Problems with the school system

[pdx39]

Here is an article a friend sent me. Parents take heed.

A Child Left Behind: Johnny's Story

By Arianna Huffington

Ecstatic hosannas were being sung in Washington as the new education bill emerged from a House-Senate negotiating committee Tuesday. You'd think Christmas had come two weeks early.

In the great Capitol Hill tradition of giving bills grandiloquent names, this one has been christened the No Child Left Behind Act. Sadly, it's yet another case of Congressional false advertising -- a lump of coal wrapped in shiny tinsel.

To show how misleading the self-serving moniker is, let's take a look at how the legislation would actually impact one of those kids it's supposed to rescue. Let's call him Johnny, a poor black first-grader at Lousy Elementary in South Central Los Angeles.

The centerpiece of the new bill is its requirement that all children in grades three through eight be tested annually in reading and math. In the name of parental empowerment, it also requires that parents be given a report charting the progress of their child's school. So Johnny's parents learn that the school has failed to adequately teach its students.

The good news is that the new bill offers parents of children attending failing schools the chance to move their kids to a better public school. The bad news is a school has to fail for two years straight before this option kicks in, so Johnny's folks will have to let him languish in a substandard school while they wait and see if the school can "turn things around."

This is like a doctor telling you that you have cancer but you can't start chemo for two years. The school may have two years to waste but Johnny doesn't.

Without any other choice, Johnny's parents cross their fingers. Who knows, maybe the school will improve. Maybe the cancer will go away. After all, the new bill requires states to have a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom. But it doesn't spell out how that admirable goal is going to be achieved. As it is, 14 percent of California's teachers are uncredentialed. And the numbers are even grimmer in neighborhoods like Johnny's, where students are five times more likely to have underqualified teachers.

Johnny and his folks grit their teeth and tough it out for another year. At the end, they are given another failing report: The school still stinks. Johnny's parents are extremely concerned. But at least now, thanks to the new act, they can leave Lousy Elementary and enroll Johnny in a better school. That is, if there's room at this better school. Which there isn't. Schools in California are bursting at the seams.

Indeed, it will cost $30 billion to build all the schools the state needs to properly house its students. Compare this to the bill's total price tag of $22 billion, and you see how ludicrous the claims being made in Washington are. Parental choice is meaningless if parents don't actually have any schools to choose from.

So, for Johnny, it's back to Lousy for yet another year. And, once again, the school fails to meet its academic goals. But all is not lost. After a student has been in a failing school for three years, the No Child Left Behind Act makes federal money available to the child's parents for "supplemental education services" such as private tutoring. The idea, I guess, is: "If our schools can't teach your kids, maybe you can find somebody who can."

Failing students in California will be given $800 a year for a private tutor. At current rates, Johnny will only be able to see his tutor less than once a week -- hardly enough to make a serious impact. But he gives it his best shot.

Another year passes. Johnny is now at the end of fifth grade, and all remedial avenues provided by the new bill have proven to be dead ends. But the bill does call for him to keep being tested and tested and tested again so that each year Johnny and his parents will be painfully reminded just how badly he's failing -- and being failed.

And that's pretty much the extent of the difference the No Child Left Behind Act will have on the lives of Johnny and the millions like him.

But at least the Washington establishment can head home for the holidays, satisfied that they've "done" education.

 

[modest mouse]

Ms. Huffington has always been a windbag, volunteering criticism but never taking a stand, never offering an opinion unless its derisive of someone elses idea.

Education is a big problem, I look forward to Ms Huffington's ideas.

 

[morninggirl5]

Interesting copy and paste pdx. So now what do you advise parents to do?

Care to offer some insight on what the education bill offers and how it can be used to help schools?

No, you just want to criticize and walk away from the situation. I thought so.

If you really want to discuss education and what it's like for students, there are several teachers here who would be happy to do so.

You want to discuss the implications this bill has for students, I'd be very interested in doing so. Since I haven't seen the actual provisions of the bill, I'm not sure anyone can say with any accuracy what it means for students. I do know that it's better than doing nothing, although the answer to education doesn't lie in Washington, it lies in individual school, college teacher ed departments and ultimately in the public's perception of teaching as a profession.

 

[Poverkhnost]

Morningirl raises an excellent point that the solution to the education problem needs to be made by individual districts, teachers and parents. Money can be offered by the federal government, but the solutions can't be made in such a broad manner. I think that it's a good idea to offer standards, but the real solutions need to be made by districts and individual states who know EXACTLY what their needs are. If California needs schools built, great, then build them but we can't expect the federal government to put that into legislation because another state or district may have a different need. Education has to be fixed on the local level, but I see no problem with standards on absolutely basic skills being enforced on the federal level to induce these standards.

