This Election is getting good!

[shortski]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

[shortski]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

Duh, yes.

According to the Census Bureau, since 1960, the average class size in our public schools has declined by 40 percent as the number of teachers rose almost four times faster than the student population.

In 1960, there were 1.4 million public school teachers educating 36.3 million primary and secondary students. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 25.8 pupils.

In 2009, there were 3.2 million teachers - a 129 percent rise - educating 49.3 million students - a 36 percent rise. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 15.6 students.

You read that correctly: despite all the media carping and whining, average class size in this country has dropped by over ten students or 40 percent in the last 50 years.

I graduated in 1966 and I know from dealing with people educated in the public school system that the reduced class size has not resulted in a better education. The teachers union has a symbiotic relationship with the government when it comes to education and programs or policies directed to education.. I'm not sure one would survive without the other.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

Duh, yes.

According to the Census Bureau, since 1960, the average class size in our public schools has declined by 40 percent as the number of teachers rose almost four times faster than the student population.

In 1960, there were 1.4 million public school teachers educating 36.3 million primary and secondary students. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 25.8 pupils.

In 2009, there were 3.2 million teachers - a 129 percent rise - educating 49.3 million students - a 36 percent rise. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 15.6 students.

You read that correctly: despite all the media carping and whining, average class size in this country has dropped by over ten students or 40 percent in the last 50 years.

I graduated in 1966 and I know from dealing with people educated in the public school system that the reduced class size has not resulted in a better education. The teachers union has a symbiotic relationship with the government when it comes to education and programs or policies directed to education.. I'm not sure one would survive without the other.

I won't start talking about how schools have changed .... there are teachers for those with various level of learning disabilities, co-teaching, teachers that are bi-lingual, special ed teachers, etc. Some of these things didn't exist in the 60's.

Anyway ... what does your post have to do with federal aid?

[2knees]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

Duh, yes.

According to the Census Bureau, since 1960, the average class size in our public schools has declined by 40 percent as the number of teachers rose almost four times faster than the student population.

In 1960, there were 1.4 million public school teachers educating 36.3 million primary and secondary students. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 25.8 pupils.

In 2009, there were 3.2 million teachers - a 129 percent rise - educating 49.3 million students - a 36 percent rise. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 15.6 students.

You read that correctly: despite all the media carping and whining, average class size in this country has dropped by over ten students or 40 percent in the last 50 years.

I graduated in 1966 and I know from dealing with people educated in the public school system that the reduced class size has not resulted in a better education. The teachers union has a symbiotic relationship with the government when it comes to education and programs or policies directed to education.. I'm not sure one would survive without the other.

There are a bunch of crotchety old farts in my town. Sound just like you. Thankfully we passed the last education budget in spite of their hatred of anything that doesn't fit their ancient misguided views.

[steamboat1]

Do you have special teachers for kids who pee in their pants?

[2knees]

No. And just because you wear depends doesn't mean you can come here and get your G.E.D.

[Bubba]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

Duh, yes.

According to the Census Bureau, since 1960, the average class size in our public schools has declined by 40 percent as the number of teachers rose almost four times faster than the student population.

In 1960, there were 1.4 million public school teachers educating 36.3 million primary and secondary students. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 25.8 pupils.

In 2009, there were 3.2 million teachers - a 129 percent rise - educating 49.3 million students - a 36 percent rise. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 15.6 students.

You read that correctly: despite all the media carping and whining, average class size in this country has dropped by over ten students or 40 percent in the last 50 years.

I graduated in 1966 and I know from dealing with people educated in the public school system that the reduced class size has not resulted in a better education. The teachers union has a symbiotic relationship with the government when it comes to education and programs or policies directed to education.. I'm not sure one would survive without the other.

I won't start talking about how schools have changed .... there are teachers for those with various level of learning disabilities, co-teaching, teachers that are bi-lingual, special ed teachers, etc. Some of these things didn't exist in the 60's.

