Court Rules on Affirmative Action: Mixed Ruling

[Natoma]

Financial status should not be something that holds back a student because they can't afford to go to the best kindergardens, or the best grade school, or middle school, or high school.

Financial status should not be something that impacts admissions.

You cannot possibly say you are not for a socialistic education system on one hand, and then claim that money shouldn't be able to afford you a better education. That's a contradiction.

You don't consider it an injustice if "Rich Student A" with a C average and 1000 SAT is able to go to a top flight school while "Poor Student B" with an A average and a 1500 SAT is not able to go to that same top flight school, merely because they can't afford it, thus they have to settle for a school of lower quality?

That's not socialistic. That's meritocratic. You go where you go because you are *qualified* to go there. I can't believe you're actually arguing this.

A student will be accepted to certain places due to their intelligence and their credentials. However, funds for education should be increased so that every student can get updated books. Funds for education should be increased so that teachers are paid on the level with other important vocations. You can't attract the best and brightest minds with an average $25,000 salary. If you can't attract the best and brightest minds, you can't teach students in the best way.

Where do these "funds" come from?

Maybe from the same place that $350 Billion Tax Cut that went mostly to the wealthy would be a good start. My tax cut amounts to an extra $40 in my pocket a month. Wooptedoo. I'd rather have used that tax cut to raise the average teacher salary another $10,000 - $15,000 in order to make it more attractive to the best and brightest minds who want to teach, but simply cannot afford to live at that level.

You raise the average salary from $25,000 to $40,000, and that attracts a far greater range of people, obviously. It can only benefit students to have a better and deeper pool of teachers.

That is what we're supposed to be going after right? Helping students?

Teachers should be paid whatever society deems their worth to be. Teachers should be paid on an individual basis based on measured performance criteria and ranks / ratings against their peers. You've just highlighted the biggest problem in public education: the teacher's union.

Then it's a sad fact that society only deems a teacher's worth to be on average $25,000 a year while we feel just fine paying politicians $100,000 a year. Education of children is our greatest challenge. They are our greatest resource because frankly they're the ones that are going to have to pick up where we leave off. If they aren't well educated, they can't do that. If they can't do that, this country goes downhill.

You don't attract the best and brightest minds to teaching, if the imbicile next to you is getting paid more just because he's been there longer than you, even though he couldn't teach a dog to beg.

Really. I guess that would explain why so many intelligent people go into the corporate world and get paid far less than their far more inept supervisors, simply because they've been there for less time.

I've known supervisors who have been at companies for decades (one of our clients actually) who have absolutely *no* clue what they are doing. And yet they receive a fat check. Your statement has nothing to do with reality Joe.

*Money* attracts the bulk of the best and brightest minds.

And btw, I have given great thought to teaching. In fact when I was younger I seriously considered it as a vocation after I left college. Then I saw what teachers make on average and I realized that there was no way I could live on that salary. The sacrifices I'd need to make in my own life were too great for what I wanted to do.

Intelligent people who want to give back to the next generation should not be forced to make a decision like that. Unfortunately I have heard so many stories along those lines. Some people only get into teaching in their later years because they've saved up enough to be able to live off the lower salary. But think of all the years that students lost their talents? I've had fantastic teachers in my life. I could not imagine any of them not being a teacher, not being there for me and others like me, simply because they couldn't take the salary.

But then, I was lucky. The best teachers I experienced were mostly concentrated in private school (surprise). I can count 10 fantastic teachers I came across where the pay was better. I can count 2 fantastic teachers from the public schools I went to. Ms. Lewis, my first grade teacher, and Mrs. Dorinson, my fourth grade teacher.

Why the obvious disparity? Pay. Plain and simple.

My mom certainly could not afford to send me to a $12,000 a year private school, but through Prep I was able to attend.....and they helped fund a great portion of my schooling. Why did I get the chance to live up to my potential and go on to a school like Yale?

Your first fallacy is assuming that Yale is required for you to live up to your potential.

Uhm, I would have lived up to my full potential if I had gone to UPenn or Brown or Johns Hopkins University or Boston University or any of the other myriad good schools I was accepted to.

The point is that I wouldn't have gotten to that point in which I had the option to go to some of the best schools in the country if I had stayed in the public school system in NYC. I grew apathetic. The level of the curriculum was atrocious and quite boring. I was only challenged once I got into private schools. That's when I began to take off wrt my education.

I went through public school. I was accepted to both Rutgers and Princeton. My family is one of the typical that was "too wealthy" to not get financial aid, but not nearly wealthy enough to afford Princeton. My parent's divorce when I was a sophomore in High-School futher handicapped our financial resources.

And no doubt there are some fantastic public schools. Unfortunately a great swath of public schools in this country are not. I can attest to this firsthand. And even without my own personal experience to guide me, you hear about failing schools all the time.

I had a choice: Go to Princeton, the more "prestigious" school and go into significant debt, or go to Rutgers where I could work enough part time (and as an R.A.) and in the summer be able to graduate without debt.

I chose Rutgers. Do I bitch and moan that I "deserved" to go to Princeton? No. If I had the money, might Ihave gone? Perhaps. But then, I'm not stuck up enough to believe that Princeton, because it costs more and has "ivy league prestige", offers a better education. It's only guaranteed to offer a different education.

You should have had the choice to be able to go wherever you wished to go and not have to think about the money. As I said before, in a purely meritocratic society, you could have equally chosen either one, and they could have chosen you if you qualified academically. If Princeton says "We want you to come" and you want to go there, but you can't because you can't afford it, well, something is wrong there.

This is not about Princeton being a "better" school than Rutgers because that is all up for interpretation. It is about being able to attend the school of your choice because you have the academics necessary to do so.

Because the economic portion of the equation was removed and it was all left up to me and my own individual drive to excel. If I had not gone through prep, I would not have made it to Yale.

And the economic portion of the equation was not removed for me, and my individual drive to excel has made me successful regardless. Imagine that.

