My Take on America's Public School Problem

[qtlaw24]

I was very involved in my local school district for the past 8 years, was a PTA president (only male ever at our elementary school!), board member of our education foundation, and unsuccessfully ran for a school board seat. I also have clients that build and renovate the public schools.

At least in California, one of the major issues appears to be that voters have no problem sinking billions into new shiny schools, but then they balk at providing additional funding for actual teachers, lower class sizes and more actual education time. This monetary cycle sends the wrong message to the parents, the teachers and the students.

One example, a local school is spending over $100M for a new high school through bond money. I grew up next to that school over 40 years ago, and that school is still going to provide a subpar education because there are new walls and athletic facilities but not one more $ for actual teaching or increased curriculum choices. Meanwhile, my kids are fortunate enough to attend a high school that is probably 50+ years old, not crumbling, but not recently renovated, that offers a wide curriculum, from digital design to auto shop to a wide variety of AP courses to engineering. There are a great number of more factors in play, namely socio-economic ones.

My point though is that while people have no problem spending on infrastructure, they balk immediately when it comes to more $$ for actual teaching. Every time I hear of a new school being built or renovated, I think "yeah but the education level is still going to stay the same." I truly wish it were not true.

 

[Ace]

When they build a new school, lots of people make money.

When they pay teachers more, only teachers make more money.

I am a huge proponent of public schools, but, man, what a bunch of battles there are every day to do the right thing.

For the record, I think the only advantage most private schools have is that they can weed out students they don't want.

 

[Songbird]

This stadium cost just 60 million bucks. Nothing could go wrong with a that kind of posh stadium.

$60 Million Texas High School Stadium Deemed Unsafe for Football - NBC News

 

[LongTimeListener]

For the record, I think the only advantage most private schools have is that they can weed out students they don't want.

Charter schools too. They're supposed to let in anyone who wants, but within a week they send half the class back for some "behavioral problem."

We have an interesting situation in California. The private and "elite" public HS students get to their senior years and put in college applications only to find that their 4.0+ and big SAT scores don't help with UC admission because they don't rank highly enough in their own class. It turns out a lot of (perhaps even the majority of) kids would have been better off at their neighborhood school for those purposes.

 

[I Should Coco]

The other issue complicating things, qt, are restrictions on school districts' money. The teachers' salaries and the money to build/maintain school buildings usually are in different budgetary funds, and a surplus in one can't be used for the other.

But I agree with your overall point ... shiny new buildings don't solve all, or even most, of our education problems.

 

[Ace]

Charter schools too. They're supposed to let in anyone who wants, but within a week they send half the class back for some "behavioral problem."

We have an interesting situation in California. The private and "elite" public HS students get to their senior years and put in college applications only to find that their 4.0+ and big SAT scores don't help with UC admission because they don't rank highly enough in their own class. It turns out a lot of (perhaps even the majority of) kids would have been better off at their neighborhood school for those purposes.

Yes. I have heard that in Texas, if you graduate in the top 10 percent of your class, you can automatically get into the University of Texas, and some parents complain that their darlings may not be in the top 10 percent but went to an elite school, etc.

My son went to a public school, but it's a magnet with the math, science, technology kids among the magnets. They don't rank kids in the school. If you had a 3.9 GPA, you would not even be in the top 25 percent because 1/4 of the senior class graduated with 4.0s or better.

If they did rank the class, some of those high achievers would probably keel over dead trying to outdo each other.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Yeah, Ace, here it's 9 percent.

One of the private schools here had 180 of 400 graduates with a 4.0 GPA or better. If a public school did that everyone would think it represented a criminal lack of standards. But since it's a private school it's because those kids are so damn smart!

 

[User 11148]

Yes. I have heard that in Texas, if you graduate in the top 10 percent of your class, you can automatically get into the University of Texas, and some parents complain that their darlings may not be in the top 10 percent but went to an elite school, etc.

It varies slightly from year to year. It was the top 7% this year.

 

[JohnHammond]

Better for the helicopter parents to send their precious little snowflakes to the worst-performing schools and save the cash for private tutoring.

 

[Starman]

When they build a new school, lots of people make money.

