grudgingly agree that teachers have a good schedule, though I'm looking forward - gladly - to a third summer in a row teaching summer school so I can actually pay my bills. I have yet to meet a person who griped about the great schedule and benefits teachers get who was actually planning on entering the profession. If it's such a great job (and I think it is, but for different reasons) why are we hurting for quality teachers (especially men)?
Finally, I have butted heads with my own union on the very issue Steve Jobs addresses. In no profession - teaching included - should it be possible for someone to simply show up in order to get paid, but unfortunately, bad teachers are hard to fire (and they make the rest of us look bad). The devil is certainly in the details, but I have long insisted that it should be possible to measure teacher performance based on student outcomes. Any teacher, given an intact group of students, should be able to demonstrate that those kids know more at the end of the year than they did when they walked in the door at the beginning, and I'll fight any teacher union on that point. Any teacher who can't do that needs either a coach (which some districts use) or a pink slip.
The way benefits work in Washington state are as follows.
For health care, we have two viable options in most districts. You can enroll with Blue Cross, or you can take the route with Group Health. Now, overall the health care benefits are very good. However, do no think they are free. I still have to pay out of pocket for my health care AFTER my school pays its portion, and I'm only covering myself. I know some employees in other industries have to pay for insurance on their own, but many have similar programs, so I find it difficult to assert that teachers are the only ones with this advantage. With rising health care costs, it is likely to become standard with most companies. In addition, whenever teachers get a pay raise, often our insurance costs will go up as well. So, ironically, we never actually see our own pay raises. We simply get a boost to our monthly salary to cover increased insurance costs. Convenient.
Retirement is a bit more complicated. I invest a percentage of my monthly income towards my retirement. It is tax-deferred, which is a nice feature. I will invest a substantial portion of my income to ensure I have a good retirement (investment can range from 5%-15%). The state also provides me a pension, although it is far less than what it use to be. In other words, I pay for my own retirement more than what use to be provided. Here's how the pension works.
The old plan, Plan 1, gave you 60% of your two highest paying years of service. It also includes an investment annuity option. You can access this after you have served 30 years as a public school teacher in the state, regardless of age. My father has taught 34 years, so he will receive his own investments into an annuity as well as 60% of his top two years of teaching, even at the age of 58. Not too bad if managed correctly. So you're looking at say $60,000 at 60%, or $36,000.
Plan 2 was introduced later to replace the original Plan 1. It states that you get 2% of your average final compensation x the number of years served as a teacher. So you figure that if you teach 30 years times an average salary of $45,000, you are looking at 2% of $1,350,000, or $27,000. Now, you only get the full benefit at age 65, which means that if you retire at 55 (with over 20 years experience), you take a 3% hit to your retirement for each year under 65 you are. Not nearly as popular as Plan 1.
Today, we have Plan 3. Very similar to Plan 2, except you have a personal contribution plan (as described above) plus the same formula for Plan 2, except you get 1% instead of 2%. So, using the same idea that I may have an average of $45,000 over the course of my career, I would get $13,500 plus whatever contributions I make. So here's the run down on pensions over the course of the same career:
Plan 1 - $36,000
Plan 2 - $27,000
Plan 3 - $13,500
They all have the option of tax-deferred investing. But I have to work until I'm 65 to achieve full benefits when I retire. For me, that'll be 40 years of teaching. How many people out there work for 40 years at the same job with equal education that top out at about $60,000 ($59,157 to be exact for 2006-07)? In addition, most companies provide stock options and investment opportunities that teachers do not. To argue that we have this magnificent pension plan is a bit of an overstatement. We get a small token of gratitude for our years of service, but hardly enough to live on (monthly take on $13,500 is about $800 after taxes). My retirement will be based on my investments like everyone else. While others get stock options, I get a tax-deferred contribution.