As I said earlier, your public school was probably quite good. The public schools that I and millions of other children have gone through however are not. There are many otherwise intelligent students who get lost in the decrepit state of the system.

There is a reason why they say today's public school system is a failure. It's because it's failing to educate millions of students properly.

That is what this article is stating, and which I agree with. Remove finances from the equation of schooling, and it's only left to intelligence and individual drive.

Remove finacnces from the equation, (level the financial playing field) and you essentially have socialism.

Again, I'm not challenging your motives. I'm sure you are "well intentioned." I just disagree with them. IMO, if you "remove the finances" from education, you remove the incentive that fuels the very drive you are talking about.

Really. So removing the finances from the situation and relying strictly on someone's qualifications as the deciding factor to whether or not a student can attend a school of their choice is essentially socialism, and it removes the incentive that fuels the very drive I'm talking about?

Gee, I could have sworn what I'm espousing is a meritocratic approach to education. :?

 

[Natoma]

<snip>

Now, if you can only reconcile the above with how a non-talent based factor like wealth or race rightfully belongs in there...

I never said they rightfully belong in there. However, I've stated that if you want to get rid of racial preferences, you need to get rid of geographical preferences, gender preferences, legacy preferences, etc etc etc. Any preference that does not require talent.

I have argued that one cannot be for getting rid of racial preferences, but in the very next breath argue that legacy preferences belong, or gender preferences belong, or geographical preferences belong. If we're going to get rid of one, we need to get rid of them all.

 

[Silent_One]

You don't consider it an injustice if "Rich Student A" with a C average and 1000 SAT is able to go to a top flight school while "Poor Student B" with an A average and a 1500 SAT is not able to go to that same top flight school, merely because they can't afford it, thus they have to settle for a school of lower quality?

I do. But I also know that places like Yale give out hundreds of grants to those students that need assistance.

Maybe from the same place that $350 Billion Tax Cut that went mostly to the wealthy would be a good start. My tax cut amounts to an extra $40 in my pocket a month. Wooptedoo. I'd rather have used that tax cut to raise the average teacher salary another $10,000 - $15,000 in order to make it more attractive to the best and brightest minds who want to teach, but simply cannot afford to live at that level.

Then you can help by dontating that extra $40 per month to a school near you.

Then it's a sad fact that society only deems a teacher's worth to be on average $25,000 a year while we feel just fine paying politicians $100,000 a year. Education of children is our greatest challenge. They are our greatest resource because frankly they're the ones that are going to have to pick up where we leave off. If they aren't well educated, they can't do that. If they can't do that, this country goes downhill.

Is the $25,000 you quote an average of the USA? Regional? In Conn the average teacher gets $53,507.In south Dakota they get $30,265. http://www.aft.org/research/survey01/tables/tableI-1.html

Joe DeFuria wrote:

You don't attract the best and brightest minds to teaching, if the imbicile next to you is getting paid more just because he's been there longer than you, even though he couldn't teach a dog to beg.

Really. I guess that would explain why so many intelligent people go into the corporate world and get paid far less than their far more inept supervisors, simply because they've been there for less time.

I've known supervisors who have been at companies for decades (one of our clients actually) who have absolutely *no* clue what they are doing. And yet they receive a fat check. Your statement has nothing to do with reality Joe.

But Joe is right regarding unions and seniority. Unions make it very difficult to fire under qualified teachers and promote better ones. And, yes, we all have our horror stories of managers who have no clue what they are doing. I've fired a few. But in dealing with the unions I have a LOT harder time trying to promote a better qualified person over a person with seniority. Can't be done.

Uhm, I would have lived up to my full potential if I had gone to UPenn or Brown or Johns Hopkins University or Boston University or any of the other myriad good schools I was accepted to.

The point is that I wouldn't have gotten to that point in which I had the option to go to some of the best schools in the country if I had stayed in the public school system in NYC. I grew apathetic. The level of the curriculum was atrocious and quite boring. I was only challenged once I got into private schools. That's when I began to take off wrt my education.

(bolding mine)

It's a shame you did not live up to your full potential once at Yale. As you stated in the other thread you "Dropped out. Too bored and jaded. hehe." http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6487&highlight=school However at least your repaying your student loans. That I'm glad to hear.

You should have had the choice to be able to go wherever you wished to go and not have to think about the money. As I said before, in a purely meritocratic society, you could have equally chosen either one, and they could have chosen you if you qualified academically. If Princeton says "We want you to come" and you want to go there, but you can't because you can't afford it, well, something is wrong there.

Only if Princeton gives financial aid that Joe would have to pay back should he be allowed to go. If Princeton can't give Joe aid, and Joe can't afford it, then too bad

I have argued that one cannot be for getting rid of racial preferences, but in the very next breath argue that legacy preferences belong, or gender preferences belong, or geographical preferences belong. If we're going to get rid of one, we need to get rid of them all.

I agree.

 

[Natoma]

You don't consider it an injustice if "Rich Student A" with a C average and 1000 SAT is able to go to a top flight school while "Poor Student B" with an A average and a 1500 SAT is not able to go to that same top flight school, merely because they can't afford it, thus they have to settle for a school of lower quality?

I do. But I also know that places like Yale give out hundreds of grants to those students that need assistance.

In order to receive one of those grants, your family needs to be making less than $50,000 from both combined parents. My parents at the time combined to make $60,000. Heh.

Maybe from the same place that $350 Billion Tax Cut that went mostly to the wealthy would be a good start. My tax cut amounts to an extra $40 in my pocket a month. Wooptedoo. I'd rather have used that tax cut to raise the average teacher salary another $10,000 - $15,000 in order to make it more attractive to the best and brightest minds who want to teach, but simply cannot afford to live at that level.

Then you can help by dontating that extra $40 per month to a school near you.

I said the $350 Billion Tax cut would help because the entire amount is in the hands of the government and can be doled out to help educational causes. Even if one million people donated on average $50, it would be only $50 Million. That's a drop in the bucket across the United States compared with the full cost of the tax cut.