 

[Texan]

morninggirl.... I absolutely KNEW you would post to this thread. I know and respect your passion when it comes to education.

Proverkhost.... (damn that's hard to spell)... after only 5 posts, I can already tell I'm going to enjoy your posts. We think a lot alike. Must be a Texas thing.

Mr. Duck.... You seem to take a negative view of anything the government and especially Bush does. That's your right. But after reading Ms. Huffington's story (and I agree with Modest's assesment of Ms. Huffington) I am left with one overriding question.

What would poor little Johnny's plight be without the new education bill? There would be NO review of the capabilities of his school. There would be NO revenue provided to the failing school to improve its efforts. And there would be NO money available for Johnny's parents to at least try to find tutorial help for Johnny. So poor little Johnny would be stuck in a failing school receiving failing grades with no hope for ANY improvement.

But hey.... just because the entire taxpaying nation does not immediately pick up a suburban school and move it.... book, chalk and teachers..... to Johnny's neighborhood, then whatever the government tries to do, is not good enough for you and Ms Huffington.

just a thought..... take care

 

[Poverkhnost]

Texan: Thanks for the welcome and sorr that my name is so unusual for you.

It seems that despite what goes on in politics we all understand that any action on the part of the government might be better than nothing. It's also important to note that Bush wanted to give vouchers to any parents, but the reason for the time and other contraints was because it was unpopular. My father is a teacher and so I understand what the education lobbies have against the idea, but with better results the problem would be avoided.

Also, we can't overlook the option of providing better pay and training to teachers...something that could help the qualification problem along with the problem of keeping good teachers.

 

[Guest]

A few solutions

Interesting copy and paste pdx. So now what do you advise parents to do?

Care to offer some insight on what the education bill offers and how it can be used to help schools?

No, you just want to criticize and walk away from the situation. I thought so.

I am in favor of smaller classroom sizes, higher teacher pay, Head start programs, newer books, teacher certification, programs to help at-risk children, and computers in most classrooms. New schools should be built where they are needed.

This could be paid for by progressive income taxes and progressive property taxes that make large corporations and the super rich pay a higher percentage than the working poor and lower middle class do.

Then we could stop funding our school system by turning people into compulsive gamblers with State sponsered video poker.

 

[pdx39]

Once again

The above post was by me...fourth time this unregistered crap has happened.

 

[Texan]

Re: A few solutions

I am in favor of smaller classroom sizes, higher teacher pay, Head start programs, newer books, teacher certification, programs to help at-risk children, and computers in most classrooms. New schools should be built where they are needed.

This could be paid for by progressive income taxes and progressive property taxes that make large corporations and the super rich pay a higher percentage than the working poor and lower middle class do.

Then we could stop funding our school system by turning people into compulsive gamblers with State sponsered video poker.

I can't resist.

I'm not going to aruge the list of things you "favor". All those things sound good, but those are decisions for LOCAL school districts to make. AND those are tax vs. benefit decisions for the LOCAL population.

You want to pay for your list through "progressive" income taxes and "progressive" property taxes. I think your word "progressive" means HIGHER. Let me ask a question. Exactly what percentage of a "super rich" person's income should they pay in taxes???? Currently, the top 5% of income earners are paying 44% of the national tax burden. (stats from my brand new copy of Turbo Tax 2001). The top 1% are paying 21% of the total tax burden. The bottom 31% of wage earners pay NO federal income taxes at all. (That was the bottom 24% until Bush's new tax bill was passed.)

Now, just what have you got against people who have worked hard... invested the years necessary to get a good education.... and taken the financial risks often required to become one of those "super rich" people? Most "rich" people don't inherit it from their parents. Between inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes on investment income, it's not easy to inherit a fortune.

Maybe it's just those terrible corporations that you don't like. Corporations that currently pay over 70% of all property taxes in metropolitan areas. Corporations that have over 100 employees currently provide 46% of the jobs in this country. Mostly good jobs..... like mine! Corporations that provided over 50% of the disaster relief money to victims of 9/11. By the way, by their very nature, Corporations are owned by ordinary people. Money from 401K's and pension plans are major owners of stock in all those terrible corporations you want to tax so heavily.

I'm not going to debate the gambling issue. I have mixed feelings on that issue myself. But I do know that if the gambling is stopped, it will add an even heavier tax burden on people.... especially certain native american tribes.

EOR....

