We need to completely scrap and change our nations education system. (SAT, kindergarten)

[seattlenextyear]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You'll first need to find people that understand Mathematics, Science, Engineering, Arts, Literature etc. Good luck with that, its hard enough to find teachers that properly understand just one of these fields.

They don't need to know more than their own field. They just have to work with their colleagues. One particularly successful program I've seen is a biology/chemistry class that's cotaught. The teachers are using a local wetland as a model for a whole systems approach to both of these disciplines.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Huh? Are you serious? There is nothing about Psychology that would make it an art, the field originated from Philosophy and is now a proper science. Since the field relatively new it still has some philosophic character to it (i.e., speculative reasoning).

That must be the basis for all those replicable studies on the efficacy of various therapeutic methods.

For that matter, it would explain the rigorous proof applied to personality theory!

While some of the research in psychology may meet the standard of rigor in the so-called hard sciences, on the client end of things the talking cure does not even begin to approach being a science.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

But how do you get good teachers when they were educated in the previous system that was lacking in many ways? Its a catch 22. They should also remove the credential requirements. There are a lot of older scientists,engineers etc that would teach for fun at low buy after they retired from their original career. The college system makes it very hard to go back to get a credential after being out of school for a number of years.

Anyhow, there is little hope that this country will fix its education system too much vested interest in the current system by the corrupt unions, adminstrators etc.

1) While to an extent, "we teach as we were taught," this is a situation that could be effectively addressed by the education colleges - assuming they saw it as a problem, and assuming the quality of teachers (in terms of aptitude) was there. It is not, to my mind, a Catch 22.

2) There are alternative paths to credentialing and have been for years. There are ways for those older scientists, engineers, etc. to go into the classroom when/if they wish to with a shortened certification process.

3) While I am hardly a defender of the need for certification to be ensured that one is prepared to be even a good teacher, let alone an outstanding one, neither am I willing to blithely assume that because somebody has been a scientist or engineer that therefore s/he will be an average teacher, let alone a good or an outstanding one!

4) I can't tell you how tired I am of the finger-pointing. If the problems were as simple as "corrupt unions, adminstrators, etc.," then you would think at least some our charter schools, our Catholic schools, or our myriad approaches to private and alternative schools would be turning out consistently outstanding results.

What's that? No miracles? Dang!

It's not about some separate them who is preventing us from reforming our school system, Humanoid.

It is we who are responsible.

[Humanoid]

One particularly successful program I've seen is a biology/chemistry class that's cotaught. The teachers are using a local wetland as a model for a whole systems approach to both of these disciplines.

Biology and Chemistry are very related so this sort of stuff works just fine. The biologist is likely to understand a good deal of Chemistry and vice verse for the chemist and biology. I once took a course interdisciplinary between philosophy (philosophy of biology) and biology, it worked good because the two subjects were very related. The professors both understood each others fields. Anyhow, when you teach interdisciplinary courses like this it requires the professors/teachers involved understand a good deal about all the subjects involved.

on the client end of things the talking cure does not even begin to approach being a science.

You are confusing psychology proper with clinical psychology. The two are rather different despite the latter containing the word "psychology". The vast majority of universities programs teach the former, the latter is taught by specialized private schools. Clinical psychology is about as scientific as ancient herbal medicine. Regardless, I already noted that psychology proper contains some speculative elements (akin to that found in philosophy). Psychology has nothing to do with art though.

There are ways for those older scientists, engineers, etc. to go into the classroom when/if they wish to with a shortened certification process.

You speak as if things work the same in all states, they don't. This is all done at the state level and many states make it very difficult to go into teaching if you didn't get the useless credential when you first went to school. So, although its not impossible it takes significant effort. Most aren't willing to do that, to make matters worse you can teach at community college without such a credential (Assuming you have the degree requirements, but many good scientists, engineers etc do).

has been a scientist or engineer that therefore s/he will be an average teacher, let alone a good or an outstanding one!