Then it's a sad fact that society only deems a teacher's worth to be on average $25,000 a year while we feel just fine paying politicians $100,000 a year. Education of children is our greatest challenge. They are our greatest resource because frankly they're the ones that are going to have to pick up where we leave off. If they aren't well educated, they can't do that. If they can't do that, this country goes downhill.

Is the $25,000 you quote an average of the USA? Regional? In Conn the average teacher gets $53,507.In south Dakota they get $30,265. http://www.aft.org/research/survey01/tables/tableI-1.html

It was an average. The last time I researched teacher salaries was in 1995, just before my senior year of high school, when I was considering becoming one.

Joe DeFuria wrote:

You don't attract the best and brightest minds to teaching, if the imbicile next to you is getting paid more just because he's been there longer than you, even though he couldn't teach a dog to beg.

Really. I guess that would explain why so many intelligent people go into the corporate world and get paid far less than their far more inept supervisors, simply because they've been there for less time.

I've known supervisors who have been at companies for decades (one of our clients actually) who have absolutely *no* clue what they are doing. And yet they receive a fat check. Your statement has nothing to do with reality Joe.

But Joe is right regarding unions and seniority. Unions make it very difficult to fire under qualified teachers and promote better ones. And, yes, we all have our horror stories of managers who have no clue what they are doing. I've fired a few. But in dealing with the unions I have a LOT harder time trying to promote a better qualified person over a person with seniority. Can't be done.

Yes this is a form of abuse, but I know people in unions and who have worked in unions. That happens a lot less than people think it does. Though it does happen at times. But again, that's like any "corporation," so taking that into account, I don't see how it affects teachers anymore so than it affects someone working for inept supervisors.

Or worse yet, inept CEOs or Boards of Directors who are kept on because it's almost impossible to fire one. But people still strive to be part of that culture and get those jobs because of the money and, to a certain extent, the prestige associated with those jobs. Teaching doesn't have that particular magnetism, for obvious reasons.

Uhm, I would have lived up to my full potential if I had gone to UPenn or Brown or Johns Hopkins University or Boston University or any of the other myriad good schools I was accepted to.

The point is that I wouldn't have gotten to that point in which I had the option to go to some of the best schools in the country if I had stayed in the public school system in NYC. I grew apathetic. The level of the curriculum was atrocious and quite boring. I was only challenged once I got into private schools. That's when I began to take off wrt my education.

(bolding mine)

It's a shame you did not live up to your full potential once at Yale. As you stated in the other thread you "Dropped out. Too bored and jaded. hehe." http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6487&highlight=school However at least your repaying your student loans. That I'm glad to hear.

Heh. The main reason I left was because I felt that the school was less about furthering my education and more about maintaining a bureacracy. That's where the jaded portion comes in. For instance, one of the problems I had was with regard to a beginner spanish class. I had never studied spanish before, but it was something that interested me greatly. There was the beginner class for people who had never studied spanish, or had only a remedial understanding of the language, an intermediate class for people with a good understanding of the language, and the advanced class for people who were fluent.

Unfortunately in my class, half of the students lived in spanish speaking households. So while they were not literate, they could speak quite fluently. Suffice it to say, 60% of the grade in the class was speaking. I brought this situation to the attention of my teacher, then my academic advisor, then my dean. I even organized the other students who were in that class (the other half basically) to talk to their deans about the situation. We all got the same response. "We can't help you. Sorry."

I basically looked at it as the school was more interested in this particular situation, of leaving things alone, rather than promoting an environment in which you take courses because you actually want to, for the sheer love of learning, instead of to get an easy A. But that was my own individual problem with the school.

So after that situation and a few others, I left after the first semester of my junior year.

You should have had the choice to be able to go wherever you wished to go and not have to think about the money. As I said before, in a purely meritocratic society, you could have equally chosen either one, and they could have chosen you if you qualified academically. If Princeton says "We want you to come" and you want to go there, but you can't because you can't afford it, well, something is wrong there.

Only if Princeton gives financial aid that Joe would have to pay back should he be allowed to go. If Princeton can't give Joe aid, and Joe can't afford it, then too bad

Again, I don't agree that finances should be a barrier to qualified students going to the school of their choice.

I have argued that one cannot be for getting rid of racial preferences, but in the very next breath argue that legacy preferences belong, or gender preferences belong, or geographical preferences belong. If we're going to get rid of one, we need to get rid of them all.

I agree.

See? That was easy.

 

[epicstruggle]

i do agree that admission should be more than perfect grades. People who do community service, play sports/music, or other interesting things outside of the classroom should have these activities considered. It would get very boring very fast if everyone was the same. anyways, my position is that things you have no control over should not effect your admission (ie race, and how much money your parents have).

later,

 

[Clashman]

Natoma was probably referring to this when he mentioned the 25K figure.

http://www.aft.org/research/survey01/tables/tableIII-2.html

The table cited earlier is in large part inflated by a relatively old and experienced labor pool. It doesn't look as bad when you average all teachers because there are fewer people who have just recently entered the teaching system to drag the average down.

This is why you have poor quality teachers. It is a disincentive to enter the teaching force if you are going to payed you 14k less than the average college graduate.

 

[Clashman]

But Joe is right regarding unions and seniority. Unions make it very difficult to fire under qualified teachers and promote better ones. And, yes, we all have our horror stories of managers who have no clue what they are doing. I've fired a few. But in dealing with the unions I have a LOT harder time trying to promote a better qualified person over a person with seniority. Can't be done.

The main reason why it's difficult to fire under-qualified teachers has much less to do with unions than you think. It has to do with the fact that there are very few able-bodied teachers to replace them. It is not unusual in even relatively affluent school systems to have a teacher leave and be stuck with long-term substitutes for a half-year to a year, (and in many cases during that time they train them to get their teaching licenses). In many poor school districts these substitutes in fact become de-facto permanent teachers.

 

[Clashman]

Yup. If they don't have enough money, and they don't take out a loan (as in, an investment in themselves) to pay for it, then they shouldn't go to the particular school with the "high tuition."

