Teach your children well

[Gob]

Last week, $5,000 was dropped on the ice of a local hockey rink. It was intermission and the crowd wanted to be entertained.



School teachers duked it out for the one-dollar bills to pay for classroom supplies.

One teacher came away with $592 for supplies and school programs in the so-called “dash for cash”. Another pocketed $380. The cash was donated by CU Mortgage Direct, a home lender.

News of the stunt went viral and many online commentators were rightfully horrified. Why were public school teachers battling each other at a hockey game for much-needed funding that should be coming from the state and federal governments? Why were pencil, paper and whiteboard purchases fodder for a frenzied competition?

The answer, of course, is that many US states do not properly fund public schools and the federal government doesn’t do nearly enough to guarantee every child has a right to a functioning school building and well-paid staff. In certain states, public school teachers can enjoy comfortable pay and strong union protections, but there are many places where teachers have to work second jobs to create the semblance of a middle-class life.

South Dakota ranks among the very last in average teacher compensation. Rural states with Republican governors, like South Dakota’s Kristi Noem – a Trump favorite – tend to underfund their public school systems. Teachers’ unions are feared because they are viewed as a bastion of Democratic politics. For Republicans like Noem, weaker or nonexistent unions are preferred.

It is moral, of course, to pay public educators more and not force them to fight each other at hockey games for classroom supplies. On a practical level, it’s important too – many public school systems struggle to retain young teachers. Long hours at limited pay are punishing for new recruits and talented teachers can decide, after a few years, to take on private sector jobs elsewhere. No teacher wants to stress over how much it might cost to properly stock their classrooms with pencils and paper.

The teaching profession should be where the best college graduates in America go. In a number of wealthier nations around the world, where teaching is treated like an elite vocation, this is the case – a teacher in Germany, for example, can out-earn an entry-level doctor or web developer, which would be unheard of the United States. The top graduates from the best American colleges and universities simply don’t consider teaching because there are far better salaries and working conditions to be had on Wall Street, in the tech sector or in the medical field.

Part of the trouble is that the federal government spends relatively little on public education. A vast majority of the cost is foisted on state and local governments. In most counties, property taxes determine the physical quality of the schools and teacher pay. Affluent parents pay more in taxes for stronger schools for their children, while school districts with poorer parents lose out, left to beg for whatever federal funding might be available.

There are stirrings of a better world. In 2018, teachers in West Virginia went on strike for several weeks, protesting low pay and escalating healthcare costs. Similar strikes followed in Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona. In West Virginia, the teachers were able to win small pay increases while galvanizing the public behind them.

Change won’t come, though, until governors and state legislatures do far more to fund public schools and the federal government pumps cash into these school systems when local politicians refuse to help. If Noem wants to fail South Dakota, Joe Biden and the Democrat-run Congress shouldn’t let her. Congress just approved a $768bn spending bill for the military, promising a de-facto blank check for warmongering across the globe and armaments factories back home. Most of it is unnecessary.

Instead, members of Congress could actually consider carving off a large chunk of that cash for the public schools of America. No teachers would have to take to a hockey rink ever again.

Ross Barkan is a writer based in New York City

[Long Run]

Typical fallacious argument that ignores the salient fact, and is a prude party pooper to boot. The US spends about $15,000 per student on K-12 educations which is top 5 in the world.

[Burning Petard]

"The answer, of course, is that many US states do not properly fund public schools and the federal government doesn’t do nearly enough to guarantee every child has a right to a functioning school building and well-paid staff".

It is hard question to ask--why is education of children a responsibility of the federal government? There was zero federal money for education before the GI Bill after the end of WWII. A strong part of the argument for support of the GI Bill was to shuttle some of those veterans into a holding pattern in schools rather than flooding the job market with returning soldiers. And that was all for 'higher' education. Federal Support of k-12 public education came with the panic aroused by the Russian beep from the sky and Sputnik. That event was widely regarded as a failure to produce scientific and engineering results that were beyond the capability of those evil socialists in the USSR. The federal funding of K-12 was a direct effort to support our military after the embarrassment of Laika and Sputnik---evidence to the whole world that USA was not Number One. Lots of science and math teachers got advanced degrees at federal expense and continued to teach middle school and high school so that we would kill no dogs in the space race.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

That's true to a certain extent BP, but the federal government does provide a lot of training, especially for many of the trades, in the military. I know a number of electricians and plumbers who got a lot of their training in the army, and when I used to work in litigation, I found a lot of the court stenographers (especially in the south, where military service is regarded as a more attractive option) were trained in the military (indeed, local rules generally permitted stenographers using steno masks (which is otherwise used only in the military) for depositions). Sure, there is a trade off, but a lot of training is offered (and can be guaranteed upon enlistment). And, FWIW, there are some lessons to be learned from the military training; ti takes people of different background/intelligence/educational levels and trains them to be competent in a particular area, something our shcools might benefit from.