While retirement plans vary from state to state as mentioned, this would be, I would assume, within the ballpark for most. Correct me if I have misspoken on any of these items. Lord know they are complicated as is. Again, based on what I've seen of other jobs, watching many software engineers and dot coms retiring at 35-40 years old after about 20 years of work, it just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, maybe I should have stuck with computer science after all. But I enjoy the positive impact I have on the lives of kids (which will be, conservatively, anywhere from 1000-6000 just in the classroom over a career) more so. I just want to be able to go home at the end of the day and not fret over finances and live comfortably, not extravagantly, for my efforts. Thanks!
Finally, I have butted heads with my own union on the very issue Steve Jobs addresses. In no profession - teaching included - should it be possible for someone to simply show up in order to get paid, but unfortunately, bad teachers are hard to fire (and they make the rest of us look bad). The devil is certainly in the details, but I have long insisted that it should be possible to measure teacher performance based on student outcomes. Any teacher, given an intact group of students, should be able to demonstrate that those kids know more at the end of the year than they did when they walked in the door at the beginning, and I'll fight any teacher union on that point. Any teacher who can't do that needs either a coach (which some districts use) or a pink slip.
A much better approach than standardized tests. What they know going in versus what they know going out is a sure approach that learning has been accomplished (to put it simply). Thanks!!
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
Retirement plans vary widely, and they are funded by teachers PAYING INTO the fund. Every paycheck has a deduction for the fund, and like social security, current teachers are paying for current retirees meaning the plan may go bankrupt and teachers may get less than they paid in, or nothing at all. And speaking of social security, teachers get either reduced SS or not at all, so better factor that in.
So what is your fix, just kill retirement plans? There's a teacher shortage already, if you want to keep people interested in teaching, be prepared to offset retirement cuts with boosts in other compentation or make the shortage even bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
That's true, also they don't have to deal with all the bullshit government beaurocracy like NCLB and have more freedom to actually teach things instead of just pandering to tests. And they can kick out kids with discipline problems. But the notion that they're better because they pay teachers more simply isn't true - they pay less, but the working conditions may be better for some teachers.
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
That's true, also they don't have to deal with all the bullshit government beaurocracy like NCLB and have more freedom to actually teach things instead of just pandering to tests. And they can kick out kids with discipline problems. But the notion that they're better because they pay teachers more simply isn't true - they pay less, but the working conditions may be better for some teachers.
There's been extensive research going both ways on this one. But I tend to agree that one is not better than the other inherently. It comes down to whether or not there's a good teacher present, public or private. Which types of schools have more? We could debate that one all year, and I'm not in the position to pass judgment on either. Thanks!
I always heard that public teachers are better because the state request credentials and courses to be able to work and private schools that's not mandatory. Plus here in SoCal, "most" public teachers tend to make better money than private ones.
But I agree that ussulay "most" of the time the private facilities are better than some public ones. But that depends on the district.
Sure, good principals not being able to fire bad teachers is a problem in K-12 education. So are bad principals bullying good teachers. And ballooning class sizes. And politically-motivated curricula. And aging teaching models outdated by modern technology. And crumbling infrastructure in urban schools. And kids with discipline problems whose parents don't give a rat's ass if they do poorly.
I have enjoyed this thread because I work in education as a "technology person" and deal with issues like this constantly.
What's important to remember is that teacher's can't be fired typically because they have tenure. Tenure is something that's earned. The key is to recognize the bad teachers early on, then fire them before they earn tenure. It's the responsbility of the principals and administrators to make sure the bad teachers don't stay around for this long.
The slant I got reading Jobs' comments was that teachers who don't use technology should be fired. He didn't say this obviously, but that is my current perspective. We have a lot of older teachers who refuse to use technology. I don't think the use of technology (or Apple's products) is required for a person to be a good educator. Good teachers have existed long before the first microchip came along. Technology is just a tool that can enrich the learning experience.
Additionally, the earlier comparison to the military is absurd. If anything, the Cold War mentality of continually pumping billions and trillions of dollars into the military's budget takes away from other things we should be investing in, like education to name one. Just think how much money we would save if the military focused primarily on self defense instead of protecting foreign oil resources that we are currently addicted to.