If someone doesn't want to make the investment in themselves...why should I make an investment in them with my tax dollars?

Other people who meet the admission policies and are willing to invest in themselves should indeed go.

Classic. Define "shitty." Anything less than an Ivy league school?

I just graduated from the University of Minnesota, hardly Ivy league stuff. I applied for dozens of scholarships, maxed out my loans, worked part-time/full-time jobs while in school, and ended up graduating in 3 years. Despite all of this, I STILL would not have been able to attend the U of M had it not been for my parents being able to kick in whatever I couldn't cover. People without that kind of luxury CAN'T GO, plain and simple. It has very little to do with them being willing to "invest in themselves".

Families with more money can get a more expensive K-12 eduction

Which believe it or not generally, (although not without exeption), translates to better. More money=the ability to hire more and better teachers, counselors, get up-to-date class materials, etc. Believe it or not, Joe, the factors that make the biggest differences in kids even being admitted to colleges, (ACT, SAT, critical thinking skills, computer labs, extracurricular activities, sports, etc), are in large part dependant the resources school systems can make available to them to prepare them properly.

Hello? Thier parents / guardians bear that responsibility. Not only for socio economic position, but for instilling morals and values into their children, and encouraging them to do more for themselves...

Hello? Why should MY success be dependent on the things my parents can achieve for me instead of my own abilities in comparison to everyone else?

And I'm all for VOUCHERS by the way, because that increases competition. Moreso though, I'm for de-unionizing public school teachers, because that increases competition of teaching jobs and raises the quality of teachers.

By my model, the main detriment to success is a lack of drive and will to succeed.

Where is this 'competition' of yours for those who have money? It seems as though money is used to avoid competing against those with fewer economic resources but equal and in many cases superior abilities and personal drives. By your own admonition, all other things being equal, (other things including, but not limited to: intelligence, personal connections, ambition, personality, etc), those who have more money can advance further in life sheerly because they have been endowed with greater financial resources to pursue the course they want to.

 

[Silent_One]

Clashman wrote:

The table cited earlier is in large part inflated by a relatively old and experienced labor pool. It doesn't look as bad when you average all teachers because there are fewer people who have just recently entered the teaching system to drag the average down.

This is why you have poor quality teachers. It is a disincentive to enter the teaching force if you are going to payed you 14k less than the average college graduate.

(Bold mine)

well....theres more to it then meets the eye. The following is just a small part of some very interesting information on finances in education at this site-
http://www.calnews.com/Archives/1YB_II_sal.htm

The differences between the salaries of the average teacher and the new teacher can be significant. It's useful to know about the average teacher, but when we seek to increase education spending, and therefore teacher salaries, our primary purpose is to attract more highly qualified candidates to the profession. Teacher attrition (discussed later) is not a major issue after the three-year point. The evidence suggests that once teachers successfully complete their probationary status, they are unlikely to leave the profession until retirement. Increasing salaries to increase teacher retention is unnecessary. Increasing salaries to improve teacher recruiting may be necessary, but it will require an examination of a different set of wage statistics - the starting salaries of teachers.
The American Federation of Teachers collects data on the minimum, or beginning, salaries of teachers in each state. Simply listing these salaries has some value, as we can then determine how initially attractive the teaching profession would be to a prospective candidate. But people don't choose career fields merely on the basis of the starting salary, but also on the opportunity for, and swiftness of, wage advancement. In other words, prospective teachers are interested in what they will be paid now, but they are also interested in what they will be paid in three, five and seven years.

Table 7 ranks the states by starting teacher salaries, based on the AFT data for 1995-96. It also includes a percentage figure termed the "climb." The difference between starting salary and average salary for each state is expressed as a percentage of starting salary - the higher the number, the steeper the "climb" to average salary and the smaller the number, the more shallow the climb. The reasoning behind the climb statistic is that prospective teachers would be more likely to take a $20,000 position with a steep climb than a $20,000 position with a shallow climb. The starting teacher salary in the United States as a whole was $24,507, with a climb of 53.6%.
TABLE 7.

State Starting Salary Climb (%)

1) Alaska 34,800 36.1
2) New Jersey 31,435 55.6
3) Pennsylvania 29,514 56.2
4) Connecticut 28,840 76.6
5) Maryland 26,846 53.6
6) New York 28,749 67.4
7) Illinois 26,753 51.4
8) District of Columbia 25,937 63.6
9) Massachusetts 25,815 66.7
10) California 25,762 63.7
11) Michigan 25,635 85.0
12) Nevada 25,576 54.6
13) Virginia 25,500 36.0
14) Hawaii 25,436 45.6
15) Alabama 24,824 26.2
16) Rhode Island 24,754 69.0
17) Georgia 24,693 38.2
18) Oregon 24,592 59.9
19) Washington 24,590 54.5
20) Wisconsin 24,560 53.0
21) Vermont 24,445 48.3
22) Delaware 24,300 66.8
23) Indiana 24,216 55.6
24) Oklahoma 24,187 20.6
25) Arizona 24,042 28.3
26) Minnesota 23,998 53.5
27) New Hampshire 23,510 52.2
28) Florida 23,508 41.8
29) Texas 22,642 39.7
30) New Mexico 22,634 28.6
31) Kentucky 22,457 47.3
32) West Virginia 22,011 46.1
33) Missouri 21,996 47.2
34) Wyoming 21,900 44.2
35) South Carolina 21,791 44.1
36) Kansas 21,607 50.6
37) Tennessee 21,537 53.8
38) Colorado 21,472 69.4
39) Iowa 21,338 51.7
40) Nebraska 21,299 47.9
41) Arkansas 21,189 40.9
42) Maine 20,725 58.6
43) North Carolina 20,620 47.5
44) Utah 20,544 47.9
45) Ohio 20,355 87.1
46) Mississippi 20,150 37.4
47) Montana 19,992 46.9
48) Idaho 19,667 57.1
49) South Dakota 19,609 34.5
50) Louisiana 19,406 38.1
51) North Dakota 18,225 48.0





The initial reaction to teacher recruitment problems is to raise starting salaries. This is likely to increase inflow to the profession, but it may not have as great an effect as needed. All other factors being equal, an increase in starting salaries means a smaller increase in average salaries. Depending on a number of factors and the structure of a pay raise, an increase in starting salaries may significantly flatten the climb, offsetting some of the positive effects of the raise. Compare the states ranked 15th and 16th in Table 7. Alabama's minimum salary is $24,824. Rhode Island's is $24,754. Since the cost of living in Rhode Island is much higher than that in Alabama, one might reason that it is easier to hire new teachers in Alabama than in Rhode Island. But when you account for the climb, the perspective changes. New Rhode Island teachers can expect a 69% climb while Alabama teachers can expect only slightly more than 26%.

