

Unconscionable Public Education Practices - tokenadult
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/jtaylor/detail??blogid=180&entry_id=62665

======
SamAtt
Before I say this let me just say that I'm not defending LAUSD and I do think
there are better ways they could be doing things. But as someone who lives in
the area there's more story here.

Budget cuts have brought the LAUSD to the point where classes are literally
50+% fuller than they should be. That's at least 45 kids in class rooms
designed for 30. You go into one of these classrooms and you'll find kids
sitting on the floor or one kid in a folding chair sharing a traditional desk
with the other kid who is actually sitting in the desk. As atrocious as some
of the behavior in the article seems it's been brought about by the hard
reality of there being no place for these kids to go even if the school did
hold them back.

(For frame of reference LAUSD had a budget deficit of around $894 million last
year which is about $1,290 per student)

I have many criticisms of public schools in the U.S. but this isn't about
that. This is about 3 Government bodies (Federal, State and Local) that all
spent way more than they could afford on trivial things and now have no money
left to do what's important.

~~~
euroclydon
Thanks for the marginal information, but according to Wikipedia, the total
LAUSD budget for 2008-2009 was $13,645,600,000. Divided by 700,000 pupils
comes out to $19,493 per student!!!

~~~
SamAtt
I don't really see your point. The reality is that money is going to other
places. Most notably Pension payments (<http://www.atr.org/californias-
billion-pension-bomb-a4786#>). Keep in mind teachers can retire after 25 years
but continue to get about 65k a year indefinitely plus Medical, Dental, etc.

I don't know where the number is now but in 2006 the city would have needed
$10 billion to cover its pension costs and it didn't have that then:
[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LAUSDS+RUNAWAY+BENEFITS+PRICE+...](http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LAUSDS+RUNAWAY+BENEFITS+PRICE+TAG+RETIREE+EXPENSES+PUT+AT+$10...-a0142222213)

I think that's ridiculous and I don't think they ever should have been given
that kind of deal but the School District is still contractually obligated to
pay those pensions. The city of Vallejo actually tried to declare bankruptcy
because it couldn't afford the enormous debt generated by pensions and the
result was the California Legislature voting to exempt pension payments from
city bankruptcy.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Keep in mind teachers can retire after 25 years but continue to get about 65k
a year indefinitely plus Medical, Dental, etc._

In spite of that, we continue to believe teachers are underpaid.

~~~
SamAtt
It's a whole new discussion but I'll just quote the facts. From here:
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2095889/posts>

===Begin Quote===

According to information provided to the Daily News by the LAUSD, the average
salary for teachers is $63,000 - not too shabby that.

But more than 8,500 teachers pull in between $70,000 and $80,000 a year.
Nearly 2,000 make salaries between $80,000 and $100,000, with a very lucky
(and likely very experienced) 331 enjoying more than $100,000 in annual
salary.

And then there's a benefits package that would be the envy of any worker not
in the public sector. Medical, dental, pension - let's just say that anybody
who puts in their time at the LAUSD won't be uncomfortable in their golden
years.

===End Quote===

That's on a 180-day (or 36 week) per year schedule.

~~~
kscaldef
A few bits of perspective on this:

LA is one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. There's been
some decline, but a few years ago a small, poorly-built house in an
undesirable part of the metro area would typically run around $400K.

LAUSD covers an enormous area. Teachers don't get much say in their
assignments, so might be commuting 1.5 hours each way.

At least some (possibly all) of LAUSD runs on a year-round calendar. Teachers
don't get the same summer break as they would in many other districts. Most of
their off-cycle time is spent doing professional development. Saying they only
work 36 weeks a year is disingenuous.

------
grandalf
It's important to differentiate between public funding and public provisioning
of public education.

Public funding might mean that a kid from a less wealthy family could afford
to attend a private school via a grant from the state.

Public provisioning means that schools ultimately have more in common with the
DMV than with elite educational institutions.

Public schools are intended to be daycare centers for the poor and middle
class, so that women can join the work force without having to care for their
children during the day.

The goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations
of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students
may end up barely literate but sufficient to fill the local factory jobs, etc.

It's important to keep this in mind when thinking about public education.
Public schools have not failed, they are succeeding quite well at what they
are actually intended to accomplish.

Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education
(chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this
comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could
afford to send their kids to private school if necessary.

~~~
pw0ncakes
_Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education
(chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this
comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could
afford to send their kids to private school if necessary._

I think a few things are worth pointing out here:

The best 10-20% of teachers are really good, because teaching is (although not
as admired as medicine or law) admired enough that some seriously talented
people enter it. Those teachers are highly desired and usually end up at the
most reputable schools teaching honors and AP classes. So if you're lucky
enough to have such teachers, you're going to get a good education.

Good schools have no problem getting a satisfactory percentage of students to
pass the assessment tests and therefore actually teach. Mediocre schools that
are on the bubble begin "teaching to the test" (which means a focus of
attention and resources onto the worst students, to the detriment of average
and good students) and therefore the quality of education declines even
further.