They may be a horrible teacher and just as many teachers with credentials are horrible. But at least the successful scientist likely understands the subject well, where as you have no idea whether the teacher knows the subject well or not. In fact little effort is done to test teachers on the subjects they teach. Additionally, there is some truth to the phrase "Those that can do, those that can't teach".

charter schools, our Catholic schools, or our myriad approaches to private and alternative schools would be turning out consistently outstanding results.

Huh? The best schools in the country are private both at the university level and in grade school.

It's not about some separate them who is preventing us from reforming our school system, Humanoid.

Follow the money.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You are confusing psychology proper with clinical psychology. The two are rather different despite the latter containing the word "psychology". The vast majority of universities programs teach the former, the latter is taught by specialized private schools. Clinical psychology is about as scientific as ancient herbal medicine. Regardless, I already noted that psychology proper contains some speculative elements (akin to that found in philosophy). Psychology has nothing to do with art though.

I'm not confusing the two, Humanoid. You are suggesting that the two are not the same field. I would debate the degree to which clinical is akin to herbal medicine, then or now, but you sort of underscore my point.

It is clinical, in particular, that I refer to as art - as in performance art. Teaching is much the same. You may not concur - but it is neither precise as a science (even a nascent one) nor totally random. There are those who get consistently good results and those who get consistently poor results, and everything in the middle.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You speak as if things work the same in all states, they don't.

You spoke as if things work the same in all states. I noted that there were ways for them. One of those ways may be to change states. The process is different all over - this is hardly news. However:

In 2007, all 50 states and the District of Columbia reported to NCEI that they were implementing some type of alternative route to teacher certification. The states and the District of Columbia described 130 actual alternative routes to teacher certification. These state certification routes are being implemented in approximately 485 program sites, most accurately called “alternative teacher certification programs.” (snip)

Some states list four or five alternate routes, yet use them sparingly or not at all. From year to year, routes are added and routes are dropped by states.


What has been noteworthy as alternative routes have gained in notoriety is a shift away from emergency and other temporary routes to new routes designed specifically for non-traditional populations of post-baccalaureate candidates, many of whom come from other careers. (snip)


...approximately 59,000 individuals entered teaching through alternate route programs in 2006

Originally Posted by Humanoid

They may be a horrible teacher and just as many teachers with credentials are horrible. But at least the successful scientist likely understands the subject well, where as you have no idea whether the teacher knows the subject well or not. In fact little effort is done to test teachers on the subjects they teach. Additionally, there is some truth to the phrase "Those that can do, those that can't teach".

1) A teacher who knows the subject, but cannot teach, is little better than the teacher who does not know the subject and cannot teach. There is more to having TA's running classes than just the precious time of the famous scientist/professor.

2) You commented that "little effort is done to test teachers on the subjects." As you put it, "You speak as if things work the same in all states, they don't." I don't know what state you are in, but the requirements at the secondary level for teachers is pretty tight in some states, if relatively lax in others.

3) Somehow, having you quote the old canard about who can vs. who teaches right after you have been talking about older professionals entering the classroom is pretty ironic! However, I already have observed multiply that the quality of those entering the teaching field is lower than it used to be.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Huh? The best schools in the country are private both at the university level and in grade school.

Can you say overgeneralization? Sure you can!

By grade school, are you including secondary? Assuming for the sake of the discussion, tell me about the vast numbers of private high schools better than Thomas Jefferson in VA, Stuyvesant or Bronx Science in NY, the North Carolina School for Math and Science, or the Maine School for Math and Science, to name but a few.

I know a few private schools that can compete with them on roughly equal ground. Equal, not better.

And the reason that most of those schools - public and private - are so good is because they are selective, not because they are private. As with my comment about colleges, below, there is a wide margin between the best private schools and the average or worst private schools.

The best private colleges are elite. The worst private colleges are worse than the worst public colleges.

But, again, as you said, "Follow the money."

[Humanoid]

You are suggesting that the two are not the same field.

Because they aren't. Clinical psychology merely bases some of its voodoo in psychology or at least the history of psychology.

but the requirements at the secondary level for teachers is pretty tight in some states,

Name a state that rigorously tests teachers on subject matter.

