[68vette]

This argument over money is a part of the problem. Why are we still so focused on money as the fix for a bad education system (I'm not specifically talking about the state of Vermont). The Finnish system is proven (as well as the top 5 systems). They are turning out better students for 30% less money than the average spending/pupil in the US. In Vermont we have one of the highest spending per pupil rates in the country. The US average is $10,615/yr while in Vermont we are paying $15,274/yr. These are numbers from 2010, so I'm sure they are a bit higher now.
Just a recap from my earlier post: Finnish 15-year-olds ranked the best in the world on recent standardized tests focused on science, math, and reading. Yet:
-Finland spends less per student than does Utah ($6,064), which perpetually ranks 51st among U.S. states/territories in per-pupil spending.
-Finnish children don’t start school until age seven.
-Class time is less structured than in most U.S. schools.
-Finnish students have little homework.
-Finnish students have shorter school days
-Their schools offer few extracurricular activities such as sports and social dances.
-There are no programs for the gifted or recognition of high performers.
-Finnish teachers are paid about the same as their American counterparts, although, the country has a higher cost of living.
-Finnish teachers work about 40% less class hours than US teachers do.
-Teachers and the children eat lunch together, which is free to all children.
Sounds like a horrible school system to me. I think I will spend much more for my kids to have a crap education. The system is broken. We kid ourselves that we have a great education system. Anyone who thinks money is the fix is unrealistic. If that was the case our test score in Vermont specifically would be about the best in the world. We are struggling to stay in the top ten in a country that ranks 34th in the world. We have an above average system in a system that really sucks. If Vermont was as progressive as it claims to be, they could lead the rest of the country by changing the system. They don't need to adopt every aspect of the Finnish system. We would have an advantage though. We are a state with many educated people. Require all teachers to have a minimum of a masters degree and those with less education can teach lower grades and in pre-school. Teaching should be a profession that is held in the same regard as physicians. The education and training teachers should have should be the equivalent of of what a physician should have to go through. I know I wouldn't want someone with a bachelors degree and little training operating on me, why should it be any different?

[AmILost]

Originally Posted by 68vette

Require all teachers to have a minimum of a masters degree and those with less education can teach lower grades and in pre-school. Teaching should be a profession that is held in the same regard as physicians. The education and training teachers should have should be the equivalent of of what a physician should have to go through. I know I wouldn't want someone with a bachelors degree and little training operating on me, why should it be any different?

Well, if every teacher needs a masters or higher, then they are all going to need to be paid more.

[DauntlessDan]

Why do they need a Master's? Why do we need our teachers to be the equivalent social workers? Perhaps we are expecting our schools to do too much and not doing enough as parents. How much education do you need to just teach the basics? Teachers are not doctors. You are talking apples and oranges here. I and my son had teachers with bachelor's degrees and we did just fine. Higher educations will demand more money. More money means higher taxes. Higher taxes go back to what I said previously. There has to be another way besides throwing money at the problem.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by tkln

I do agree on the pro's of using income tax, but wouldn't the pool of participants be smaller if it was changed? I'm sure at least half the homeowners in Stowe are not residents - they wouldn't pay an income tax right? Now they pay a higher rate for their property tax but that would be a loss of funds if it was based on income...

I suppose that could be an issue, but far fewer people own property than pay income tax as well so it would balance out. Of course, residents could have no property tax and non-residents have property tax, maybe, but I think we need to get rid of the property taxes before it gets to where a lot of people are facing losing their homes over it. I know people who bought real inexpensive fixer upper homes, and the amount they pay in taxes equals their mortgage payment each month. I've looked at small 10-20 acre lots of land, all assessed at less than $30K, with taxes hovering around $1,000 a year on bare, poorly accessible land. I think this state would be a lot more affordable if property taxes were taken out of the equation. Housing would still be expensive but it would be a big step in the right direction. An income tax for education could be spread around to the poorer school districts to satisfy the courts.

[68vette]

Originally Posted by AmILost

Well, if every teacher needs a masters or higher, then they are all going to need to be paid more.

Why? We have a country with a relatively low cost of living compared to the rest of the world. The successful countries are pulling it off just fine. There can be other incentives outside of pay. If it was about money, why are countries like Finland able to pay the same as here (with a higher cost of living) and they have almost 7000 applicants fighting for just over 400 positions. It is not about pay in Finland. It's about the prestige of the job for one. This article has some insight to what it's about. Your response was exactly what is wrong with this country. Everything revolves around money. If you look back in our history, the US had a great education system. There was respect for teachers, they were not paid large amounts of money and they were the cornerstone.
The Chicago strike is a sickening example of what the education system has come to. It's compensation related, but the key sticking point is how teachers are going to be evaluated. They are worried about losing jobs because of poor performance. I say fire the teachers who can't do the job. They should be ashamed of themselves. 79% of students are not grade proficient in reading and 80% are not grade proficient in math. Lets give them a big raise and protect their jobs.

