Which may not be possible in some districts that are inching up past 40 students per classroom. That's fine if you are focusing on the same topic for all students, but if you have to go back and identify deficiencies in half the students and fix those problems while still teaching on level, something is going to suffer. Large classes over 40 students in college are fine because the students who can't keep up are weeded out by pre-reqs. Grade school teachers don't get that luxury.

The way I understand it, some forms of value added assessment do this. They are based on a growth model and just compare the performance of the students a teacher has this year with those exact kids' previous performance. Apparently what gets called valued added varies quite a bit and is weirdly variable from year to you, so I'd want to know more about the exact model to say for sure what would work. But it certainly seems possible.

While I agree with a lot of what you say here, schools still spend a lot of money on the education of their students, and some aren't showing particularly good results.

I don't think anyone commenting here would be comfortable saying, well, there are some schools at which we just can't expect the students to show measurable learning.

So what it is reasonable to expect schools to produce and how do you know if the are doing it?

ITA- this is the problem I have with NCLB- it seems to villify teachers as the "reason" kids don't succeed...when kids are at home 16 hours a day and in school 8.

However the bottom phrase is the pink elephant in the room, the thing no one wants to say out loud. People are having kids they have no idea how to raise, kids who are left to their own devices. 8 hours a day can only go so far...

Honestly, I'm not convinced that, generally speaking, our schools are "failing". College enrollment has been steadily increasing since the 1960s. The type of student who used to aspire to a bachelor's degree is now aspiring to at least a Master's degree. When my dad graduated from college in 1958 with a 2.0 as a Sociology major, he could get a great job in the business field and be very successful. Even when he retired 14 years ago (before NCLB), he said there was no way he would hire a new grad who had the credentials that he'd had when he started out. There were too many candidates who had done much better than that in more relevant fields of study. Even in my middle-upper middle class high school, back in the 80s, about 20% of class went to college. In my current lower-middle middle class neighborhood, about 75% of kids are going to college. When I was in high school, there was no such thing as AP classes or IB programs. There were tracks.. "college prep", regular and "remedial", but nothing that gave us college credit before we even graduated.

So, what statistics are saying that we are "failing"? I've yet to see them.

You can take a kid from the inner city of Detroit who lives in an abandoned house with no heat and electricity who doesn't eat, except for his free school lunch, and enroll him in the best school in the state and he's not going to succeed because his drug addicted parent isn't going to support his success. The best teacher in the world just can't fix that.

My kids' school district isn't great. They seriously lack resources for gifted/brighter kids. At high school orientation, the principal spent a lot of time plugging the vocational center and very little time talking about the 6 (yeah, only 6) AP courses available. Somehow, every couple years, a few really determined kids get into Ivies or sub-Ivies. At the same time, it's not a horrible district either. There are some drug issues in some groups of kids, but there's no gang activity and there's very little crime in the area. It's an area where there are a ton of really small districts and I do think there would be some advantage to merging a couple of them. It would increase the AP/IB type offerings because there would be more students who would use those resources. I can see value in that. On the other hand, some districts are so huge that there is massive administrative overhead. Once a district has more students than some large cities, the costs become astronomical. There's a balance somewhere between the two situations that needs to be reached.

The other thought that comes to mind is... although people are always saying "you can't just throw money at a problem", why is it that the school districts with the highest funding per student are also the school districts that consistently perform better?

Teachers get paid a fraction of what most people with similar degrees make and do one of the most important jobs in our society. This trend of attacking them is making me ill. Teachers are not the problem with our society. Most of the teachers I know are far more dedicated to their jobs and put more heart and soul into their students than anybody in any other profession I've encountered.

Is all of this a sign that schools are 'succeeding' or that degrees are increasingly meaningless? My psychology degree didn't prepare me for a real job, my internship that paid for my school did. My Master's program has prepared me for a 'real' career.

Is the inability for people to work w/o a high school degree, even in jobs that don't have to require a diploma or GED a sign that schools are succeeding or that it's too easy to graduate and thus easy to discriminate against those who dropped out and yet would have done well in a labor/apprentice/journeyman position. And 40 years ago would have had a career and steady paycheck.