Can you say overgeneralization? Sure you can!

Its not an over generalization, its the truth. Some private high schools have endowments of $500 million. Many have more funding than some small colleges! But to be frank most people don't know about these high schools as the vast majority could never afford to send their kids there.

Anyhow, the problem with public school is that they are removed from the free market economy. Teachers aren't hired, fired or given raises based on merit. Teachers salaries aren't based on supply and demand, as a result you have more applications for English teachers than you can look at and not enough qualified applications for physics, math etc. The unions and the school system distort the market as a result you don't have the sort of price discovery etc that exists in a free market. Our school system sucks for the same reason going to the DMV sucks.

The best private colleges are elite. The worst private colleges are worse than the worst public colleges.

In general private schools are better, who would pay to go to one instead of a public if they weren't? What you have in mind are degree mills, they aren't trying to provide good education. They aren't even accredited.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Because they aren't. Clinical psychology merely bases some of its voodoo in psychology or at least the history of psychology.

I'm not sure how a 'science of the mind" that has only theory and no actual work makes it as a science, but that seems to be your claim. Clinical is at the heart of the history, not merely some later add-on.

*shrugs* I suspect we will simply have to disagree.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Name a state that rigorously tests teachers on subject matter.

Check out the tests for the secondary teachers in Michigan or New York. But, I suspect from the rest of our interchange, you will look and say "That's not rigorous!"

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Its not an over generalization, its the truth. Some private high schools have endowments of $500 million. Many have more funding than some small colleges! But to be frank most people don't know about these high schools as the vast majority could never afford to send their kids there.

This is the same thing you got bent out of shape at me about, to an extent, with the states - I made a comment that there were alternate paths and you pointed out that not all states are the same. (Though it turns out that they are mostly closer in that regard than I suspect you had expected.)

"Some private high schools..."

Try FOUR high schools have endowments over $500 million. And most folks in the Northeast know about Andover, if not Exeter. One of the others is restricted to Hawaii folks. Pretty much nobody who gets into either of Exeter or Andover will be denied attendance for fiscal reasons.

(Exeter will) pay the full cost for any student whose family income is less than $75,000

The vast majority of students could never get in to either of them, but it is not money that is keeping them out.

Oh, the 4th prep school? It has an endowment 8 times that of Exeter - NO STUDENTS PAY TO GO THERE. Yes, nobody's heard of it, but that's because it serves a narrow population: a family of low income, limited resources, and social need.

So much for 'can't afford to go there." It is far more true of the schools of more modest endowments.

Let's come back to your claim here:
"The best schools in the country are private both at the university level and in grade school."

So, I gave you some public high schools. I happen to be very fond of Andover and Exeter - but I would debate with you quite happily the merits of either of them with Stuyvesant in New York or the North Carolina School of Science and Math. $850,000,000 is a lot of money for an endowment, but it doesn't, in and of itself, guarantee a superior education. Does it help? Sure. My old school would have been far more effective at serving students' needs with 1/1000th that money, I am sure.

As it happens, I'm very familiar with 11 of the top 20 prep schools (based solely on endowment, a silly way to base a claim of superiority). I've also taught students from at least 25 more of the top 191 endowed schools.

Many of those schools are good for a specific population. Many of them are primarily good for folks who have money to pay for them, though they would not thank me for saying so. They have no particular academic reason for existing, no philosophy of teaching or character that lends them this grand and glorious superiority that you insist that they have.

Or, to quote the head of school at one of them, when I asked her why they were using a particular text book in mathematics, "Well, we called around, and this is the book most of the others were using."

Some of them were something special, and are less so now. Conserve, for example, was a stunning experiment when it started. It's still interesting, but its student body is a lot less sharp - and a lot less well served - than it was at its outset.

Just as there are tiers of colleges, there are tiers of prep schools - but the drop off is far sharper from top to middle.

You say these schools are so good. On what do you base your judgment? In what ways are they superior?

Would you say that Hotchkiss (in Ct.), at $382 Million is significantly better for a girl than Dana Hall (Mass.), at $22 million? I would argue that Hotchkiss is not nearly as good as the Commonwealth School (Boston) or the late, lamented Calasanctius School (Buffalo).