Anyway ... what does your post have to do with federal aid?

There are a number of problems with schools and teaching today.

1. Too many schools drop any kids with behavioral problems into special ed or other programs.
2. Many schools now deal with even relatively minor behavioral problems by sending the kid to the school nurse who then sends them to the doctor for a Ritalin (or other) prescription.
3. Too many teachers come out of college with degrees in education rather than degrees in subject matter. They learned education theory and lots of different methods but most of them never learned a subject in depth nor did they learn how to teach. And, at least in my opinion, a lot of the theory turned out to be nonsense.

On the other hand, schools today serve not only to teach but also take on other responsibilities. They feed poorer kids what, for some, is their main meal of the day. More kids come from divorced families, families with two working parents where nobody is home when the kids get out of school, etc. and the schools see many more of the products of these homes. Schools reflect the problems of society as much as or more so than anywhere else.

As for class sizes, my classes in NYC were never less than 30 kids per class. Being a baby boomer, our schools were overcrowded and had double and even triple sessions to spread kids out over the day. I'm not saying it was the best learning environment but we didn't, at least obviously, suffer educationally as a result.

My mother was a NYC high school teacher and walked the picket lines on the first strike (illegal, I might add) the teachers ever had and didn't know whether she would be fired or not. The union back then was a necessity. But, teachers unions there and throughout the country became much too powerful and now often serve to prevent necessary changes rather than do what is best for the children.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The reason the academics want Obama is they know the Republicans will want accountability from the educators receiving Federal aid. We all know the unions don't want to even talk about accountability.

... you think school districts get federal aid just because?

Duh, yes.

According to the Census Bureau, since 1960, the average class size in our public schools has declined by 40 percent as the number of teachers rose almost four times faster than the student population.

In 1960, there were 1.4 million public school teachers educating 36.3 million primary and secondary students. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 25.8 pupils.

In 2009, there were 3.2 million teachers - a 129 percent rise - educating 49.3 million students - a 36 percent rise. This represented a ratio of one teacher per 15.6 students.

You read that correctly: despite all the media carping and whining, average class size in this country has dropped by over ten students or 40 percent in the last 50 years.

I graduated in 1966 and I know from dealing with people educated in the public school system that the reduced class size has not resulted in a better education. The teachers union has a symbiotic relationship with the government when it comes to education and programs or policies directed to education.. I'm not sure one would survive without the other.

I won't start talking about how schools have changed .... there are teachers for those with various level of learning disabilities, co-teaching, teachers that are bi-lingual, special ed teachers, etc. Some of these things didn't exist in the 60's.

Anyway ... what does your post have to do with federal aid?

There are a number of problems with schools and teaching today.

1. Too many schools drop any kids with behavioral problems into special ed or other programs.
2. Many schools now deal with even relatively minor behavioral problems by sending the kid to the school nurse who then sends them to the doctor for a Ritalin (or other) prescription.
3. Too many teachers come out of college with degrees in education rather than degrees in subject matter. They learned education theory and lots of different methods but most of them never learned a subject in depth nor did they learn how to teach. And, at least in my opinion, a lot of the theory turned out to be nonsense.

On the other hand, schools today serve not only to teach but also take on other responsibilities. They feed poorer kids what, for some, is their main meal of the day. More kids come from divorced families, families with two working parents where nobody is home when the kids get out of school, etc. and the schools see many more of the products of these homes. Schools reflect the problems of society as much as or more so than anywhere else.

As for class sizes, my classes in NYC were never less than 30 kids per class. Being a baby boomer, our schools were overcrowded and had double and even triple sessions to spread kids out over the day. I'm not saying it was the best learning environment but we didn't, at least obviously, suffer educationally as a result.

My mother was a NYC high school teacher and walked the picket lines on the first strike (illegal, I might add) the teachers ever had and didn't know whether she would be fired or not. The union back then was a necessity. But, teachers unions there and throughout the country became much too powerful and now often serve to prevent necessary changes rather than do what is best for the children.