In Georgia, this isn't necessarily true. The highest funding per student will frequently be in urban areas with a high tax base and low scores, and the highest student achievement is frequently in suburban districts, who have nice per pupil funding but don't have more than the Atlanta districts. But another factor is that funding per student is pretty meaningless since districts just take their total spending and divide by the number of kids. There's a really good chance that the money isn't getting to the classroom.

However, I will agree that there are a lot of areas in which the same social conditions that drive revenues are also contributing to school performance, both on the high and low end. But you're, I think, looking at correlation not cause in terms of the funding making the kids successful.


I certainly don't want to see teachers attacked, and I've read some absolutely absurd statements anytime salaries and hours come up. But I also think that teachers should be held in high enough regard that they can be accountable and rewarded for professional performance on some level. And honestly, I think it's only that we work with kids that makes us seem more dedicated or caring. My experience is that most professionals are as dedicated and committed to their practice as most teachers.

I'll also note that the language of "similar degrees" is really tricky. What's a similar degree when you are talking about early childhood education?

I think people have a willingness to want to treat all degrees at a certain level as being equal in considering pay, but they aren't. A BA in engineering typically earns one more than a degree in English or fashion merchandising. Where should an early childhood degree or a middle grades degree be in the hierarchy?

And sure, a teacher may have to go back to graduate school to get the pay raises to make it happen, but I make more money as a teacher than the average person with "similar degrees" in my undergraduate field. And I'll tell you that there was no way that my graduate degrees in education were comparable in rigor to graduate degrees in most other disciplines, the exceptions being other fields in which holding the degree basically equals an automatic pay raise so colleges create cash cow programs to get people through.

I think you nailed this issue although I will say that I think dropping out today may signal an level of fundamental life incompetence or unwillingness to get along with life that it didn't signal in the past. (Of course I don't mean everyone. We can all think of someone who dropped out because of life circumstances way beyond his or her control.)


What are you getting your master's in if you don't mind me asking?

When I'm talking about "similar degrees", I'm referring to master's degrees, primarily. An MBA and a Masters in Ed? Definitely not even close in pay. And most professions don't require that you go to grad school after you've started your job but it's a requirement to keep your certification for teachers here.

Funding here is strictly based on the number of students and a formula based on what a district was getting in 1994 when the method of paying for education was changed drastically. So some districts receive $11-12K per student while others are receiving $5K per student. It's quite skewed.

Counseling - Marriage and Family focused. Best way to practice in the field at the master's level.

While it is true to some extent that there's an anti-social aspect to dropping out today, I don't associate it with incompetence at all. Thinking of my clients, they were all capable, just a mix between unwilling and life situations - pregnancy or trying to take care of their family because of absent or incapable parents (sometimes legally sometimes not.) The only ones who might be considered 'incapable' would be the special education clients, and ironically they all graduated because as one put it "special ed is easy." They're just utterly unprepared to do anything other than get SSI or work in a workshop (the programs that don't take you when you're an addict, so not terribly helpful.)

I think the lack of jobs available for your average 16-18 year old drop out - the inability to say fine you're dropping out and you're going to work at X factory or in Y trade and be able to make a living, even a small one or a supplemental one to the family's is a major cause and/or perpetuation of poverty and often crime. NPR just did a story talking to a man who has no diploma or GED but has worked for decades, always able to get another job and is very highly skilled at this point. But then while hunting for a new job in the past several years couldn't find one as the GED/diploma question was an automatic decline of the application. Some people just aren't going to be able to do trig, or diagram a sentence, and there's not really anything wrong with that, it's always been the case.

If it's only about the piece of paper and not about the job skills then it's become a problem. Similarly to how the college degrees have progressed from "You must have your BA" to "You must have your MA/PhD." Status, class, money, all this stuff is intertwined into a major supply/demand issue.

/tl;dr it's complicated and not just as simple as one or the other.

In NJ, where they have Abbott Districts (funded by local and statewide tax money) some school districts are spending over 20k per student- in the worst districts.

