ASU economists say we'll grow when our leaders stop looking stupid" (home, elementary school)

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord

There are some wrap-around, extracurricular programs for this situation, but they are very intense and expensive as well.

If they worked believe me cities like San Francisco and states like California would have implement them years ago.

Imo, the only thing which might be successful would be keeping such children under constant supervision. This would mean picking them up at 7:30 in the morning and keeping them on school grounds until 7 at night. The costs would be enormous and taxpayers as well as civil rights groups will likely scream but this the only way I see of potentially breaking the cycle. It's the family environment which many kids are being raised in and not schools which needs to be addressed.

About education: Sure one can say overall test scores in Az aren't very good but you can say the same thing about Cal. However, companies are often selective where they move within a state and there are plenty of areas in both Cal and Az that are quite good when it comes to education.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by jdahunt

...

What was Arizona's net migration gain in that period.......how many from Illinois.

Okay, instead of throwing around numbers and misleading adjectives, you tell us -- factually -- how many people from Illinois did move to Arizona for a specific period of time?

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

...
Mike Orr, director of the Center for Real Estate Theory and Practice (ASU's W.P. Curry School of Business), said we need to think long and hard about how we look to the average Californian. He explained that the Golden State is the biggest market of people who could move here to become economic drivers. He said we need to realize that right now we are not portraying ourselves as a place Californians would be "proud to move to."

Make AZ much more attractive to companies with tax breaks and believe me they'll come. Nothing speaks louder than money. Cities like Chandler and Gilbert have a lot going for them.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by jdahunt

Let me be clear, there is no direct correlation between spending more on students and paying teachers more to that of turning out better educated students.

For the past 20 years in Illinois our school funding has exploded...teachers are making near 6 figures and in many cases over 6 figures all the while test scores are dropping, drop out rate and the numbers of those not graduating are increasing. Interesting enough the drop off in education is in line with the rise of the powerful teachers union.

I sit on the local college board and the average student entering college today is so much further behind then they were 20 years ago it forces us to dumb down the entry program just so the kids have a chance, the problem is that many don't or can't finish.

Arizona should be very careful not to just start throwing money at the problem......tie any increase to an actual increase in test scores and teachers should have to pass annual tests to prove they can teach the appropriate subject matter.

The outliers are the powerful unions. Hence I excluded NY and Washington DC. Now I will also exclude Illinois.

I can promise you better talent costs more money. That's the case in every discipline including Law, baseball, CPA's, and yes teachers. Like any topic, there are exceptions to the rule. But AZ is cheap with their teachers wages. If you are a talented teacher and are offered $20K more two states further north, you are going to lose the best talent. On average, it works that way in your industry as well.

The problem here is it's difficult to measure talent. Also, problem areas of the country have to pay more wages. Hence, it's pretty easy to prove anything you want. But let's not try to skew things to far and claim more $$"s won't buy you a higher caliber employee. Of course it does!

[phetaroi]

Unfortunately, an awfully lot of posts here on this (a very worthy) topic have devolved into stereotypical talk-radio phraseology.

It appears that Arizona has a problem with modern public education. So let me ask some questions about Arizona schools.

1. A lot of people say that throwing money at the problem isn't the solution. In my career as a teacher and administrator in NYS, Maryland, and Virginia, I worked in two school systems that "threw" virtually no money at the problem, and those systems were widely recognized (at least at the time) as disasters. I later worked in one of the most well-funded school systems in the United States. And we still never "threw money" at anything. Every dollar was carefully parsed out in ways that we thought would make a difference in the quality of education. Sometimes we were wrong, but then again, dealing with the human mind is not quite yet a "science" where you can just follow a particular formula and end up with a predicted result. So, how should we determine how much money should be spent on Arizona schools? Remember, no talk-radio phrases.

2. Someone mentioned metrics as to how schools should be judged. How do we determine which metrics should be used to judge the performance of schools in Arizona? Remember, no talk-radio phrases.

3. One post seemed to be saying that we should really educate only the brightest and the best. Do all children deserve a quality K-12 education? Do we still believe that each person should be provided with a K-12 education that will lead him or her to become all he or she is capable of being? Or are we going to exclude the special ed students? The lazy students (who may not end up being lazy as they mature)? The children of color? Remember, no talk-radio phrases.