Just to add a few points:

1 - Schools can't simply "drop" kids into anything. Everything is tracked, vetted, reviewed, discussed with parents, etc before any kid is moved into special education or a class that teaches to a group of students with learning challenges. Sometimes, the parents even lead these types of discussions.
2 - What are you talking about? Schools send kids to the nurse for Ritalin? My guess is you're not familiar with the process from behavioral problem to medication. It's a lengthy process that typically involves counselors (inside and outside the school), doctors, psychologists, and parents before prescriptions are written. As in #1, sometimes parents are pushing for these medications.
3 - How many teachers major in education versus subject matter? Where do you find this information? I think some teachers want to teach more, but are subject to established teaching plans published by the state. They're also subject to teaching subject matter that will enable students to pass a standardized test (the same test many districts are pushing to measure teacher performance). I don't see this as the teachers fault - their hands are tied.

[Bubba]

1. Everything is tracked, vetted, etc. and discussions held with parents, yet we've seen an explosion of special ed over the past 20 years. Are that many more kids "special"? If so, why?

2. Of course the schools don't prescribe Ritalin, etc. but every year in September and October you'll find an awful lot of kids going to their pediatricians for prescriptions on the recommendation of the school nurse.

3. I don't know how many major in education vs. subject matter but education majors are relatively new, a product of the 1960s. I took one education course in college and we had open book tests. The class was a joke. I've heard the same thing from others - anectodal evidence for sure but a consistent trend. It's also (possibly) too easy to get a teaching license. The year my mother got her teaching degree at Columbia Teacher's College following her BA in history at Hunter, only 4 people passed the NYC HS teachers' exam and got licenses, my mom being one of them. That suggests to me that standards were either too high, they only had a few openings (it was still the depression) or both. Standards changed in the Vietnam era when a lot of men went into teaching to avoid the draft and because schools wanted more male teachers as role models. What the standards are today I don't know but since I hear about the need for teachers I have to assume that there's a lot of leeway in licensing.

[Geoff]

1. Everything is tracked, vetted, etc. and discussions held with parents, yet we've seen an explosion of special ed over the past 20 years. Are that many more kids "special"? If so, why?

The problem is that Federal and State mandates for Special Education have drained money away from general education budgets. If you can't get your kid declared "special", they get short-changed. It's easy enough to get some pediatrician to declare your perfectly normal active kid ADHD to qualify for the money.

3. I don't know how many major in education vs. subject matter but education majors are relatively new, a product of the 1960s. I took one education course in college and we had open book tests. The class was a joke. I've heard the same thing from others - anectodal evidence for sure but a consistent trend. It's also (possibly) too easy to get a teaching license. The year my mother got her teaching degree at Columbia Teacher's College following her BA in history at Hunter, only 4 people passed the NYC HS teachers' exam and got licenses, my mom being one of them. That suggests to me that standards were either too high, they only had a few openings (it was still the depression) or both. Standards changed in the Vietnam era when a lot of men went into teaching to avoid the draft and because schools wanted more male teachers as role models. What the standards are today I don't know but since I hear about the need for teachers I have to assume that there's a lot of leeway in licensing.

I think there is a need for teachers in poor urban areas where it's "combat pay" and in parts of the country where teachers are poorly compensated. In a gold-plated Northeastern suburb where public teachers are well compensated and most parents are engaged enough to make sure their kids are attentive in class, there is no shortage of teachers. In the top-10 states, average teacher salary is in the $60's to low $70's and starting salaries are high enough to attract recent grad education majors. In the bottom-10 states, average teacher salary is in the mid-$40's and starting pay won't fund paying school loans, a car payment, and rent.

[madhatter]

1. Everything is tracked, vetted, etc. and discussions held with parents, yet we've seen an explosion of special ed over the past 20 years. Are that many more kids "special"? If so, why?