I should probably proof read this.... but what the hell...where's that Submit button?

take care

 

[Poverkhnost]

Socialism is a terrible thing put into practice and a definitely not feasible. The idea of "progressive" taxes is just another socialist idea disguised. Progressive taxes are fine to get money, but they do provide a disincentive for producing and creating...this is fact and proof is abundant.

As for the points about smaller classrooms, etc...that's great. These are wonderful ideas and I support all of them. How they should be paid is not an issue (are there really any) that can be solved with a too broadly applied solution. Each community and school district needs to decide exactly what they want to do and how they want to pay for it, not have overzealous people from other parts of the country legislating to them.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: A few solutions

I am in favor of smaller classroom sizes, higher teacher pay, Head start programs, newer books, teacher certification, programs to help at-risk children, and computers in most classrooms. New schools should be built where they are needed.

This could be paid for by progressive income taxes and progressive property taxes that make large corporations and the super rich pay a higher percentage than the working poor and lower middle class do.

Then we could stop funding our school system by turning people into compulsive gamblers with State sponsered video poker.

Most of the things you are in favor of require one thing that is already in short supply. Not money, but teachers. There is currently a tremendous teacher shortage in this country and it's not going to get better. Teachers are not viewed as professionals by most of the general public and that lack of respect is transmitted to students and parents. Go to a high school and talk with the honors students, how many of them want to be teachers? Very, very few. Those that do will be told by their parents, guidance counselors, and college admissions advisors that they should go into another field, don't waste their talents in education.

Computers in the classroom sounds nice. I have two in my classroom right now. With low class-sizes at my school (less than 18 in all classes, 15 in most) that's a good ratio. Do my students use the computers everyday? Not even close. I'm struggling to fit in the required content in Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, and Health. Oh wait, there's also Character Education, Drug Awareness, and Art that I'm responsible for teaching. The school day hasn't increased in over 30 years, nor has the number of days of attendance, but the curriculum has expanded a lot.

You may ask how my school has low class-sizes. It's because we have a federal grant and were able to get permission to use our federal dollars according to the needs of the school. Our money isn't tied to federal restrictions as long as we show improvement in student achievement. Guess what, that federal education bill you don't like so much gives more schools and school systems the same power my school has now.

 

[Poverkhnost]

"I'm struggling to fit in the required content in Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, and Health. Oh wait, there's also Character Education, Drug Awareness, and Art that I'm responsible for teaching. The school day hasn't increased in over 30 years, nor has the number of days of attendance, but the curriculum has expanded a lot."

Morningirl, you raise an excellent problem with the education system. The increased amount of curriculum, often not germane to actualy scholarly learning, really stretches the already limited resources the education system has. Maybe if funds and time weren't being spent on these pet programs, only helping the government to act as a parent, then there would be more money to go around.

Also, the number of teachers is the real problem. Here in Texas it's huge, except in my home town where my father, a long time math teacher, was actually bought out of the school because the school district wanted to hire younger, cheaper teachers. If we solve the teacher problem, in most districts, the other issues will be lessened immensely.

 

[morninggirl5]

Also, the number of teachers is the real problem. Here in Texas it's huge, except in my home town where my father, a long time math teacher, was actually bought out of the school because the school district wanted to hire younger, cheaper teachers. If we solve the teacher problem, in most districts, the other issues will be lessened immensely.

If it's anything like here, they bought out your father's remaining years until retirement because they could hire 2(or even 3 if he has an advanced degree) teachers fresh out of college for the amount they were paying him. They usually don't consider the experience and classroom "know-how" in that equation though.

 

[Poverkhnost]

You're completely right about all of your points morningstar. He holds a master's degree, started two extremely successful pilot programs and holds the best record for helping at risk students pass the TAAS test and pass classes that some have been struggling to pass for years. It's really sickening to think that they did this to him and over 100 other experienced teachers.

 

[morninggirl5]

You're completely right about all of your points morningstar. He holds a master's degree, started two extremely successful pilot programs and holds the best record for helping at risk students pass the TAAS test and pass classes that some have been struggling to pass for years. It's really sickening to think that they did this to him and over 100 other experienced teachers.

In my school system, he'd be the one running the school. But I'm only a Kindergarten teacher, they don't listen to me.

 

[Poverkhnost]

There's nothing to be said for some administrators, at least not much that's good. Rather than seeking out advice from teachers so as to make reforms, they go on blithely making "reforms" that may not have any roots in logic. Rare to never are teachers and students asked to put in honest input about how to make genuine, effective changes. Instead, it's curriculum changes and superficial modifications that may only hurt the process of learning.

 

[pdx39]

Exactly what percentage of a "super rich" person's income should they pay in taxes????