When they pay teachers more, only teachers make more money.

I am a huge proponent of public schools, but, man, what a bunch of battles there are every day to do the right thing.

For the record, I think the only advantage most private schools have is that they can weed out students they don't want.

Well, and also that private and charter school kids, the vast majority of the time, have parents who have made an active decision to send the kids there. That helps a lot.

 

[Ace]

Well, and also that private and charter school kids, the vast majority of the time, have parents who have made an active decision to send the kids there. That helps a lot.

True, you are weeding out the kids whose parents aren't involved from the get-g0. That's the biggest problem with public education. So many kids with little support who come in behind at the start.

I think schools do a better job now teaching certain things like Math, Science and Technology plus English. But probably not as well-rounded with shop and automotive classes. That was normal when I went to school.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

Was just talking about this the other day with someone. Looking back, I was very lucky to have had teachers for parents. I started school way ahead of many of my peers in terms of reading level, math skills, etc. While I didn't parlay that into fame and fortune, I know some of those other kids never really caught up. Kids struggling in 1st grade were often the same kids struggling in 12th grade.

Short version: how many people who are gas station cashiers in their 30s came from stable families who take initiative in their kids' education? That transcends socioeconomic factors. I agree we should hire more teachers and pay the better ones more. But I think that's a secondary factor to success.

 

[qtlaw24]

Was just talking about this the other day with someone. Looking back, I was very lucky to have had teachers for parents. I started school way ahead of many of my peers in terms of reading level, math skills, etc. While I didn't parlay that into fame and fortune, I know some of those other kids never really caught up. Kids struggling in 1st grade were often the same kids struggling in 12th grade.

Short version: how many people who are gas station cashiers in their 30s came from stable families who take initiative in their kids' education? That transcends socioeconomic factors. I agree we should hire more teachers and pay the better ones more. But I think that's a secondary factor to success.

I was trying to make that point; people think building more facilities leads to better education and is a substitute for parent involvement, the biggest factor I see in academic success. Sure some find success without parental involvement but that's a huge disadvantage.

I believe that we need to send the signal that society cares about education and we will devote our time and resources to educating them; more classes, less crowding, more instruction seems basic but no people would rather spend $$ on shiny buildings.

 

[old_tony]

Charter schools too. They're supposed to let in anyone who wants, but within a week they send half the class back for some "behavioral problem."

We have an interesting situation in California. The private and "elite" public HS students get to their senior years and put in college applications only to find that their 4.0+ and big SAT scores don't help with UC admission because they don't rank highly enough in their own class. It turns out a lot of (perhaps even the majority of) kids would have been better off at their neighborhood school for those purposes.

Maybe if public schools could and would actually impose discipline on bad-behaving students, some of the other good things would follow.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And maybe a dumbass like yourself could understand that the "behavioral problems" are not behavioral problems at all but a mere inability to score high enough on the test to make the charter school look good.

But I don't expect that much from you.

 

[JohnHammond]

 

[RecoveringDesker]

"America's Public School Problem" has far, far less to do with teacher pay and infrastructure than it does with incompetent parenting. If the kids were easier to teach (i.e., showed up every day well-fed and ready to learn and weren't disciplinary problems), the complaints -- don't get me wrong, I fully believe teachers are underpaid -- about pay would be less because teachers could actually spend all their time teaching and less time trying to fill the roles that parents should be filling.

Throw all the money you want at this problem, but that won't solve it. Ever. Period. A lot of abject morons have become inattentive, uninvolved and uncaring parents. I coach and teach at the high school level and I see this EVERY DAMN DAY.

 

[Starman]

"Throwing more money at it" will solve some problems and won't solve others.

"Cutting funding to the bone" (and beyond) won't solve any of them.

 

[Ace]

Maybe if public schools could and would actually impose discipline on bad-behaving students, some of the other good things would follow.

You mean like employing a dominatrix? I think you're on yo something, T. Would improve attendance for sure.

 

[Starman]

America's Fat**** Loadbag knows how to solve the problem: teachers unions need to be punched in the face.

Chris Christie Said He Thinks Teachers Unions Deserve A Punch In The Face