Comments
After all, Stossel is such an unbiased, informed source himself (yeah, right)...Nobody in the mainstream media bothered to call him on his flawed reporting, but the points made by those being linked to are valid. Just because something is on TV doesn't automatically make it accurate and fair. Stossel is notorious for this kind of skewed reporting, and he banks on people taking it hook, line and sinker.
Perhaps you could view his opinion simply as balance to the opinions coming from the other side.
Agreed. At least in CA, a student can't be held back more than once. So even if he is in 6th grade and cannot read, if he's been held back before, he goes on regardless.
Just when is an individual responsible for his deficiencies?
America is a rich country. We spend a lot of money on education. Personally, I went to a private school that cost $10k per year. Guess what, public schools ALSO cost $10k per year. I can tell you, my private school was wonderful. The teachers loved it. They were nonunion. The kids were happy, we had tons of supplies and the school was almost luxurious.
One thing interfering in public school budgets is so-called "special education" which is really a new phenomenon that is overgrown in America compared to other countries. Our first priority should be normal classrooms, because that's where the payoff happens. Sorry.
All I'm trying to show you is that for what public schools cost, the private sector can create a wonderful product. In 1978, the government de-regulated airlines. Today, it is time to deregulate schools (with the voucher program so opposed by teachers). This is the key to allowing all people to enjoy a private school education, just like they enjoy privately made films, TV, food, shelter and other life necessities.
So, chin up. You don't need to use public schools. It is a predictable phenomenon that public schools under union control will crumble, devolve and suffer gross inefficiency. If you study dynamic systems, you can model this mathematically. You may notice the plight of GM, Ford and Chrysler. But their unions do not even begin to compare with the mighty power of the National Educator Association (NEA), a large corporate monster whose shareholders are the teachers. Union damage is a definable area of mathematics, and Steve probably knows this.
It's not a money shortage. American has excellent universities, companies and nonprofit organizations. Mediocrity cannot survive unless there is something keeping it alive. In this case, it's the NEA, who are EVIL and should be destroyed for the good of our kids.
Teachers probably don't agree. They have good salaries especially when you include retirement benefits and 3 to 4 months off every year (NEA meetings are strictly vacations, ethically). But teachers' welfare is a total distraction. Who cares what they want... screw them (and indeed, screw me. my employer is what matters when it comes to its governance). Teachers should be wary of acting like their opinion is more important than the users of their system.
The ultimate measure of success is NOT how happy the teachers are. But rather, how effective the school is. My school was exceptional. Schools that aren't good should be allowed to fail, close, and be replaced by private bidders. You might think inner city kids can't be taught for $15k a year they cost. I believe otherwise, because I have seen otherwise in the private sector.
After school, I have to walk my students out to get picked up (those that don't stay for day care). When their parents drive up in $60k+ SUVs or a Lexus, it's pretty ridiculous. A very sad situation. Their parents take no responsibility for them, they never do homework, and in turn, don't learn much of anything. Is that my fault?? ABSOLUTELY not. A teacher can only do so much with what they are given, especially when the parents don't give a crap about them.
I agree with what you're saying, but sort of unrelated to that: just because someone drives a 60K car doesn't mean they have lots of money. It's pretty much the American way to buy stuff you don't have the money to pay for and then spend the rest of your life making payments on it and go into unrecoverable debt. American's don't seem to know Jack about managing their money.
Steve is totally 100% right. From an outside perspective, the arrangement of USA public schools in INSANE and WRONG and HURTS CHILDREN.
...
...
...
...
...
The ultimate measure of success is NOT how happy the teachers are. But rather, how effective the school is. My school was exceptional. Schools that aren't good should be allowed to fail, close, and be replaced by private bidders. You might think inner city kids can't be taught for $15k a year they cost. I believe otherwise, because I have seen otherwise in the private sector.