Here in Oregon I currently pay a 9% rate in state income taxes while Nike, Intel, Shilo, Wells Fargo etc...pay a 6.6% rate. The ratio is even worse for property taxes.

Below is how I would like to see it restructured

Suggested New Individual State Income Tax Table:

AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME RATE PAID
Less than $5,000 0%
$5,001 to $10,000 2%
$10,001 to $25,000 4%
$25,001 to $50,000 6%
$50,001 to $100,000 8%
$100,001 to $500,000 10%
$500,001 to $1,000,000 11%
$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 12%
$5,000,001 to $10,000,000 14%
$10,000,001 and over 16%
Amount of taxable income is doubled for married couples-Example: A married couple in the 50-100K bracket would pay the rate for the 25-50K bracket.

Currently all people with over $5,700 in taxable income pay a 9% rate.

Suggested New Corporate State Income Tax Table:

AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME RATE PAID
Less than $25,000 7%
$25,001 to $50,000 8%
$50,001 to $100,000 9%
$100,001 to $1,000,000 10%
$1,000,001 to $10,000,000 11%
$10,000,001 to 50,000,001 12% $50,000,001 to $100,000,000 13%
$100,000,001 to $250,000,000 15%
Over $250,000,000 17%

Currently all corporations pay the same 6.6% flat rate.

These numbers may not be perfect, but they are better than the current system.

 

[Poverkhnost]

The problem with raising taxes for businesses is that you will very likely lose businesses.

A good example of the reverse would be Texas. Say what you will about my state, but we have no income tax and only property taxes. The structure is what you would call regressive, but it has worked out well for us. As a result we have attracted some of the largest corporations to our state for headquarters. These have come from places around the country, mostly from those states with high tax rates. What a state could very well end up with is a capital flight situation.

As for the "super rich", that would be similar the aforementioned situation. You would have the movement of very wealthy people from high tax areas to low tax areas. In fact this has been happening over the last few years. The states attracting these people and companies have benefitted from the taxes they pay, which on any scale, are higher than the rest of the populous.

 

[pdx39]

The idea of "progressive" taxes is just another socialist idea disguised.

Didn't Barry Goldwater also use the Socialist scare tactic to defend his opposition to Medicare and civil rights? The idea of progressive taxes is on the platform of the Democratic party, along with most of the other suggestions I made. Too bad they don't walk their talk.

 

[horny_giraffe]

Re: Re: A few solutions

...
You want to pay for your list through "progressive" income taxes and "progressive" property taxes. I think your word "progressive" means HIGHER. Let me ask a question. Exactly what percentage of a "super rich" person's income should they pay in taxes???? Currently, the top 5% of income earners are paying 44% of the national tax burden. (stats from my brand new copy of Turbo Tax 2001). The top 1% are paying 21% of the total tax burden. The bottom 31% of wage earners pay NO federal income taxes at all. (That was the bottom 24% until Bush's new tax bill was passed.)

Now, just what have you got against people who have worked hard... invested the years necessary to get a good education.... and taken the financial risks often required to become one of those "super rich" people? Most "rich" people don't inherit it from their parents. Between inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes on investment income, it's not easy to inherit a fortune.

Maybe it's just those terrible corporations that you don't like. Corporations that currently pay over 70% of all property taxes in metropolitan areas. Corporations that have over 100 employees currently provide 46% of the jobs in this country. Mostly good jobs..... like mine! Corporations that provided over 50% of the disaster relief money to victims of 9/11. By the way, by their very nature, Corporations are owned by ordinary people. Money from 401K's and pension plans are major owners of stock in all those terrible corporations you want to tax so heavily.
...

You raise an interesting issue regarding taxes. The only trouble is that I don't know if I care whether or not the super-rich deserve their money or not.

In fact, I think that if you apply the same market capitalism that allows the wealthy to justify their wealth--you could ask the question: Is the existence of a small super-wealthy demographic good for encouraging the economy? If you consider the question ethically from a utilitarian point of view, there isn't any doubt. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Personally, I think that the very wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income on consumer items. As such, they may potentially slow the velocity of money compared to the poor--who spend every dime they get. On the other hand, you could argue that the investment is good for the economy. Would hurting the very rich hurt corporations or vice-versa?

I've heard it argued that the existance of the super-wealthy encourages people to become more ambitious. Certainly, this doesn't seem to help in third world countries, where there are also extremely wealthy people. I know that nobody I know ever expects to become as wealthy as Bill Gates. Ever.