4. Now this isn't so much a question about education, as it is about "in general". Why are so many posters to happy to embrace any newspaper or magazine article that praises something about Arizona, but so loathe to acknowledge a magazine or newspaper article that is critical of something about Arizona?

5. And finally, for now, do we still believe that there is nothing more important to Americans than their children? And, if so, do we prove that by our actions?

[john3232]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

...4. Now this isn't so much a question about education, as it is about "in general". Why are so many posters to happy to embrace any newspaper or magazine article that praises something about Arizona, but so loathe to acknowledge a magazine or newspaper article that is critical of something about Arizona?

True, but that's hardly unique to the Phx forum.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

...5. And finally, for now, do we still believe that there is nothing more important to Americans than their children? And, if so, do we prove that by our actions?

By addressing the root cause of the problem isn't necessarily crummy teachers/school districts but a family environment not conducive to learning or worse outright destructive.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord

The issue is never with people who value their kids' education. They will always find ways to get it. The issue is how can we better include those kids who do not have this head start, maybe because their parents don't have the time, the emotional strength or whatever the reason. Right now we are simply writing off a large part of our kids and doom their future. For the majority of our young generation it is probably easier to win the lottery than earn double their parents real income in their adult lives. This is a big issue for Arizona. We are kind of reintroducing a class society like Colonial England, something we once violently rejected.

I see it a different way. Yes, education is important, but the question is: who should pay for it? It's much like the health care debate. Should the government be spending billions of dollars on nationalized health care when things were fine the way they were, even though they were far from perfect? Education should be treated like any other industry and run like a business ... not paid for through tax dollars.

Parents are the ones who need to set their priorities straight. Too many of them use the school system as a subsidized babysitting service for their offspring on the backs of taxpayers. The excuse is they don't have the time or the emotional strength ... but they sure had the time & emotional strength to do "the act". Many of them seem to have time (and the money) to buy new gadgets like ipods, computers, large screen TVs, second or third vehicles, etc. If they budgeted better and took more of an interest in their kids' education, they could afford good private education so their children wouldn't be pushed aside or written off.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by john3232

True, but that's hardly unique to the Phx forum.

I agree. I guess I'm just asking for some posters to have a little balance.




By addressing the root cause of the problem isn't necessarily crummy teachers/school districts but a family environment not conducive to learning or worse outright destructive.

Again, I agree that in many cases the root problem is a family environment not being conducive to learning, while also acknowledging that some schools are lousy.

[grmi66]

Originally Posted by john3232

By addressing the root cause of the problem isn't necessarily crummy teachers/school districts but a family environment not conducive to learning or worse outright destructive.

How do you create a culture of education and learning with parents that want no part of it? One of my friends taught in a school district in south Phoenix. She would get frustrated when parents would pull their kids out of school to attend a family function south of the border and be gone for three weeks. Or the other issue of parents bouncing around from house to house, usually in different school districts. So it was highly unlikely that a kid starting kindergarten in one school is still in the same school by second grade.

For parents that want the best for their kids, there are a ton of charter schools and traditional schools in the Phoenix area that will provide a great education. But what about the parents that do not value education beyond elementary school?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I see it a different way. Yes, education is important, but the question is: who should pay for it? It's much like the health care debate. Should the government be spending billions of dollars on nationalized health care when things were fine the way they were, even though they were far from perfect? Education should be treated like any other industry and run like a business ... not paid for through tax dollars.

Parents are the ones who need to set their priorities straight. Too many of them use the school system as a subsidized babysitting service for their offspring on the backs of taxpayers. The excuse is they don't have the time or the emotional strength ... but they sure had the time & emotional strength to do "the act". Many of them seem to have time (and the money) to buy new gadgets like ipods, computers, large screen TVs, second or third vehicles, etc. If they budgeted better and took more of an interest in their kids' education, they could afford good private education so their children wouldn't be pushed aside or written off.

I agree with your second parapgraph.

I disagree with the first, and here are 2 of my reasons. First, an excellent educational system is an investment that should payback our society in future years, while a well-run Burger King (part of a major corporation) is irrelevant to America's future. Second, all Americans ought to be able to share in and benefit from what I will call "America's bounty", and that should include some basics -- a K-12 education, reasonable health care, elimination of out-and-out poverty.