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Anyhow, the problem with public school is that they are removed from the free market economy. Teachers aren't hired, fired or given raises based on merit. Teachers salaries aren't based on supply and demand, as a result you have more applications for English teachers than you can look at and not enough qualified applications for physics, math etc. The unions and the school system distort the market as a result you don't have the sort of price discovery etc that exists in a free market. Our school system sucks for the same reason going to the DMV sucks.

Teachers are generally hired on merit, though I grant there are exceptions. To the limited extent that they are fired, I assure you it is either for merit or fit. (The reasons on fit are often idiotic, but nonetheless, based on fit.)

You've got me on the merit piece, though. So... how would you figure out which teacher should get a raise in any given year? On their students' standardized test scores?

The private schools have the free market, though. So, guess what? They pay their teachers less, on average, than the public schools do! Yet, teachers want to work there! (depending on the private school, I can assure you.)

Originally Posted by Humanoid

In general private schools are better, who would pay to go to one instead of a public if they weren't? What you have in mind are degree mills, they aren't trying to provide good education. They aren't even accredited.

Boy, you sure have bought into a bill of goods somebody sold you!

Some folks pay for private schools because they believe the same thing that you do! Others pay because they don't want their kids associating with hoi polloi. Others pay because they do not want their kids around, and prep school is a good way to take care of that. Social class, athletics, or because while the private school might not be better than most public schools, it is better than theirs.

No, I am not talking about diploma mills. I am discussing the Hesser Colleges (NH) of the world, the Alderson-Broadduses (WV), the Wilmington Colleges (OH). They have something to offer, sure. But Plymouth State or Keene State are better than Hesser. UWV is far more competitive than Alderson-Broaddus. And the number of public colleges in OH that are stronger than Wilmington is substantial. They fill a niche, but they are not better than the public institutions.

And yes, they are accredited.

There are ~2500 four year colleges in the United States. 1845 of them are private. Well under half of them are even close to as good as the top 100 public colleges (out of 629). They are less selective, less challenging, and send fewer graduates on to grad school.

Private does not equal better. That's a myth.

[Humanoid]

I'm not sure how a 'science of the mind" that has only theory and no actual work makes it as a science,

Huh? Yes "only theory and no actual work". You know before you make wild claims about a field perhaps you should learn about it first? Just a thought.

So much for 'can't afford to go there." It is far more true of the schools of more modest endowments.

I was speaking generally, obviously depending on the school they will have some sort of programs for kids that can't afford to go. The same is true of private universities. Most can't go to excellent private schools because of funding just as with private universities.

Would you say that Hotchkiss (in Ct.), at $382 Million is significantly better for a girl than Dana Hall (Mass.), at $22 million? I would argue that Hotchkiss is not nearly as good as the Commonwealth School (Boston) or the late, lamented Calasanctius School (Buffalo).

You're asking me about the wrong coast. The only thing I can base matters on is general rankings of these schools, I don't have first hand experience with these schools as I've never spent a lot of time on the east coast.

So, guess what? They pay their teachers less, on average, than the public schools do!

Yeah so? My point was that public schools are over paying some teachers and under paying others. If a good private school can't find a math teacher for $XX.XX/year, they will increase the salary. Where as a public school will find a gym teacher that took a few math classes in college to teach the class instead. The point again is to let the markets determine salaries not arbitrary pay scales.

They fill a niche, but they are not better than the public institutions.

This is all that matters. Also, my claim was NOT that private schools automatically become good schools. In some cases becoming a good school is not the goal, in fact pretty much the opposite. Rather private schools will respond to the markets in a better fashion than public schools namely because their very existence depends on them getting things right. The schools that make the wrong moves go out of business.

Also, the very existence of public schools makes it hard for a general purpose private grade school to exist. Why double pay for your kids education? The result is that the current private schools are niche schools in some sense. If parents could freely choose which schools to send their kids the situation would be much different. But the current school system enforces the particular class system, those on the top don't want low income kids at their schools. All students regardless of socio-economic status need to receive good education. Privatized the education system with regulations and let the free markets roll. Ironically even socialist Europe has an education system that is more in tone with free market economics than ours.