I totally agree.
every 6 years.
Treat them like Senators. After 6 years they have to be re-tested, along-side all in academia which will test their qualifications.
You obviously have no clue about being a teacher - they ALREADY DO EXACTLY THIS for teachers, only it's more often than every six years. To stay a teacher, you pretty much have to keep taking classes on a regular basis.
And imagine if every industry was like this - how many of you have mandatory testing/education (out of your own pocket, no less) to keep your job?
If they wanted more money, they should have been smart enough to work hard and get on at a private school where most of the teaching takes place in the U.S. today. Sorry guys/gals, but that is the truth. With my niece starting K this year, I had to eat crow on the public school systems after reviewing options (I use to think the opposite), because they are so bad at what they do as a whole.
Except that private schools generally pay *worse* than public schools. Private schools provide a better eduation because they keep out the poor kids. Sad but true.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
All I'm trying to show you is that for what public schools cost, the private sector can create a wonderful product. In 1978, the government de-regulated airlines. Today, it is time to deregulate schools (with the voucher program so opposed by teachers). This is the key to allowing all people to enjoy a private school education, just like they enjoy privately made films, TV, food, shelter and other life necessities.
I am totally in favor of vouchers.
I have two kids. One in private school and one infant.
My wife's a teacher in public school. One of the wealthiest in California and great school district. Unfortunately, we live in a different neighbor and we can't take our kids to her school. My district La Jolla is part of San Diego schools district that are a completely mess. Teachers are bad paid and the classrooms are old and falling apart in La Jolla. (Hey, this is a wealthy neighborhood).
Since my kids are and will be in private schools, I should either get vouchers or a discount on my property taxes. It's just crazy that I save the government good money for having my kids on a private school and I still get stuck pay the same taxes. Same applies to families without kids or single people without kids.
It's a huge discussion on my household. My wife's says that vouchers would kill public schools and destroy the current system. She says there is no money and schools are in trouble. In her case because her district is wealthy and still hard the way it is. But imagine in a poor district. she tells me.
So I am really not sure if this will ever happen or if the system will ever change. I agree with Jobs point but since education is such a touchy subject for teachers, unions and the government, I have hard time believing we will see any changes in the near future.
I agree with what you're saying, but sort of unrelated to that: just because someone drives a 60K car doesn't mean they have lots of money.
Yes, that's definitely true. Most of us live out of our means, I won't argue with that. And I have no problem with people having nice things, except when they spend money on unneeded things and make me foot the bill. When I see a student of mine getting into a $60k (more or less) car with 3-4+ other brothers/sisters, all of which have had their 4 school meals completely paid for by me/us (taxes) - that's my major problem. The school I'm at has over 3,500 kids, and 100% are on the free-lunch program. Not one of them brings any money to pay for their lunch; their parents have applied for the program very intentionally by filling out the proper forms - it's not by accident.
I have 2 children, both in elementary school. Each and every day I send a snack with them, and either a homemade lunch or money to buy a lunch at school. I also foot the bill for their daycare/afterschool program. I wouldn't expect to get this for free, but obviously this is a different mindset for some people. And I do understand that there are plenty of valid times that reduced or free lunch programs make sense, and many families do deserve this. But in my area, this is just not the case.
Back to my original example, most of their cars cost more than I'd make in a year. So do they really need/deserve 4 free meals, school supplies, daycare, and more? Seriously, how much does a pencil cost? Just out of principal, can't these damn parents even buy a single pencil to send? No - because we supply it for free. That's what is wrong with our system.
I won't even get into the other tax-funded programs that go on. Spanish translators for parent/teacher conferences, ESL programs (if you don't know what that whole thing is, it means "English as a Second Language") - which all of my students are on. Mind you, this isn't the projects or a low-income slummy area; this is merely what is happening in much of the Southwest with the rise of the hispanic illegal immigration epidemic.