Ohio, at $20,355, ranks 45th among states in starting teacher salary. This ranking may be politically useful in bargaining for better pay for starting teachers, but the 87.1% climb is certainly an important factor in choosing teaching over other professions. The results of Table 7 may reduce the importance of starting salary as a measure of recruitment efforts. This does not end the debate, however. School boards can use the information to argue against higher starting salaries, but unions can argue that increases along the entire pay scale are a necessary element of teacher recruitment.

(note: the 8) are NOT part of the list)

Finally, salary is only one component of teacher compensation. Benefits - as we have seen in the per-pupil spending tables - are a significant expense for school districts and therefore a significant factor in teacher recruitment, hiring and retention. Salaries and benefits, taken together, are so significant that they constitute almost the entire amount of what we call "instructional spending."

Again, discussing teacher salaries without taking benefits into account is leaving off over a quarter of the compensation picture. Teacher prospects certainly consider benefit packages when choosing one career over another, or one district over another. It is the total amount of compensation tendered to teachers which dictates what kind of work force public education will have.

The press has settled on per-pupil spending as the hallmark of public education finance. But the most recent U.S. Department of Education figures show that 57 percent of all we spend on education goes to pay the salaries and benefits of teachers

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You don't consider it an injustice if "Rich Student A" with a C average and 1000 SAT is able to go to a top flight school while "Poor Student B" with an A average and a 1500 SAT is not able to go to that same top flight school, merely because they can't afford it, thus they have to settle for a school of lower quality?

No, it's not an injustice at all. But your analogy is not clear at all. What do you mean "able to go?" Does that mean he was accepted? Or merely has enough money to pay for tuition if he's accepted, rather than taking out a loan?

The following is NOT an injustice.

1) Rich Student A is admitted and attends. This is assuming that A C average and 1000 SAT is all this "top flight school" requires for admissions. (That is, the admitted Rich Student A based on legitimate credentials, not on welath.)

2) Poor Student B was accepted, not rejected.

That's not socialistic. That's meritocratic. You go where you go because you are *qualified* to go there. I can't believe you're actually arguing this.

Because it's socialistic.

You don't consider it an injustice if "Rich Student A" with an A average and a 1600 SAT is denied admisstion to a top notch school, and "Poor Student B" with a C average and a 1000 SAT is admitted instead?

Maybe from the same place that $350 Billion Tax Cut that went mostly to the wealthy would be a good start.

Lol...you mean the tax cut that gave tax refunds to people who didn't even pay income taxes?

Gimme a break Natoma. Class warfare is all you can muster? As soon as "the wealthy" stop paying the huge lion share of taxes in the first place, the wealthy will be more than happy to see tax cuts have a direct impact on "everyone else."

My tax cut amounts to an extra $40 in my pocket a month. Wooptedoo. I'd rather have used that tax cut to raise the average teacher salary another $10,000 - $15,000 in order to make it more attractive to the best and brightest minds who want to teach, but simply cannot afford to live at that level.

You mean, you'd rather give that tax cut to some lazy-ass tenured teacher who's preventing the brightest minds from wanting to teach?

You raise the average salary from $25,000 to $40,000, and that attracts a far greater range of people, obviously. It can only benefit students to have a better and deeper pool of teachers.

Wrong.

You force a non market driven salary on teachers, and that doesn't give you better teachers. That gives you more expensive sub-par teachers.

That is what we're supposed to be going after right? Helping students?

Helping. Not handing out.

Then it's a sad fact that society only deems a teacher's worth to be on average $25,000 a year while we feel just fine paying politicians $100,000 a year.

Wrong.

Society has not properly deemed public teacher's salaries at all. That's the problem, Natoma. The teacher's union, who lobbies and defines for "equal pay" for teachers by definition doesn't allow teachers to be rewarded for being better performers.

"You've been a teacher for X years, you get X salary."

"You're Tenured? You have to SEVERLY F*CK UP to even think about the possibility of being fired."

Those artificial and non capitalistic values of the teacher's unions are the single biggest threat to our children's education.

Want to know why private schooling is usually better? NO UNIONS. People ARE willing to pay more for better education. The catch is, it has to be better education.. And throwing more money at our current public education system never has, and never will, make it better.

The fact of the matter, Natoma, is that there are good teachers and bad teachers. And the BAD teachers do NOT deserve the same salary as the good teachers.

Education of children is our greatest challenge. They are our greatest resource because frankly they're the ones that are going to have to pick up where we leave off. If they aren't well educated, they can't do that. If they can't do that, this country goes downhill.

Blah, blah, blah. Spoken like a true condescending liberal. That's quite the revelation you've got there.

I've known supervisors who have been at companies for decades (one of our clients actually) who have absolutely *no* clue what they are doing. And yet they receive a fat check. Your statement has nothing to do with reality Joe.

Is that so? And tell me, is that company doing well? Because I can guarantee you if that company is NOT doing well, handing out fat checks to clueless supervisors won't last long. The company will go under, or the fat will be trimmed.

I've known inept teachers that get the same check as great teachers I'e known. My mom (recently retired teacher of 30 years) complained about it all the time.

So please, Natoma, don't lecture me about reality. Sit down and have a chat with my Mom.

*Money* attracts the bulk of the best and brightest minds.