Anyhow, its pretty much to late for this country to fix its educational system. The powers that be won't fix it until its too late.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Huh? Yes "only theory and no actual work". You know before you make wild claims about a field perhaps you should learn about it first? Just a thought.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Humanoid

I was speaking generally, obviously depending on the school they will have some sort of programs for kids that can't afford to go. The same is true of private universities. Most can't go to excellent private schools because of funding just as with private universities.

*sigh* again. You made a statement. I took your statement and disproved it. Now, you wish to change it to a more general statement. Most can't go to excellent private schools because 1) there are fewer of them than you think, and 2) there is just not enough room. The top private schools, as with the top private universities, will take the TOP students and find a way for them to attend. The students who are marginal for those schools may not make it, but the ones the schools and colleges covet get sufficient funding.

Or, again in your words, "before you make wild claims about a field perhaps you should learn about it first? Just a thought."

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You're asking me about the wrong coast. The only thing I can base matters on is general rankings of these schools, I don't have first hand experience with these schools as I've never spent a lot of time on the east coast.

(Insert name of deity of your choice, used as expletive)! General rankings?!

No wonder your defense of these places is what it is.

I asked you what your standards are! Yes, I gave specific examples from east of the Mississippi, but the questions you ducked are:

You say these schools are so good. On what do you base your judgment? In what ways are they superior?

You claim now that you were discussing generalities, but when you said "most people don't know about these high schools as the vast majority could never afford to send their kids there," it seems to me that you had to mean the specific schools, because "the vast majority of people" know that there are excellent private schools out there - or at least schools that people assume are excellent, as you seem to.

So, let me shift costs!

Is the Cate School (CA), at $70 million in endowment, better than Wasatch Academy (UT), or Besant Hill School (CA) both under $5 million?

Is any of them better than the Pacific Collegiate Charter (CA) or Oxford Academy (CA)?

On what basis do you think so - OR on what basis would YOU decide their relative worth. Give me an example of a private secondary school that you think is better than any public school and why you think that.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Yeah so? My point was that public schools are over paying some teachers and under paying others. If a good private school can't find a math teacher for $XX.XX/year, they will increase the salary. Where as a public school will find a gym teacher that took a few math classes in college to teach the class instead. The point again is to let the markets determine salaries not arbitrary pay scales.

1) Bait and switch. "If a good private school..." vs. "a public school..."

The reverse is true, as well. A good public school won't just put the gym teacher in the classroom - and will get a math teacher to teach math. An average private school will often have folks no more qualified in a subject than the average public school does, Humanoid.

Been there, done that, had them for teachers - and for colleagues - in both venues.

2) "Let the markets determine salaries." You keep using the market example and then ignoring it when it is inconvenient. If the MARKET were the sole determinant of where people went, as students or as teachers, then the BETTER teachers would go to the PUBLIC schools, because THEY PAY MORE!!

Josh said: They fill a niche, but they are not better than the public institutions.

Huh?

You are totally changing arguments!!

In general private schools are better, who would pay to go to one instead of a public if they weren't?

and

The best schools in the country are private both at the university level and in grade school.

You explicitly said that private schools are better in general. Now, you are contradicting yourself.

I've disputed both ends of that - the best and the general. I have given you concrete examples. So, now you are saying that "becoming a good school is not the goal, in fact pretty much the opposite."

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Also, the very existence of public schools makes it hard for a general purpose private grade school to exist. Why double pay for your kids education? (snip)

those on the top don't want low income kids at their schools.

And this is the crux of the flaw in your argument, finally.

Why pay double? Because some parents want exclusivity. Yes, there are schools set up to reduce class size or to provide a particular curricular approach. But a huge proportion of private schools exist to serve the somewhat more exclusive part of the population, whether the issue is CLASS or RACE.

The very existence of wealth demands that general purpose private grade schools and boarding schools exist. The very existence of prejudice demands that general purpose private grade schools exist. "To that school we do not go."