~~~
grandalf
I think you make an accurate point that people who teach (who are capable
enough to have other options) are probably not motivated solely by the
financial rewards.

But there is nothing about teaching that would prevent a top teacher from
earning $250K per year. The reason that doesn't happen (and the reason we
don't see more luxury cars in the teachers' parking long) is because unions
have forced wages to be based on seniority and not based on merit.

This means that rather than one teacher (a good one) making $70K and another
(not so good one) making $30K, they both make $50K. This gives the bad teacher
every incentive to continue being a mediocre teacher for decades rather than
moving on and finding a career he/she is good at.

------
a2tech
The public school system in the United States is a wonderful undertaking.
Unfortunately it is deeply flawed and in its current state does a great
disservice to the students that attend school within the public system.

My wife works with undergraduate students at a major university every single
day and she is a first hand witness to the poor quality of public education
nationwide. The students that she encounters are often woefully unprepared for
a college education-they have a poor grasp of written English, have low
reading comprehension and their grasp of basic mathematical skills is better
left unexplored. These students ARE NOT the bottom of the barrel either-the
admission system filters most of them out. Its a very sad state of affairs.

Our children will be attending private school-even though I don't agree with
their religion (most private schools here are Catholic) I can't argue with
their results. My wife left her private high school with English, math and
science skills that rival most college graduates.

~~~
sketerpot
I apologize for being That Guy, and your comment's content was very nice, but
hyphens should not be used to separate words -- for that, you should use
longer dashes. You can imitate this in plain text with the string " -- ". This
makes your words easier to read, since using a single hyphen makes it look
like you're just using hyphenated-words.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash>

(Back on topic, my public school education _never_ mentioned this. I learned
it from the documentation for LaTeX. A sad state of affairs.)

------
briancooley
_But what is the message that students get from social promotion? How about
that there is no incentive to learn_

An educational system that incentivizes learning via fear of failure (public
humiliation in this case) is broken.

This false dichotomy of social promotion versus holding students back ignores
the necessity of finding new ways to engage struggling students. Of course
promoting kids to face material for which they are not prepared is going to be
a problem. But having them repeat the material in the same manner and
expecting them to catch on the second time around is lunacy as well.

The biggest problem that I see in education is the focus on measuring
achievement in an easily-measured, narrowly-defined way. That such a system
has become gamed to the point that even the successful students aren't really
learning should be no surprise.

What's the solution? I know there aren't easy answers, but it has to start
with making learning and teaching fun. The happiest moment in a teacher's day
is when the light switches on for a student. Though it is cliche, learning is
fun, but the caveat is that it's the most fun when the lesson is applied.

~~~
btilly
_An educational system that incentivizes learning via fear of failure (public
humiliation in this case) is broken._

While nobody likes to fail, failure is not important mostly as a means of
motivation. It is important because repetition often helps.

You claim that it is lunacy to expect that a second go will solve problems.
Yet that "lunacy" has worked out pretty well for people I know who had to
retake courses and grades. The second time through, usually with different
teachers, the students learned. Part of it was the age advantage. Part of it
was a different teacher. Part of it was the fact that if you halfway learn the
first time, there is less to learn the second time.

Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile
feelings does everyone a disservice. And is a far greater lunacy than being
willing to tell people, "You haven't learned this material, you need to try
again."

~~~
briancooley
_Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile
feelings does everyone a disservice_

There's more at stake than students' hurt feelings. Your anecdotes aside,
statistics show that retaining students is expensive and largely ineffective
[1].

What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure
there is no incentive to learn.

That's a viewpoint that deserves scrutiny.

It's narrow-minded and serves mostly to blame the student. It also closes the
door to examination of alternative ways to best serve the section of the
student body most likely to be considered for social promotion.

The other side of the spectrum is standardized testing, which places the blame
on teachers and encourages them to narrow their focus to material that will be
on the test.

And it's all built around proving that students can fill in the right circles
on a standardized test, such that even the successful ones aren't guaranteed
to be able to do practical things (e.g. CS majors that can't write a program).

The bottom line is that we are not really teaching. More importantly, we are
not teaching kids how to learn, which is the key to motivated students.

[1] <http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf>

~~~
btilly
_What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure
there is no incentive to learn._

You are arguing against a straw man. I gave you several specific reasons why
it is good to fail students who have not learned the material they need for
their further education, and you have addressed none of them.