Nope. Way too simplistic. Getting rewarded the way you believe you deserve to be rewared is what attracts the best and brightest minds.

And btw, I have given great thought to teaching. In fact when I was younger I seriously considered it as a vocation after I left college. Then I saw what teachers make on average and I realized that there was no way I could live on that salary.

Thank the teacher's unions for that. You never got the chance to see what a good teacher can make, because thanks to the unions, there's no such thing.

The sacrifices I'd need to make in my own life were too great for what I wanted to do.

So what about the inept loafs, Natmoma? When lazy-ass teacher wanna-be sees such "high" average salaries for teachers, and then finds out he doesn't need to perform to get such salaraies...what do you think is going to happen?

Intelligent people who want to give back to the next generation should not be forced to make a decision like that.

Must...resist...obvious....insult....

Unfortunately I have heard so many stories along those lines. Some people only get into teaching in their later years because they've saved up enough to be able to live off the lower salary. But think of all the years that students lost their talents?

Natoma,

First of all, can you just cut out the "touchy feely" stuff? It just gets in the way of useful conversation.

No one is arguing that teachers as a whole are currently properly compensated. I fully agree they aren't. Just "raising the average salary" isn't the right answer though.

I've had fantastic teachers in my life. I could not imagine any of them not being a teacher, not being there for me and others like me, simply because they couldn't take the salary.

Then why aren't you pissed off that these fantastic teachers didn't make one dime more than the imbicile teaching next door?

But then, I was lucky. The best teachers I experienced were mostly concentrated in private school (surprise). I can count 10 fantastic teachers I came across where the pay was better.

Hello? And why was their pay better? Because the Unions didn't dictate the terms of salaray and employment in attempts to 'level the playing field' for teachers.. Ask those 10 fantastic teachers if the thought the fact that they could be tossed out the door tomorrow if they were doing a sub-par job. Ask those 10 fantastic teachers if they thought they would be happy surrounded by inept teachers getting the same pay.

I can count 2 fantastic teachers from the public schools I went to. Ms. Lewis, my first grade teacher, and Mrs. Dorinson, my fourth grade teacher. Why the obvious disparity? Pay. Plain and simple.

Yup. Read above.

The point is that I wouldn't have gotten to that point in which I had the option to go to some of the best schools in the country if I had stayed in the public school system in NYC. I grew apathetic. The level of the curriculum was atrocious and quite boring. I was only challenged once I got into private schools. That's when I began to take off wrt my education.

Great. So you're knocking the public education system. Another brilliant revelation.

You should have had the choice to be able to go wherever you wished to go and not have to think about the money.

I quite simply disagree.

As I said before, in a purely meritocratic society, you could have equally chosen either one, and they could have chosen you if you qualified academically. If Princeton says "We want you to come" and you want to go there, but you can't because you can't afford it, well, something is wrong there.

I quite simply disagree.

If I feel Princeton offers me something that Rutgers didn't, then what is wrong with paying more for that something. I evaluated both schools, and made the decision that what Princeton offered over Rutgers simply wasn't worth the extra money.

And if that happens enough....then Princeton either goes down the tubes because no one believes it's worth it...or Princeton is forced to lower tuition.

This is not about Princeton being a "better" school than Rutgers because that is all up for interpretation.

Agreed. Different individuals seek different things from education. (College in particular). And every individual should be free to decide whether a school deserves to get his money for the education they offer. And every institution should be able to decide what they feel their education is worth.

And the "free market" will decide the fate of the schools.

It is about being able to attend the school of your choice because you have the academics necessary to do so.

It is about NOT paying for a type of education you don't want or need.

As I said earlier, your public school was probably quite good. The public schools that I and millions of other children have gone through however are not.

Not debating that point.

There are many otherwise intelligent students who get lost in the decrepit state of the system.

Sigh. AGREED. Can't you see that we only disagree on the solution to the problem? You keep on talking like I don't recognize that there IS a problem in the public primary school system.

There is a reason why they say today's public school system is a failure. It's because it's failing to educate millions of students properly.

So removing the finances from the situation and relying strictly on someone's qualifications as the deciding factor to whether or not a student can attend a school of their choice is essentially socialism, and it removes the incentive that fuels the very drive I'm talking about?

Yes, now you've got it.

Removing finances from the situation doesn't give financial institutions incentive to differentiate from one another. Why the hell should Yale strive to be any different than Bergen Community College if Yale is forced to accept stdents that can't pay for their education? How can Yale possibly expect to PAY these teachers the wonderful salaries you command if the students won't?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I just graduated from the University of Minnesota, hardly Ivy league stuff. I applied for dozens of scholarships, maxed out my loans, worked part-time/full-time jobs while in school, and ended up graduating in 3 years. Despite all of this, I STILL would not have been able to attend the U of M had it not been for my parents being able to kick in whatever I couldn't cover. People without that kind of luxury CAN'T GO, plain and simple. It has very little to do with them being willing to "invest in themselves".

Nope. You're wrong. You CAN GO.

At what age did you start to attend college? Right after high-school I bet. Where is the rule that states there is something wrong with working a few years to earn your own money, and using some of that to invest in yourself.

That's the problem with liberals. You just think you deserve everything NOW. The shock and horror of actually investing for the future just doesn't sit well with you.

Believe it or not, Joe, the factors that make the biggest differences in kids even being admitted to colleges, (ACT, SAT, critical thinking skills, computer labs, extracurricular activities, sports, etc), are in large part dependant the resources school systems can make available to them to prepare them properly.

The single biggest impact on education is the teacher. A good teacher can teach with crap materials, and a bad teacher can't do shit with every teaching aid known to man.

Of course, more money allows you to have more things. But that does not solve the problem of quality teachers.

Hello? Why should MY success be dependent on the things my parents can achieve for me instead of my own abilities in comparison to everyone else?

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I'm going to kick my 1 and 3 year olds out in the street tomorrow, because they shouldn't depend on me.

Where is this 'competition' of yours for those who have money?

