We STILL are at the bottom on education spending (Fountain Hills: credit card, houses)

[jimj]

One thing I forgot to add, I've got no problem with private schools and vouchers. Whomever can provide the best product should get the customers plain and simple.
I also agree with the idea of merit based pay and dumping tenure (K-12) as it really has no place there. Maybe an argument could be made for 11th & 12th grades but not below. In my opinion tenure was only created to protect teachers who had and voiced unpopular/controversial opinions to stir critical thinking which is fine at the university level and maybe the last 2 years of High school but below that?
Nope.
We've GOT to get the incompetent and lazy out of the schools and at least make sure the teachers who teach 5th grade and above could make it to the end of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" without looking like a total fool.

[Burning Madolf]

Lot's of interesting points brought up here. One thing for sure though, schools have taken on so many other responsibilities that even if we dumped more money into the system we can't be guaranteed that the money will trickle down to the classroom.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Burning Madolf

Lot's of interesting points brought up here. One thing for sure though, schools have taken on so many other responsibilities that even if we dumped more money into the system we can't be guaranteed that the money will trickle down to the classroom.

That has always been an issue that stops me from supporting more money. No matter how much more they get it almost NEVER results in higher teacher pay. I've seen it time and time again, same result, more comes in and somehow disappears before it hits the teacher level.

[kremit]

Originally Posted by robabeatle

Raytheon President:

Education is the Make or Break for Raytheon Future in Tucson, April 5, 2010 | Arizona Education Network

Am I wrong to say a company like this wouldn't exist without government welfare? In the form of military industrial complex?

A lot of great scientists have come out of the public university system. On the other side of the coin, a lot of great inventors, business people dropped out of school.

[robabeatle]

I doubt the two sides of that coin are of equal size.

[stephen431]

Originally Posted by jimj

One thing I forgot to add, I've got no problem with private schools and vouchers. Whomever can provide the best product should get the customers plain and simple.

I agree with this, but the problem is when they fund these programs at the same time providing starvation wages to the public schools here. Also, to get public funding & vouchers, the private schools need to be more open & transparent about their results. If they get public money, they need to be accountable for their results. We don't have nearly enough accountability in the charter schools out here, and we have politicians out here like Steve Yarbrough lining his pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars through the STO voucher program for private schools.

Originally Posted by jimj

I also agree with the idea of merit based pay and dumping tenure (K-12) as it really has no place there. Maybe an argument could be made for 11th & 12th grades but not below. In my opinion tenure was only created to protect teachers who had and voiced unpopular/controversial opinions to stir critical thinking which is fine at the university level and maybe the last 2 years of High school but below that?
Nope.
We've GOT to get the incompetent and lazy out of the schools and at least make sure the teachers who teach 5th grade and above could make it to the end of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" without looking like a total fool.

We had voter initiated teacher merit pay program in Arizona, but the program was zeroed out by the legislature to fill the budget hole. The legislature has also gamed that merit pay system by monkeying with the AIMS test & other standardized testing systems every 2 years or so (they're about to change it again too).

Teacher tenure was eliminated in Arizona in 2009. The first teachers the schools started eliminating were the ones who had been on staff for over 10 years because their wages were higher than teachers who had only been in for 1-2 years. Performance wasn't the criteria. When you already have 36 kids per classroom and you have a big budget cut, you can't afford to keep someone on staff just because of his or her experience & performance, you just need as many warm bodies as you can possibly afford to herd the cattle.

[oldtrader]

Raytheon article is a good example of what I have been trying to put across. A well established employer in Arizona, is looking at the problems in education in Arizona, and if it does not improve they may be expanding other places where there is a good education system.

If a company like Raytheon that is so entrenched in Arizona that they are considering other places for expansion, it is very apparent that other corporations are staying out the state due to it's bad education system when Arizona has down near the worst economic conditions in the whole country.

Some people keep saying putting more money it education will not improve it. Without putting more money into the system, is a way of guaranteeing the education system staying at the bottom. Short on money means, poorly paid teachers, so you get teachers from the bottom of the class. Short on money, means not sufficient equipment to teach with. Short on money, means that the students are not as well trained to go to work, so the companies locate where the students are better trained.

More money does not solve the problems, but with sufficient money the solutions are readily available.

Now the state of Arizona is getting exactly what they are paying for, a bad education system.

[oldtrader]

Teacher tenure was eliminated in Arizona in 2009. The first teachers the schools started eliminating were the ones who had been on staff for over 10 years because their wages were higher than teachers who had only been in for 1-2 years. Performance wasn't the criteria. When you already have 36 kids per classroom and you have a big budget cut, you can't afford to keep someone on staff just because of his or her experience & performance, you just need as many warm bodies as you can possibly afford to herd the cattle.

And the education system, just got worse and worse. The students got shortchanged again, and the teachers are from the bottom of the class, with so many students they cannot get a decent education.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Raytheon article is a good example of what I have been trying to put across. A well established employer in Arizona, is looking at the problems in education in Arizona, and if it does not improve they may be expanding other places where there is a good education system.

If a company like Raytheon that is so entrenched in Arizona that they are considering other places for expansion, it is very apparent that other corporations are staying out the state due to it's bad education system when Arizona has down near the worst economic conditions in the whole country.

Some people keep saying putting more money it education will not improve it. Without putting more money into the system, is a way of guaranteeing the education system staying at the bottom. Short on money means, poorly paid teachers, so you get teachers from the bottom of the class. Short on money, means not sufficient equipment to teach with. Short on money, means that the students are not as well trained to go to work, so the companies locate where the students are better trained.

More money does not solve the problems, but with sufficient money the solutions are readily available.

Now the state of Arizona is getting exactly what they are paying for, a bad education system.

Only 68 of every 100 Arizona students who enter ninth grade will graduate from high school and nine will complete a four-year college degree, according to Valley of the Sun United Way's Ensuring Youth Succeed Investment Framework.[LEFT]
This is where more money will go first.

If parents don't know the value of an education and get their kids to school, why should I pay more taxes HOPING they will get the point? I lived in a town in another state where we spent $90 million a year on 7000 kids but the biggest gain for the whole system came from parental involvement. I didn't mind paying $15k a year in property taxes to support a system that was spending most of its energy and resources on education and less on drop outs, 3 meals and day care for student mothers.
[/LEFT]

[stephen431]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

And the education system, just got worse and worse. The students got shortchanged again, and the teachers are from the bottom of the class, with so many students they cannot get a decent education.

I'm not really sure the effects have been felt yet. The law was passed toward the end of 2009, and teachers were still under the terms of their original contracts until the end of that school year in 2010. The teachers were let go starting in the 2010-2011 school year and it's still continuing.
Northeast Valley school districts cut about 140 teaching positions
Paradise Valley district OKs budget to cut jobs, boost pay
Scottsdale district faces many changes this year
I know a lot of districts already lost teachers going into the 2009-2010 school year because of the termination letter fiasco, but I don't know what the average experience level was of that group of departing teachers. We also only have 1 year of tests since that period, and then only for a couple of grade levels.

It's strange to see teachers here moving into assistant principal positions after only 5-6 years teaching (there are 2 referenced in the SUSD article).