To your straw man I'll reply with something that should be both obvious and
important. There is no possibility of learning when you are put in a classroom
with material that assumes you possess a foundation you don't have.
Furthermore if the teacher attempts to address the deficiencies of those who
haven't learned the basics, there is no possibility of teaching what was
supposed to be taught in that class. Therefore social promotion creates a
situation where teachers get a choice of bad options, and no available good
ones.

The costs of these poorly set up classrooms are extremely difficult to
properly measure. But they are absolutely real. And it is important to note
that a significant fraction of those costs fall on the students who were not
socially promoted.

Looking at the research you quoted, this critical factor is ignored. Yes,
students who are allowed to fail learn less than ones who are socially
promoted. There wasn't strong evidence whether they learn less by the same
grade. But the most important fact to me, whether or not OTHER students learn
less when put in classrooms where teachers have a broader mix of students -
wasn't even looked at.

Furthermore the option of summer school wasn't addressed. That gives you the
best of both worlds. Students who need it get extra time. And get to stay on
course. It worked well for me. I personally had a crappy grade 9 French
teacher, was passed when I should of failed, then failed grade 10 French. I
retook the course in summer school and passed. It would have been better still
if I had failed grade 9 French instead. (And better still if I had a decent
teacher there, but such is life.)

------
vinhboy
The real problem with public education: the parents.

You can't teach kids who come home to parents who do not value education.

An oversized classroom is not as bad as students who have no interested and no
motivation to learn. But it's not the student fault, it's their parents.

Sad thing is, it's kind of an endless cycle. Maybe we should punish the
parents... but I don't know how well that would work either...

~~~
brg
When parents are almost entirely removed from the education process, without
input into curriculum[1] or teacher selection[2], can you blame many for
becoming disinterested bystandards?

In private religious and secular schools, I have noticed that parental
involvement is much higher.

[1] Set at the state and national level as a result of funding.

[2] In many locales, set by unions and un-elected administration.

------
wdewind
I would look at this from an even higher, more abstract level than budgets.
It's a bit of a chicken or egg problem, but I went to what are considered some
of the best public schools in NYC growing up, and I can tell you they aren't
great. From a quick look they have all the right check boxes: experienced
teachers (close look: old, tired, angry teachers), great math, science and
humanities programs (rigid, standardized test based curriculum), etc. etc.

The education I got was by all means "good," but it was VERY herd mentality,
and it as very much about standardizing a body of knowledge and culture NOT
about promoting active discourse etc.

Yet, I still ended up alright, whereas, considering how "good" a high school I
went to, many of the kids did not.

The difference was the home, the neighborhood and the culture we went home to
at night. Now I know all of this is circular, and a bit of the chicken egg
issue, but there is really nothing you can do for people when the household
they go back to doesn't support their education. Conversely, even a horrible
school can't ruin a good education provided by your family and community. You
can give them all the help in the world, but no matter how many free college
workshops you have, if education isn't explicitly a goal among their friends,
family and community they'll realize pretty quickly that it wont be useful in
their lives and will disengage.

So I'm all for education reform, I think it should be a constant in our
society. Education ALWAYS needs improving. But we need to be a little more
careful with understanding what exactly an education system can and cannot
provide.

The problems that are in this article can't really be fixed with a better
education system, they are symptomatic of far bigger cultural issues that need
addressing.

------
jashmenn
It's sometimes worse than this article describes and it's not just in LA.

I grew up in a small town in NH (population ~5k people). I have a close friend
whose sister was in a "special attention" program (let's call her Jane). Jane
was in a program for kids who were "slower" than the other kids. They didn't
have any physical learning disabilities, just poorer grades.

The time came for the yearly standardized tests (called the CATs in NH). On
the day of the tests Jane's class was taken out on a special 'field trip';
they all went bowling. In the morning the kids lined up for class and Jane and
her friends gloated to the other suckers who had to stay behind, "We get to go
bowling and you have to stay here and take tests."

The result? The school's scores were a little bit higher that year.

------
euroclydon
If you read The Underground History of American Education, an opus of a book
compiled over thirty years by John Gatto (former NY and NYC teacher of the
year), you will learn that over a hundred years ago, powerful industrialists
sought to shape the public educational system around Darwinian Evolution. What
this means is that they believed that most poor children were, as evidenced by
their poor status, lesser life forms, and that the school's job was
essentially to destroy them, and among other things, remove them from
competition for breeding.

Free online: <http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm>

------
stcredzero
_A second practice involves teachers doing students' work for them just so
students can pass the class...In a Bizarro world, this practice would be win-
win_

From everything I've seen, big bureaucracies _are_ Bizarro World.

------
feverishaaron
Whenever you tie student test scores to national standards, which affect
funding, and thus compensation, this is what you get.