Not to get off topic, but I think this goes to the very root of the problem. When you have a class full of non-english speaking children, no matter how good of a teacher you are, how can you be expected to have their test scores on par with a native english speaking population? And when they aren't, am I really the one that deserves to be fired?
Private schools provide a better eduation because they keep out the poor kids. Sad but true.
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
Heh, I changed the end of my post but right on, thanks.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
Wait a second.
It's not like that anymore.
Healthy benefits has been steady declining in the past 7 years. I remember my wife (a teacher is a wealthy district) had a $800 monthly health PPO insurance paid by the school. That was a great perk.
Now, we are paying out of our pocket $500, the school contributes with $300 for a piece of sh*t HMO plan. Her salary did not increase to accommodate that.
What, I am saying is that benefits are not the same anymore, teachers don't make that great money as you say and on top of that my wife spends at least US$1500 p/year from her money to buy things for her classroom and books etc. And she's in a great district. Now tell me a teacher from a bad area, dealing with kids with problems, gangs etc.
If teaching was such an wonderful job, the demand would be huge. That's not the case.
Yes, teachers have a lot of time off, that's a perk, but that's pretty much it.
Heh, I changed the end of my post but right on, thanks.
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
I used to work my ass off for $45k working 49 weeks x 5 days, or 245 work days a year. IN order to work let's say 200 days, I would take a further 20% salary cut. Teachers have the best schedules of any worker.... period. This need not change. But the union structure remains deeply harmful to kids.
Please read my earlier post about just how many days teachers work compared to other professionals with similar educational requirements. As far as retirement is concerned, you can't generalize because it is so different from state to state. I just retired in Maine. The retired individual pays 55% of the retirement health insurance. Other individuals who retire under the state retirement system ( Dvm employees etc.)have 100% paid. Why? Who knows? Other states pay all of the retired health care. It is very different from state to state so please don't generalize. As far as the unions are concerned, that too varies somewhat. Here in Maine we do not have the right to strike. I always viewed the union as some protection from a principal or school board member who didn't like you. Very few professions are as vulnerable to personality clashes. Maybe its not like that everywhere. I taught for 36 years in Massachusetts and Maine and retired at the end of first semester this year.
First, As Mr. Dell and others have pointed out, employee unions were formed to prevent abuses by management. The abuses today may be more subtle in light of labor laws, etc, but they're still present and unions are still necessary as long as there are workers ready to put a short-term buck before safety or community, and as long as management and stockholders are willing to put profit and productivity before worker rights. Have unions abused their power? In many instances, yes. Bad employees get protected along with the good. And as Bob Dylan pointed out in Union Sundown, "seemed like a good idea/'til greed got in the way." And this from the guy who worshipped at the alter of the Union hero, Woody Guthrie.
Second, I have little patience for the nonsense line of AM radio reasoning that goes basically like this: "I don't get/ I never got ______ (fill in blank), so they shouldn't either." Unions fought hard and shed blood to get basic rights like a living wage, time off, and health care for dependents. You don't have decent health care? I'm sorry - you should. Get a different job, get organized with your fellow employees, vote diffferently in the next election, but please, stop blaming the unions for what you don't have - it's counter-productive and doesn't get you what you need anyway.
Third, I'll grudgingly agree that teachers have a good schedule, though I'm looking forward - gladly - to a third summer in a row teaching summer school so I can actually pay my bills. I have yet to meet a person who griped about the great schedule and benefits teachers get who was actually planning on entering the profession. If it's such a great job (and I think it is, but for different reasons) why are we hurting for quality teachers (especially men)?
Finally, I have butted heads with my own union on the very issue Steve Jobs addresses. In no profession - teaching included - should it be possible for someone to simply show up in order to get paid, but unfortunately, bad teachers are hard to fire (and they make the rest of us look bad). The devil is certainly in the details, but I have long insisted that it should be possible to measure teacher performance based on student outcomes. Any teacher, given an intact group of students, should be able to demonstrate that those kids know more at the end of the year than they did when they walked in the door at the beginning, and I'll fight any teacher union on that point. Any teacher who can't do that needs either a coach (which some districts use) or a pink slip.