Huh? It's everywhere. Private schools compete for students. Why do you think they generally offer a better education than public schools? The competition for students (money) forces private schools to be able to demonstrate their value to get the students.

It seems as though money is used to avoid competing against those with fewer economic resources but equal and in many cases superior abilities and personal drives.

My God you have this so backwards!

By your own admonition, all other things being equal, (other things including, but not limited to: intelligence, personal connections, ambition, personality, etc), those who have more money can advance further in life sheerly because they have been endowed with greater financial resources to pursue the course they want to.

That is not really true. All else being equal, those who "have" more money do have more opportunities. That does NOT mean that they can or will advance further in life. And we're forgetting for the moment that if you HAVE more money, it just might be because you've earned it, which earns you the right to have more opportunities.

 

[Sabastian]

Sabastian, I think you could stand to learn the difference between Marxism and Keynesian economics, (which is what the principle of the welfare state is based upon).

Sorry for the late response. I don't have time for long posts lately. Anyhow "Keynesian economics", redistributive economics or welfare state economics are based on the Robin-Hood philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. So naturally the Egalitarian Socialist mentality approves of this legalized theft. On the event the state seizes accountability for the economic planning of a nation it necessarily follows that the state wields access to employment and education. Then begins to set the level of working class incomes, distributes the supply of all the commodities and services made under the power of the government, and decides whom can say what within a politically correct environment add nausea.

The people and their institutions are mainly the results of an evolutionary progression that have formed in a complex spontaneous order. Tradition, Language, morality and the often understood rules of respectability, in addition to the institutions of the market, are the results of human accomplishment, but not necessarily of human engineering. They are the cumulative result of generations of a large sum of individuals acting in assorted ways for their own reasons.

Society is the creation of the knowledge of many more people than any social engineer could ever hope to grasp in my opinion. Limiting society's development to what the social economic planners can muster is to stifle all social development and create an environment of societal and monetary stagnation. Only when man is liberated without extranious intervention to pursue his own ends for their own purpose will everyone benefit. The social engineer's elitism come from their ego's in believing that they have the ability to go outside the confines of individual human knowledge and social circumstance as if they are masters and designers of society.

Redistributive economics opens the door to the tyranny of egalitarianism and the people whom are in charge of it. It is a top down modeled system of coercion and compliance on behalf of its subjects to whatever is dictated to them regardless of the subjects’ traditions, morals and even their language.

It is a slippery slope that once a society starts down it is difficult to return to normalcy as the populace is so dependent on the government for its economic well being as well as its moral compass. "What is your is mine" is a far different philosophical tenant to work from then the charitable "what is mine is yours."

The motive of equal outcomes is also flawed in that no matter how hard you try someone whom try’s less or outright does less is guaranteed an equal outcome by the egalitarian state to correct any assumed inequality. I'd rather the government treat equally without any preference to anyone for whatever said inequalities. Liberty is about individual responsibility, if you can’t be responsible for your own well being then you will not be free, someone will make you responsible via tyranny. Hence my annoyance with Natoma’s claim that "the 21st will be defined by economic haves and have nots." I hope this clarifies my earlier statements. It is a matter of principles for me.

 

[Silent_One]

Just to adress a few of the other issues you raised Natoma-

Natoma wrote:

You raise the average salary from $25,000 to $40,000, and that attracts a far greater range of people, obviously. It can only benefit students to have a better and deeper pool of teachers.

As I have already pointed out the average salary is already above $40,000
Natoma wrote:

The best teachers I experienced were mostly concentrated in private school (surprise). I can count 10 fantastic teachers I came across where the pay was better. I can count 2 fantastic teachers from the public schools I went to. Ms. Lewis, my first grade teacher, and Mrs. Dorinson, my fourth grade teacher.

Why the obvious disparity? Pay. Plain and simple.

But it's not plain and simple. As usual things are more complex than most believe.
-http://www.calnews.com/Archives/1YB_II_sal.htm

The great hidden cornerstone to the voucher debate is the role that teacher compensation plays. Vouchers are typically for a sum about half of what it would cost to educate a child in public schools. The reduced per-pupil spending is part of the appeal. Students will be able to get as good an education (or better) at half the cost. How? How can private schools educate children for half the price? While private schools operate with significantly smaller overhead costs and administrative staffs, the cost differential is mostly due to lower pay and benefits for their teachers. On average, public school teachers make 50 percent more than private school teachers. Voucher supporters don't publicize this because they don't want people to believe they are only out to deflate teacher salaries. Teachers and their unions don't publicize this because they don't want people to believe they are only out to inflate teacher salaries. So, despite its importance in motivating each side - the pro-voucher side's aim to improve academic results at reduced costs, the union's aim to protect its membership - teacher salaries are never mentioned in voucher debates.

The average public school cost per student is $6,662 while the average private school tuition is $3,116 (average Catholic shool tuition is $2,178) http://www.edreform.com/pubs/edstats.htm#SALARIES AND WAGES:

Then it's a sad fact that society only deems a teacher's worth to be on average $25,000 a year while we feel just fine paying politicians $100,000 a year. Education of children is our greatest challenge. They are our greatest resource because frankly they're the ones that are going to have to pick up where we leave off. If they aren't well educated, they can't do that. If they can't do that, this country goes downhill.

Well, yes, politicians get paid a lot. But their job is to run the government, which sounds like a pretty important job in my book, and, as you say, we want to attract the best we can get (not that their doing a good job, which makes one wounder -but thats another topic for another thread...) Note in the following table however that Superintendents get paid very well, like CEO's and politicians. And also take note of the average salary of a private school teacher. So much for your assumption that p...form.com/pubs/edstats.htm#SALARIES AND WAGES:

PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS:

District Superintendent: $112,158
Associate Superintendent: $97,251
Assistant Superintendent: $88,913

PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS:

High School: $79,839
Middle School/Junior High: $77,382
Elementary School: $72,587

PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS:

High School: $60,999
Middle School/Junior High: $63,706
Elementary School: $59,080

PUBLIC SCHOOL PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL:

Counselor: $48,195
Librarian: $46,732
School Nurse: $35,540

AVERAGE TEACHER BASE SALARY:

Public School: $41,820
Private School: $33,220
Catholic School: $21,898

Natoma wrote:

I said the $350 Billion Tax cut would help because the entire amount is in the hands of the government and can be doled out to help educational causes. Even if one million people donated on average $50, it would be only $50 Million. That's a drop in the bucket across the United States compared with the full cost of the tax cut.

