Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box

Voice of Reason, another great post. Check this link out:
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/pubilspending+revenue.htm

Then, do the math to see what privatization could really do. It adds great power to arguments to have facts on your side. For example, in Michigan where I reside, the per pupil spending is $9,072. That means if a teacher could have a private class of just 15 students and collect revenue directly instead of through the bureaucracy, they'd be able to make over $136,000 per year. And that is assuming that they only have 15 kids per class. Isn't that better than the average salary of $20,000 per year and 40 kid classrooms?

Then, leave it to the teachers to determine how they will diversify the education they offer. Say, they band together with music, science, math teachers etc and each pays 10% of their salary to have a building in common. Another 10% could go to learning materials. Congrats! A school with excellent teacher, 15 kids per class and teachers making over $100,000 per year.

Leftists: What's so bad about that?

.. for providing that useful link.

The numbers make a very clear case, indeed. But for the stunting effect of a Govt-monopoly, there would be schools just as you suggested in our neighborhoods.

And they would find ways to reduce the costs, while continuously improving quality. If anyone has doubts, they should compare the delivery mechanism of food (arguably more important than education for our survival) to neighborhood grocery stores. Can you imagine what might have happened if we had decided that only the Govt could produce and deliver food in an equitable manner.

I am struck by:
* the enormity of the blunder that we (as a nation) made when we opted for Govt education

* the fact that so many generations have gone through the existing system without INSISTING on change.

* how deeply we are entrenched in the status-quo. Most people (including conservatives) cannot see the alternatives to public schools.

* the fact that the only positive steps that are being suggested are 'band aids' such as vouchers. For the record: I don't disagree with vouchers; I see them as a small but necessary step.

Don't know if you are aware, but Utah finally passed a school choice plan that is the most impressive yet.
http://www.ij.org/schoolchoice/other-news/utah-2_12_07pr.html

Check out that link in my previous post, and you'll see that Utah is LAST on the list for per pupil spending. However, they still manage to have very high test scores when compared to national averages. I attribute that to the family influence in that state... but I digress.

If school choice really would help, what better place to see the effects than that state which spends the least per student? The experiment has started, I believe the results will be quite astounding. And once it works there, it will catch on like wildfire.

1st I have posted several times on the report and its practicality here:
http://www.ednews.org/community/showthread.php?t=38

There are also more posts than one would probably want to read
on teachers' salaries, at ednews, here:
http://www.ednews.org/community/showthread.php?t=15
Many agree vehemently with Voice of Reason.

One of the aspects of the report that needs to be mentioned is
that it urges schools to extend the school year to 200 days -
in Boston where it is widely reported that charter schools do
better than public non-charter schools EVERY charter school
either has a longer school day or year. This increase in days
would be about a 11% increase in salary based on per diem.

Libertybob, what you need to think about in per student totals
is that:

1) not all the money goes to teachers (you've got nurses,
aides, lunch ladies, security guards, coaches, administrators, etc.)

2) the majority of special education students go to public schools,
more than 88%, and nearly all of physically handicapped students
go to public schools, something like 98% of such students go
to public schools.

3) Special ed students cost more than regular ed students. In MA
a regular ed student costs something like $6,600 and the average
special ed student is something like $14,000 with some severe
individual cases in sped costing $150,000 for their services.

So, my point, is that the math doesn't work the way you're using
it.

Utah is not known for their great test scores, but they are known
for getting the most bang for the buck. Check out the teachability
index on Manhatan Institute's site:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cci.htm

Btw, they have a report on teacher's wages on the site - 1st report.
This report has been challenged and rebutted:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/february-0207/measuring-a-teacher2019s-worth
http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/epru_2007_thinktankreview.htm

For what it's worth, I am for public school choice.

I am also for differentiated pay for different fields - science, math,
foreign language teachers should be paid more than others.

I am also for the transferability of tenure or professional status
for teachers, so they could move from district to district w/o
losing their tenure. This would make districts compete to get
and retain the best teachers.

Lastly, the main point of the College Board's report is that we need
to make teaching a "PREFERRED" PROFESSION. And money seems to
be the deciding factor for many people, for instance teachers
from the Teach For America are not likely to stay in teaching.
Methinks more would if there was a bigger paycheck at the end of
the week and throughout their career.

Everyone,
I tend to agree with your analysis, but I'll respond to your numbered rebutes thusly:

You claim that the money is spread differently on things like nurses, cooks, special ed. Well, if a school under my plan wanted to hire a nurse or school chef as a means of attracting more students, they would be free to do so. Some may wish to have students bring a lunch from home and hire another science teacher. That's the beauty of the freedom I'm proposing.

The extra money on special ed students would still work. First of all, they are a small percentage, so the effects on overall student spending are minimal. And, for those teachers who can teach special ed, they could collect a fee requisite with their skills.

But as long as you are for school choice, I've got no quibble with you!

Don't agree with me too soon -
I am for PUBLIC school choice.

No nurse? You can't be serious. I know even some work places
require a nurse (found this out over vacation from an emt who
worked at a Honda plant)
The no cook / lunch ladies might work in high income districts
(where they would probably for them) and be a very bad idea
in low income (free lunch) districts.
A loss of guidance counselors would be penny wise and pound
foolish.
I also think losing art, music, gym (the extras) would be a
travesty and are already missing in too many places.

Requiring gym for athletes as many schools do is unnecessary.
And I've often thought health classes could be taught in one or
two class sessions, no need for 1 or 4 semesters.

I believe the special ed. population is about 18% in my state.
So, they are a sizable minority.

I'm not sure it is still true, but I have often been told that
spending on special ed is the only thing that has increased
in real dollars in education. This was from 1971-95.
Sorry no stats or reports off hand to back this up.
When I get I'll post.

Now what we can all agree on is that many of these
students are probably wrongly identified as sped
when as you said before its probably poor parenting that
leads to many of the ADD / ADHD filings. Few boundaries
at home leads to a kid who doesn't sit or follow orders well.

All that said, what are some of the aspects of your plan.
Would teachers be independent contractors?
I take it there would still be schools?
I'd be interested in knowing.

EOF's
In answer to your post, that is exactly the point. Parents like you may want a school nurse. I could care less as long as my kid learns science and math. No lunch provided? Fine, I'll send a sack lunch, which is probably healthier anyways. No Gym class? I don't care, I'll just turn the TV off and make them play football or something.

The point is not that those things are inherently good or bad. But I send my kid to school for one reason only: to learn. As long as I am paying taxes for public school, and as long as its a crime to not send your kid to school, I just want the freedom to choose which one without having to be burdened financially. (How is it leftists are for the poor in every issue but this?)

The basic premise behind this idea is that parents should choose which schools their kids should go to. Even siblings of the same family may go to different schools, depending on their individual differences. The schools would be run by a union of teachers (think shareholders, not teachers unions) who own the school and collect the voucher money. Their decisions financially and so forth are what determine their income. Some teachers may band together and form a school, and use their collective money to hire nurses, gym teachers, music, etc. They would have to allocate those resources to get the money. And rather than each school being required to provide all of them at a sub-standard level, they could specialize much the way charter schools do now. Have pre-college schools, trade schools, art schools, etc. Some teachers may hold their own classes alone and simply lease a building to do so (although this is only more likely in k-6th grades...)

Frankly, I bet there are people more innovative than me out there who make the most out of what they have. But I have the money (a voucher) let them woo me for business the same way the car companies or a plumber does. I'll hire the best person or school to get the job done.