For health care, we have two viable options in most districts. You can enroll with Blue Cross, or you can take the route with Group Health. Now, overall the health care benefits are very good. However, do no think they are free. I still have to pay out of pocket for my health care AFTER my school pays its portion, and I'm only covering myself. I know some employees in other industries have to pay for insurance on their own, but many have similar programs, so I find it difficult to assert that teachers are the only ones with this advantage. With rising health care costs, it is likely to become standard with most companies. In addition, whenever teachers get a pay raise, often our insurance costs will go up as well. So, ironically, we never actually see our own pay raises. We simply get a boost to our monthly salary to cover increased insurance costs. Convenient.
Retirement is a bit more complicated. I invest a percentage of my monthly income towards my retirement. It is tax-deferred, which is a nice feature. I will invest a substantial portion of my income to ensure I have a good retirement (investment can range from 5%-15%). The state also provides me a pension, although it is far less than what it use to be. In other words, I pay for my own retirement more than what use to be provided. Here's how the pension works.
The old plan, Plan 1, gave you 60% of your two highest paying years of service. It also includes an investment annuity option. You can access this after you have served 30 years as a public school teacher in the state, regardless of age. My father has taught 34 years, so he will receive his own investments into an annuity as well as 60% of his top two years of teaching, even at the age of 58. Not too bad if managed correctly. So you're looking at say $60,000 at 60%, or $36,000.
Plan 2 was introduced later to replace the original Plan 1. It states that you get 2% of your average final compensation x the number of years served as a teacher. So you figure that if you teach 30 years times an average salary of $45,000, you are looking at 2% of $1,350,000, or $27,000. Now, you only get the full benefit at age 65, which means that if you retire at 55 (with over 20 years experience), you take a 3% hit to your retirement for each year under 65 you are. Not nearly as popular as Plan 1.
Today, we have Plan 3. Very similar to Plan 2, except you have a personal contribution plan (as described above) plus the same formula for Plan 2, except you get 1% instead of 2%. So, using the same idea that I may have an average of $45,000 over the course of my career, I would get $13,500 plus whatever contributions I make. So here's the run down on pensions over the course of the same career:
Plan 1 - $36,000
Plan 2 - $27,000
Plan 3 - $13,500
They all have the option of tax-deferred investing. But I have to work until I'm 65 to achieve full benefits when I retire. For me, that'll be 40 years of teaching. How many people out there work for 40 years at the same job with equal education that top out at about $60,000 ($59,157 to be exact for 2006-07)? In addition, most companies provide stock options and investment opportunities that teachers do not. To argue that we have this magnificent pension plan is a bit of an overstatement. We get a small token of gratitude for our years of service, but hardly enough to live on (monthly take on $13,500 is about $800 after taxes). My retirement will be based on my investments like everyone else. While others get stock options, I get a tax-deferred contribution.
While retirement plans vary from state to state as mentioned, this would be, I would assume, within the ballpark for most. Correct me if I have misspoken on any of these items. Lord know they are complicated as is. Again, based on what I've seen of other jobs, watching many software engineers and dot coms retiring at 35-40 years old after about 20 years of work, it just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, maybe I should have stuck with computer science after all. But I enjoy the positive impact I have on the lives of kids (which will be, conservatively, anywhere from 1000-6000 just in the classroom over a career) more so. I just want to be able to go home at the end of the day and not fret over finances and live comfortably, not extravagantly, for my efforts. Thanks!
Finally, I have butted heads with my own union on the very issue Steve Jobs addresses. In no profession - teaching included - should it be possible for someone to simply show up in order to get paid, but unfortunately, bad teachers are hard to fire (and they make the rest of us look bad). The devil is certainly in the details, but I have long insisted that it should be possible to measure teacher performance based on student outcomes. Any teacher, given an intact group of students, should be able to demonstrate that those kids know more at the end of the year than they did when they walked in the door at the beginning, and I'll fight any teacher union on that point. Any teacher who can't do that needs either a coach (which some districts use) or a pink slip.