[AmILost]

Originally Posted by 68vette

Your response was exactly what is wrong with this country. Everything revolves around money.

I was just playing devil's advocate, because you've contradicted yourself. You state that money shouldn't be a part of the discussion, but then go on to say that teachers should be required to have a master's degree. Masters degrees cost a lot of money. Ergo, it's a logical conclusion - NOT MY OPINION - that the teachers would require higher pay under your plan. There's nothing subjective about that statement.

Now, if higher education was FREE, my statement would not be valid. In Finland, it is free. In the U.S., it is not.

[68vette]

Originally Posted by AmILost

I was just playing devil's advocate, because you've contradicted yourself. You state that money shouldn't be a part of the discussion, but then go on to say that teachers should be required to have a master's degree. Masters degrees cost a lot of money. Ergo, it's a logical conclusion - NOT MY OPINION - that the teachers would require higher pay under your plan. There's nothing subjective about that statement.

Now, if higher education was FREE, my statement would not be valid. In Finland, it is free. In the U.S., it is not.

I didn't mean anything against you personally. The Finnish system is free to a degree. 68,000 Finns competed for 18,000 school openings. The cream of the crop get a free pass. They can get a cheap education if they pay though. Masters programs only run about 8,000 euros. This is the way the system has been designed. They put a priority on education. They are still able to fund education and pay for teachers cheaper than we are doing. We are a country of tremendous resources. Even if it cost us the same as we are paying now, we can put students out into the world that can compete. We can't even keep up with third world countries at this point. If you read the linked article it points out very clearly that people are not going into teaching for pay. They are held in the highest regard in their society. Something we used to have.

[sugarmaple]

I think that every school district should have, for example, a TAG program [talented and gifted] and after school programs. I recall, where I used to live, did and when the schools / Bd of Ed / state began to look at narrowing funds, or potentially limiting funds, etc. one particular elementary school [which was always known for its eclectic group of kids and parents] and was always considered a very very stellar elementary school -- parents all together to figure out mechanisms to not only keep that school open, but the after school programs going. Since there were so many Yale -associated parents and thus, many international, the school started an annual International Day event which included different types of foods from the different countries, music, face painting - lots of fun options for the day and of course, open to the entire community - each year the parents raised enough money to continue the after school programs without the need for any funding whatsoever.

Some interesting thoughts have been included in this conversation -- I remember when I was back in school, both elementary and junior high school [public schools], our teachers taught. There was a guidance counselor; school nurse, principal -- but the teachers did their jobs. And, the parents were involved with their kids' education - attending teacher-parent conferences; homework -- parents seemed to be more involved with their children and their childrens' education perhaps more than I hear now. I do not know if it is because more parents are working rather than a parent staying home.

Never in a million years would I ever think that I would say - I think the dress code, or lack thereof, has an affect on both teachers and students. I do. I think it is too casual to go to school in jeans [referring to teachers] and kids wearing minimal clothes. I think it is almost a subliminal thing - sort of insinuates that both teaching and teachers does not have to be a well-respected arena. Many may not agree with me and that's okay too. I think, if there is going to be any casualness, let it be in high school and/or college - not so much elementary school. I think the basic foundation of respect, importance of education, etc. is established then.

The teachers I learned the most from [and still remember] were those teachers who established boundaries, expressed their expectations and yet,were incredibly fair.

I think there are certainly some teachers who are better than others but that is not to say they don't care about education because for the most part I believe they do, I think some of the very basics have not been illustrated to them.



And sometimes, I think that some parents do expect the schools and teachers to play a greater role in the handling of, overseeing of their own children which negates the job of a teacher - to educate.

This is not meant as a critique for / against teachers - but rather an opinion re: getting education w/some of these changes could potentially help to defray some of the other costs that ultimately end up affecting us w/our taxes.

Yikes! Waiting for the disagreements...

[quickdraw]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

$3800 in state taxes - on TOP of Federal taxes?? On the wages paid up there? Ouch!! Even with sales tax on food, I doubt the average Joe pays a quarter of that figure in Alabama - total.

the key word being alabama...or Mississippi...or west virginia

[DauntlessDan]

www.247wallst.com/2011/04/05/the-ten-states-with-the-worst-property-taxes/3/

Take a look at this for property taxes. Vermont is number 3.