And I said you should donate your tax refund of $40 per month, or $480 per year, if you feel that way. It's in your hands now to try and help the school of your choice. If one million people donated an average of $480 that $480 million, which is quite a bit of money. I gave $500 to a school of my choice last year and my wife volunteers at a local public school in the art department (she has a BA in art). Every little bit helps.

Edit; grammer and spelling

 

[Joe DeFuria]

An article which sums up the situation rather well, and touches on both themes in this thread:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030625-085922-5607r.htm

Unless the Supreme Court is prepared to state that the 14th Amendment does not mean what it says, then it is in clear violation of the Constitution to grant any preference that discriminates against citizens who have no access to such a preference.
In the part of the case that gave race less prominence in law school admissions at the University of Michigan, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor claimed the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." (Emphasis mine). This is not a constitutional argument. It is an invented one....

...
The National Assessment of Educational Process last week released "The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2000." It found that students in the dreadful D.C. school system are the worst readers in the country, despite annual per-pupil expenditures of $9,650 (second-highest in the nation in 2001) and teacher salaries that rank among the nation's highest. But D.C. students who don't learn to read shouldn't worry. If they are minorities (as most are), they can count on affirmative action to get them into college, illiterate though they may be. This is the message the Supreme Court has sent in its decision.

(my emphasis added)

 

[epicstruggle]

I think my attitude on this whole issue stems from my family's immigration (illegal at first, now legal) from South Africa. We worked hard, my parents made me and my brother and sister work very hard at school and at the family business. We never took anything from the govermnent and expected nothing either. We all excelled both the business(es) and in our education. I can see a situation where anyone could not do the same. All it would take is the willpower of the student and the parents. However some people lack this support structure, but it does not happen to one race alone so I cant see why AA is still in action.

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Another good article:

http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_6_25_22_30_51

Instead of skeptically examining Michigan's use of race in admissions, as is traditionally required in Fourteenth Amendment cases, the majority deferred to the law school's claims that the policy is necessary and has substantial educational benefits. Social scientists may not be in agreement about these nebulous benefits, but the Court did not care, giving the law school the benefit of every doubt.

Now, I haven't yet read the text of the decision itself, but if the article above is accurate, that discrimination was allowed essentially because it is "believed" that by doing so by someone there is some benefit....I am extremely worried.

It the fact that the benefit of "diversity" was considered by the justices at all is most troubling.

The Supreme Court has no business whatsoever making a ruling on this basis. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding or striking down laws and / or lower court judgements based on their Constitutionality.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that diversity is some exception to the equal treatment of individuals. If that were the case, the Supreme Court could make a decision on whether or not a particular discriminatory practice is for the purposes of diversity or not. What we We have another case here of activist judges "creating law" where it does not exist.

If there is strong enough evidence in the benefits of diversity, then the proper route to allow for discrimination, is to ammend the constitution to reflect that. The constitution is ammended by the legislative process, not by activist judges.

Leftists will never take this approach though. Because to do so would be to explicitly state the result. That is: everyone is not entitled to equal treatment.

As the article closed:

Monday was a dark day for those who believe that all men are created equal and that the Constitution is color-blind.

 

[Sabastian]

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that diversity is some exception to the equal treatment of individuals. If that were the case, the Supreme Court could make a decision on whether or not a particular discriminatory practice is for the purposes of diversity or not. What we We have another case here of activist judges "creating law" where it does not exist.

If there is strong enough evidence in the benefits of diversity, then the proper route to allow for discrimination, is to ammend the constitution to reflect that. The constitution is ammended by the legislative process, not by activist judges.

Leftists will never take this approach though. Because to do so would be to explicitly state the result. That is: everyone is not entitled to equal treatment.

As the article closed:

Monday was a dark day for those who believe that all men are created equal and that the Constitution is color-blind.

Exactly Joe. What is worse is that liberals are promoting state enforced discrimination, the same one you pay taxes to. They are not really promoting equal treatment but rather equal outcomes and this is the epitome of the welfare state mentality. Argh, I could go on and on. Judicial activism is anti democratic and is a form of tyranny in my opinion.

 

[pax]

With all the blaming this on leftists thats going on Im kind of curious why this was done by a conservative court... Or at least one that was largely chosen by republicans... I also wonder if this doesnt have repercussions other than trying to undo past unequal treatment (which is legitimate and comes whithin the ideal of treating everyone equally). And in particular the famous patriot acts. Could this new law simply legitimize profiling for military or political purposes?

 

[Sabastian]

With all the blaming this on leftists thats going on Im kind of curious why this was done by a conservative court... Or at least one that was largely chosen by republicans... I also wonder if this doesnt have repercussions other than trying to undo past unequal treatment (which is legitimate and comes whithin the ideal of treating everyone equally). And in particular the famous patriot acts. Could this new law simply legitimize profiling for military or political purposes?

I don't think that this ruling will actually change much. The indications are that AA is still in place but quota's are not. I think that with this ruling institution’s are still obliged to have a diversified recruiting regiment but we are not going to mark it down. wink wink nug nug.... likely there will be a little more leeway as a result of the ruling but it isn't a significant ruling against racial preference at all. That is what I got out of it written quota’s are wrong but intentionally recruiting a specific race is not. I say the action does not go far enough against race discrimanation implemented by the government.

BTW I don't think that this is a result of a conservative judges ruling at all.

The law school program was upheld by a vote of 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote by siding with more liberal jurists.

it means at its core is that affirmative action may still be used and the court's given us a road map to get there,"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative
.action/index.html