A much better approach than standardized tests. What they know going in versus what they know going out is a sure approach that learning has been accomplished (to put it simply). Thanks!!
About teacher salary discussions, don't forget the typical excellent health care and defined-benefit (often inflation protected) retirement benefits. These benefits are the reason why airlines declared bankruptcy and automakers may also. The old fashioned union structure is severely outdated now. Since public schools can't file for bankruptcy, their costs simply rise and they have "budget crunches." This is not to say they don't have huge amounts of money. They do. But it is being used for a broken compensation system.
A defined benefit, inflation-proof retirement pension of $30,000 is worth around $500,000. Don't forget to distribute this over a teacher's salary. Too often, this is "hidden" income for teachers (and govt workers) that people out in the private sector basically never get anymore. A $50k teacher salary can be more like $100k when you make an honest comparison (again, including vacation time).
Retirement plans vary widely, and they are funded by teachers PAYING INTO the fund. Every paycheck has a deduction for the fund, and like social security, current teachers are paying for current retirees meaning the plan may go bankrupt and teachers may get less than they paid in, or nothing at all. And speaking of social security, teachers get either reduced SS or not at all, so better factor that in.
So what is your fix, just kill retirement plans? There's a teacher shortage already, if you want to keep people interested in teaching, be prepared to offset retirement cuts with boosts in other compentation or make the shortage even bigger.
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
That's true, also they don't have to deal with all the bullshit government beaurocracy like NCLB and have more freedom to actually teach things instead of just pandering to tests. And they can kick out kids with discipline problems. But the notion that they're better because they pay teachers more simply isn't true - they pay less, but the working conditions may be better for some teachers.
I would say private schools are better because they aren't required to 'graduate' all students like they publics schools do. If you don't pass your class, you fail.
That's true, also they don't have to deal with all the bullshit government beaurocracy like NCLB and have more freedom to actually teach things instead of just pandering to tests. And they can kick out kids with discipline problems. But the notion that they're better because they pay teachers more simply isn't true - they pay less, but the working conditions may be better for some teachers.
There's been extensive research going both ways on this one. But I tend to agree that one is not better than the other inherently. It comes down to whether or not there's a good teacher present, public or private. Which types of schools have more? We could debate that one all year, and I'm not in the position to pass judgment on either. Thanks!
But I agree that ussulay "most" of the time the private facilities are better than some public ones. But that depends on the district.
Sure, good principals not being able to fire bad teachers is a problem in K-12 education. So are bad principals bullying good teachers. And ballooning class sizes. And politically-motivated curricula. And aging teaching models outdated by modern technology. And crumbling infrastructure in urban schools. And kids with discipline problems whose parents don't give a rat's ass if they do poorly.
I have enjoyed this thread because I work in education as a "technology person" and deal with issues like this constantly.
What's important to remember is that teacher's can't be fired typically because they have tenure. Tenure is something that's earned. The key is to recognize the bad teachers early on, then fire them before they earn tenure. It's the responsbility of the principals and administrators to make sure the bad teachers don't stay around for this long.
The slant I got reading Jobs' comments was that teachers who don't use technology should be fired. He didn't say this obviously, but that is my current perspective. We have a lot of older teachers who refuse to use technology. I don't think the use of technology (or Apple's products) is required for a person to be a good educator. Good teachers have existed long before the first microchip came along. Technology is just a tool that can enrich the learning experience.
Additionally, the earlier comparison to the military is absurd. If anything, the Cold War mentality of continually pumping billions and trillions of dollars into the military's budget takes away from other things we should be investing in, like education to name one. Just think how much money we would save if the military focused primarily on self defense instead of protecting foreign oil resources that we are currently addicted to.