As for large corporations--why shouldn't they pay the bills? I think it serves the economy in at least two ways: 1. It keeps large corporations from becoming too large and upsetting the capitalist balance. ( I think that it is a common myth that capitalism is somehow natural. It is carefully maintained by government intervention via anti-trust laws and other legislation.) 2. I am of the understanding that most people do not work for multi-national corporations, but that relatively small companies hire more people. Of course, more than anything else, large corporations are completely irrelevant in terms of our ethical responsibility. The whole point of incorporated a firm is to cast off responsibility from individual owners to an abstract entity. We owe corporations nothing, intrinsically speaking. The question is only what is good for our economy when it comes to corporations.

I've got more to say about teachers--but geesh this is long enough.

 

[Poverkhnost]

Even if the democratic party wanted to, they couldn't legislate state tax structure from the federal level. Also, it is a misnomer to think that republicans don't want the same improvements as do the democrats. However, they also believe, more often than not, that the solutions are a local interest.

As for the red scare, that's not my point. My point is that progressive taxes honestly are a by-product of socialist type thinking. An equalizing of society. You can see this through the history of economic thought. I know I'm an econ dork, but it's the truth.

pdx, you have some very good points that will help the education system, but the means and institution to get there is the main point of contention.

 

[Texan]

Here in Oregon I currently pay a 9% rate in state income taxes while Nike, Intel, Shilo, Wells Fargo etc...pay a 6.6% rate. The ratio is even worse for property taxes.

Below is how I would like to see it restructured

#### (deleted text)#####

These numbers may not be perfect, but they are better than the current system.

hahahahahaa.... I am laughing so hard. And I was about to go to bed.... this is too much fun.

You are talking STATE income taxes!!!! Wow.... Here in Texas, we don't even have a state income tax. No withholding, no forms, no nothing... it doesn't exist.

But just for the hell of it, I applied a little math to your formula. If your state is typical, only 18% of the population earn over 50K per year. That means that under your structure your state would see an immediate loss in tax revenue. Because your percentages drop through the income brackets representing the majority of the state population, the loss of income would be dramatic.....

All that additional money you need for schools would never materialize under your plan. Your plan would penalize a few rich people while destroying your state's economy. I have to admit though you really sock it to those terrible corporations. I guess you would prefer they just take their stinky old factories and their high paying jobs to another state... Come to think of it... send them down to Texas....

Better leave the tax "actualization" plans to the experts

 

[Poverkhnost]

HG,

Big corporations pay for everything along with the super rich? Who do you think hires and pays employees who pay taxes and for consumer goods. True the "super rich" do not spend everything they make, but their money is kept in things like stocks, bonds and other things necessary to make business happen. This capital is vitally important and we have to have some level of saving in order to keep business moving. I could say more, but I think you can get the point.

As for incentives, yes they are there and that's the "American Dream" to work hard, make and save money. That's why we allow it.

Lesser Developed Nations dont' see what we see for aspiring to becomed very wealthy? Sure they do. The problem is that of capital, legal structure and other infrastructure problems to growth. There are far too many issues in economic development to try and compare the situation in LDN's to ours in the United States or other large, developed nations. To do so would be ludicrous.

The fact is that all countries who have overtaxed corporations and the "super rich" have suffered for it. Stifle the capitalist spirit and you stifle your economy.

Sorry this is so long...I could go on, but won't

 

[horny_giraffe]

I'll give it some thought. I don't think that anyone stands alone here. As I understand it, this is a highly debated topic even at the highest political and academic levels. Unfortunately, I have exhausted my own meager knowledge at this point. Thanks for the reply, Poverkhnost.

 

[Calamity Jane]

[rant]

Did Johnny's parents vote against the most recent bond issue to give teachers raises? Throw a fit when the school sent him home with candy bars to sell to the neighbors to raise funds for newer books? Do they take the responsibility of his education on themselves, making sure that whatever the school is lacking, they supply him with resources at home so that he can learn?

I am so tired of people bitching about the quality of our schools, and then refusing to give them the finding they need. Refusing to educate their own children. How many parents have never read a bedtime story, and then wonder why their child can't read? How many sit down at night with the dictionary and the encyclopedias, and help their children find information and answers to questions?

The vast majority of parents that I know of with school age children sit back, and expect the schools to be soley responsible for the education of their children. That's not the point of schools. It's a parent's responsibility to make sure their children learn, and that they have a love of learning. The schools are secondary in this.

A 'good' school with extremely qualified teachers is no more likely to turn out great achievers than a poor school with uncredentialed teachers is to turn out 'losers'. Children have already established their learning patterns before they ever set foot in a school.

[/rant]