Public vs. Private is not a matter of quality of education (which is what you initially asserted, before jumping on the niche concept).

In general, private schools are no better (nor worse) than public schools.

[Humanoid]

On what basis do you think so - OR on what basis would YOU decide their relative worth

I have absolutely no interest in talking about the relative worth of particular schools. Again, I'm looking at general rankings of schools. Looking at a bunch of snobby grade schools isn't even very telling, whether private or public the student body is dramatically different than else hwere.

You are going on and on about private vs public schools, that really isn't my point. Rather I'm talking about the privatization of the school system. Looking at the current selection of private and public schools isn't going to tell you much because your normal family isn't going to double pay for school. They are already paying via their taxes so they send their kids to public. Most the people in the country couldn't afford to put their kids in private schools in the first place. The public school system works just fine when they are in communities with high median incomes. Not only do the schools get more money but the students on average come from more educated parents. The public schools in communities with low to average median incomes are pretty bad, but this makes up the vast majority of public schools.

My point in mentioning current private schools was merely to point out that there are many that are very good. If you don't think the top grade schools in the country are private makes no difference to me. My claim has little to do with this. I'm talking about free market economics and you're talking about snobby grade schools.

So, now you are saying that "becoming a good school is not the goal, in fact pretty much the opposite."

You have to make a distinction between the schools that are trying to provide a good education and the schools that for example are simply indoctrinating kids into a particular religious world view. Not all schools are trying to provide a good education, they have some other goal. There is little point in looking at these schools if you're interested in how free market forces effect the quality of education.

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

I have absolutely no interest in talking about the relative worth of particular schools. Again, I'm looking at general rankings of schools. Looking at a bunch of snobby grade schools isn't even very telling, whether private or public the student body is dramatically different than else hwere.

Humanoid, there is a problem. You are looking at "general rankings" of how much a school's endowment is. That is not a ranking of worth of schools to students, just worth of schools in $$.

Saying "the student body is dramatically different than elsewhere" suggests that what is done in School X is not transferable to School Y - that there are no lessons to be learned from experiments in how to run a school.

The gross irony of that is that you follow it with:
[quote=Humanoid;4948377]
You are going on and on about private vs public schools, that really isn't my point.

YOU made the comparison between public and private.

If it wasn't your point, then why make it and reiterate it?

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Rather I'm talking about the privatization of the school system. Looking at the current selection of private and public schools isn't going to tell you much because your normal family isn't going to double pay for school. They are already paying via their taxes so they send their kids to public. Most the people in the country couldn't afford to put their kids in private schools in the first place. The public school system works just fine when they are in communities with high median incomes. Not only do the schools get more money but the students on average come from more educated parents. The public schools in communities with low to average median incomes are pretty bad, but this makes up the vast majority of public schools.

My point in mentioning current private schools was merely to point out that there are many that are very good. If you don't think the top grade schools in the country are private makes no difference to me. My claim has little to do with this. I'm talking about free market economics and you're talking about snobby grade schools.

1) If the current private schools, market driven as they are, are not better than the public schools, then what is it, exactly, that you think privatization is going to accomplish?

2) If you have no standards of your own for what constitutes a " better" school, then how can you argue that privatization will improve them?

3) Nobody claimed that no private schools are very good. It may have been your point that some are, Humanoid, but that is not what you said! And no, I said nothing about "snobby grade schools."

SNOBBY IS YOUR WORD. I mentioned public and private schools that are very good. When you complained that I was on the wrong coast, I offered schools on the other coast. [i]Why not just say "I am ignorant about the relative merits of individual schools," rather than that crap about the "wrong coast?"

You have already admitted you know nothing about the individual schools! So, how DARE you conclude that they are snobby?!

Effective does not equal snobby.

"before you make wild claims about a field perhaps you should learn about it first? Just a thought."

You have professed ignorance of the schools. Might I suggest that you learn about them before you denigrate them or their students?

Your claims are wild, inaccurate, and ill-considered.

Not to mention hypocritical.