The problem is that Federal and State mandates for Special Education have drained money away from general education budgets. If you can't get your kid declared "special", they get short-changed. It's easy enough to get some pediatrician to declare your perfectly normal active kid ADHD to qualify for the money.

3. I don't know how many major in education vs. subject matter but education majors are relatively new, a product of the 1960s. I took one education course in college and we had open book tests. The class was a joke. I've heard the same thing from others - anectodal evidence for sure but a consistent trend. It's also (possibly) too easy to get a teaching license. The year my mother got her teaching degree at Columbia Teacher's College following her BA in history at Hunter, only 4 people passed the NYC HS teachers' exam and got licenses, my mom being one of them. That suggests to me that standards were either too high, they only had a few openings (it was still the depression) or both. Standards changed in the Vietnam era when a lot of men went into teaching to avoid the draft and because schools wanted more male teachers as role models. What the standards are today I don't know but since I hear about the need for teachers I have to assume that there's a lot of leeway in licensing.

I think there is a need for teachers in poor urban areas where it's "combat pay" and in parts of the country where teachers are poorly compensated. In a gold-plated Northeastern suburb where public teachers are well compensated and most parents are engaged enough to make sure their kids are attentive in class, there is no shortage of teachers. In the top-10 states, average teacher salary is in the $60's to low $70's and starting salaries are high enough to attract recent grad education majors. In the bottom-10 states, average teacher salary is in the mid-$40's and starting pay won't fund paying school loans, a car payment, and rent.

I personally know a phys ed teacher in CT who makes over 90k.

[BadDog]

3 - How many teachers major in education versus subject matter? Where do you find this information? I think some teachers want to teach more, but are subject to established teaching plans published by the state. They're also subject to teaching subject matter that will enable students to pass a standardized test (the same test many districts are pushing to measure teacher performance). I don't see this as the teachers fault - their hands are tied.

Well, Bubba's point is somewhat true, at least in NYC, but not necessarily because teachers want to major in education but because in a post-Giuliani NYC they have to major in education. My sister, with a undergraduate degree in English from Barnard and a graduate degree in English from Columbia University, wanted to go into teaching public elementary schools in NYC after returning from a rewarding two years teaching English to Japanese elementary school children. (She also had experience teaching ESL to adults both in the Riveside program and at Nassasu Community College). But she was not allowed to teach elementary school unless she went back and got another graduate degree, this time in education. I have always thought this was crazy.

The biggest obstacles facing NYC teachers right now are the mis-guided and harmful "No child Left Behind" act and the wrong-headed, ignorant, education as widget based policies of Giuliani and Bloomberg.

[madhatter]

3 - How many teachers major in education versus subject matter? Where do you find this information? I think some teachers want to teach more, but are subject to established teaching plans published by the state. They're also subject to teaching subject matter that will enable students to pass a standardized test (the same test many districts are pushing to measure teacher performance). I don't see this as the teachers fault - their hands are tied.

Well, Bubba's point is somewhat true, at least in NYC, but not necessarily because teachers want to major in education but because in a post-Giuliani NYC they have to major in education. My sister, with a undergraduate degree in English from Barnard and a graduate degree in English from Columbia University, wanted to go into teaching public elementary schools in NYC after returning from a rewarding two years teaching English to Japanese elementary school children. (She also had experience teaching ESL to adults both in the Riveside program and at Nassasu Community College). But she was not allowed to teach elementary school unless she went back and got another graduate degree, this time in education. I have always thought this was crazy.

The biggest obstacles facing NYC teachers right now are the mis-guided and harmful "No child Left Behind" act and the wrong-headed, ignorant, education as widget based policies of Giuliani and Bloomberg.

in other words the govt and its interference, regulations, and self perpetuating educational requirements. A voucher system would resolve nearly all of that.

[BadDog]

in other words the govt and its interference, regulations, and self perpetuating educational requirements. A voucher system would resolve nearly all of that.

In other words, the weakening of the unions to bargain with the government to produce the best results. A voucher system would resolve nearly all that to produce a truly ignorant population.