Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200017@inmet>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 14:14:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200017
Posted: Wed Sep 17 14:14:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:18:03 EDT
References: <3526@ism780c.UUCP>
Lines: 89
Nf-ID: #R:ism780c.UUCP:-352600:inmet:117200017:000:4075
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 17 14:14:00 1986


[geoff@ism780c.UUCP ]
>janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>I agree with your priorities, which makes me reject your position.
>>Since early 60's, as government kept throwing more and more
>	More money in what sense?  As a % of government expenditures?
>	Adjusted for inflation?  Per capita?  Per student?

All of the above.

>>money at public schools, the education level was steadily
>>going down. That system does not work.

>	Correlation implies causality?   
	
No. Correlation is a fact to be explained.
My explanation is that the money did not cause the decline -
but was a symptom of  the problem that did: namely the workings
of a rotten system that maximizes bureaucratic empires, and is
indifferent to results.

>	Are you trying to tell us that there
>	have been *no* other relevent changes in our society since the 60's?
>        What about the changes in demographics?  What about TV?  What about
>        the changes in the structure and stability of the family?  What
>        about the increase in mobility (people moving the household more
>	often)?   

All these occurred; many changes, however, are favorable to  edu-
cation.   E.g.,  it is cumulative. As new generations are born to
better educated parents, they should get a head start. Educators,
too,  ought  to get some experience with time; and *their* educa-
tional level should grow. TV could be an educator's tool,  rather
than  an  evil  competitor.  Other new technology, too. Under a
reasonably good system, we'd see a gradual increase in test
results,  even with constant expenditure.

>	More money is not the whole solution, agreed, but how is
>	less money going to solve anything?

Don't throw good money after bad: change the system that wasted it.
Private and parochial schools work much better: a voucher
system would let them compete with public schools - and public
schools with each other.

This is exactly what NEA is afraid of. I could almost say:
ask NEA, and do the opposite.

>>[Tom Albrecht] In New Jersey, Governor Kean has
>>said that a degree from a teacher's college is no longer needed to teach in
>>the state.  All one needs to show is a proficiency in the subject area and
>>an ability to communicate with young people and you can teach in NJ
>>schools.  Someone is finally moving to break the death grip that the
>>educational establishment has on the public schools.
>	It sounds to me like Gov Kean is just lowering standards to
>	attract more teachers, instead of raising salaries or improving
>	working conditions.

It creates competition to the incompetent products  of  teacher's
colleges.  Why  do  you assume his new tests to be less stringent
than theirs? But why have centralized tests at all? Why not  have
the  parents  hire  and fire any teachers they want? Most of them
care more about their children's education than state officials
do.  And  *if*  they need any experts to evaluate the teachers,
they can ask the experts. But usually parents, even illiterate,
can discern the quality of the teacher quite well.

>>95% of Americans support the concept of merit pay and teacher competency
>>tests.  Americans believe that good teachers should be paid more money and
>>that bad teachers should be fired to make room for better teachers.

Yeah, but I am scared of bureaucratic evaluations. A simple
competitive system, where schools compete for students, and
pay more to the teachers who attract them, would be best.

>>Teachers unions, on the other hand, want more money but are unwilling to
>>submit themselves to any review process linked to salary increases.
>	(Where are you getting this information?)  The teachers I've talked
>	to want to get rid of the bad eggs too, but there's a lot of
>	disagreement about how to identify them.  As in all fields, the bad
>	eggs are often very politically adept.  It's not a simple problem.

You are quite right. But Tom is right, too: teacher unions
*are* firmly opposed to merit pay. Is it because, as you say,
"bad eggs" are politically adept in the unions?

On this note of agreement, I'll leave you two...

		Jan Wasilesky