Not all schools are failing, but the ones that ARE failing are doing so astronomically. When you get dropout figures that high (greater than 50%!) something is significantly wrong. If anything, it's a sign that the gap between top and bottom in our country is growing. While some suburban school districts are comparable to private academies in their offerings and success of graduates, some urban districts are failing at astronomical rates.

Not that it's the fault of teachers. There are way too many factors that go into it. Teachers may play a role (positive or negative) but they alone do not create the massive failure statistics.

Agreed with points mentioned above.

One of the issues in education is that our country is lagging behind in math and science education. A teacher's salary is not much compared to what an engineer or scientist can make in the private sector. It's hard to attract qualified candidates for those fields.

If we keep butchering what we pay teachers, or cut into the benefits they get, how will we ever be able to attract and keep qualified math and science teachers? Same for engineers and scientists who work for the government in other programs...but that is another topic.

Here I think there's a base from the state that's the same per kid in a particular course, there's a local supplement based on property taxes, then there are equalization grants that should provide additional money to poorer districts, but since they kind of follow the poorer kids, can end up going to the bigger and not particularly poor districts who have a lot of poor students, even if the poor students aren't a big percentage of the overall enrollment.

It still doesn't seem to affect achievement that much.

As far as degrees, I don't think it makes much sense to claim that an MBA has historically been the equivalent of a MEd. It may be the case now that so many colleges offer MBAs because BAs mean so little that the MBA is pretty dumbed down too. I think even looking at the average GPA and GRE or GMAT percentiles (or whatever the MBA people take) for admissions would reveal that, even now, it's typically harder to even enter to the program for the MBA.

If something is relatively hard to do or scare and it has value to employers, then I think you could typically get more money for it. To me that makes sense just on a supply and demand level.

When you require every teacher to get a masters, and they aren't particularly hard to get, and studies show that they don't do much for student achievement, and they don't have too much value to the outside labor market, then I think it's hard to expect them to drive up salaries that much relative to other professions.

But I think you are on to something with the MBA because I think business schools are setting up the same problem. If the market has a ton of undergraduate BAs in business, then people want MBAs to offer a credential that sets them apart and makes them more valuable. When every institution of higher learning offers a fast track, part time MBA, and the numbers of people with MBAs gets inflated, they may end up having as little relatively value in employment as the undergraduate BA and eventually the MEd.

I agree that the GED or diploma requirement might arbitrarily exclude people who can do the work, especially for older worker.

But since schools have had an enormous incentive with NCLB to get high school kids through (graduation rate is usually one of the secondary markers for high school AYP), kids who couldn't get through high school in the last five or so years may, for the same reasons they couldn't get though, be less desirable employees. If you can't make it to school because of your family obligations, you may be less likely to make it to work because of your family obligations, etc.

(Bizarrely, I'd say just as the public got the impression that academic requirements went up with NCLB, what really happened in terms of earning class credit is that the standards have probably gone way down. We have an online program in Georgia called Credit Recovery. If kids fail a class, they can complete it in CR sometimes in mere days or weeks.)

Well, in a perverse way, the overall economy stinking may make teaching look relatively more desirable.

And while there are some people who have engineering degrees and undergraduate degrees in math and science who then get certified to teach, there are also people who went a math or science ed route who may have credentials that aren't truly comparable to those working in STEM outside ed.

And isn't it be a little goofy to say that because a relatively small number of secondary jobs are hard to fill with qualified folks that all folks in the same general occupation should be paid more? Wouldn't it make more sense to offer higher pay simply for the harder to fill positions? One of the really amazing things that teaching unions and professional associations have pulled off is that all teachers k-12 should be basically be paid the same, regardless of the supply of people available to fill a particular job. As a humanities person, it's paying off for me, but it's a pretty irrational compensation system.

Might be, but I think that's false reasoning. There are a ton of reasons why someone isn't able to succeed in school and drops out rather than fail again. But then, we're talking about entire districts that are failing NCLB standards, too. I think the standards measure 'failure' but fail themselves to actually address the cause. SES being a HUGE one.
Don't think that exists here, here mostly I have young kids trying to get diplomas rather than GEDs before they age out of the district after spending several months in bootcamp though, so different perspective. (young = 19-21 usually)