LR--that $15,000 depends on the state and locality where the school is located; some areas spend much more and drive up the mean. Other states, like Mississippi and New Mexico, provide far less. Add to that that no two school districts are exactly alike with regard to the student body, and we can see that in some the $15000 is nowhere near sufficient for what the schools have to do. It is all well and good to pooh-pooh programs like ESL, or school breakfast/lunch, or counseling services, but if that's what the students need, it has to be part of the education process (unless we just want to write off the portion of the student body which is poor or has special needs because of parents who are less than ideal). The goal is to provide a population of literate persons who are educated enough to understand and discuss the issues of the day, and that has to encompass all students, not just those who pass a certain bar.

So yes, additional funding and more training for teachers is necessary, as is trusting the educational experts (just as we trust other experts in other areas) to be a major part of the discussion as to how to proceed. Just think what year round school (common in many other countries) would cost, but it is an idea that deserves discussion. It is easier to curse the darkness, but we need more candles lighted.

[BoSoxGal]

The goal is to provide a population of literate persons who are educated enough to understand and discuss the issues of the day, and that has to encompass all students, not just those who pass a certain bar.

While I share this ideal, I don’t think many people do - nor do I think it was the objective of public education in its first incarnations in this country. As I recall, the Puritans who started the first schools here in Massachusetts wanted folks to be able to read the Bible for themselves to defend against Satan. Later educational policy focused on inculcating the populace, increasingly a population of immigrants, with shared civic ideals as well as basic literacy and mathematics skills. Today we have large populations of children who ride the school to prison (i.e., slave labor) pipeline far too often with the enabling assistance of misguided education professionals. It would be great if we had a unified vision of public education that was crafted around your ideal, but I think there are plenty of forces currently working to dumb down public education and undermine the ability of teachers to foster critical thinking skills in their students. Hence the movement to crush CRT, which is really about removing difficult history from the classroom and any opportunity to learn to question authority.

The dollars per year per student is a very misleading metric since public education is funded so disparately in most (all?) states. We should look at outcomes around the world and the educational models that produce them and not be so fixated on dollars spent per student. Anyone can burn money, after all.

[BoSoxGal]

Here’s a little background on early public education in USA:

Massachusetts passed the Old Deluder Satan Act in 1647, laying the basis for public schools in America. The Puritans valued literacy highly; they believed all individuals should be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. In 1642 Massachusetts had required parents to ensure their children’s ability to read, and five years later, in this act, the state mandated community schooling.

Act required towns to support teachers for their children

The religious basis of the act was explicit: the act stated its intention was to thwart “ye old deluder, Satan” in his goal “to keepe men from the knowledge of ye Scriptures.” To this end, the law required every town with 50 or more families to hire and maintain a teacher to instruct all children in reading and writing. Towns of 100 or more families were required to support a grammar school to prepare students to attend Harvard College. Similar acts were soon adopted in the other New England colonies, except Rhode Island.

Act established principles of public education

The act established several principles upon which public primary and secondary education continues to rest today: that basic education is a public or community responsibility, that the state can require communities to raise and expend local funds for schools, that day-to-day responsibility for the operation of schools rests at the local level, and that schools are to be organized in levels separating elementary from secondary education.

The religious origins of laws providing for education in early America may help explain some of the conflicts that have subsequently developed when courts, enforcing the establishment clause of the First Amendment, have invalidated devotional religious exercises in public schools.

[Jarlaxle]

The modern public school system is based on the 19th century Prussian model.

[Big RR]

BSG--while I agree with you re the history of public education, I am not sure there is any justification for public education other than the goal I provided in my post. Public education is not babysitting, nor is it religious based, but it does serve a legitimate public need. I would be interested in hearing what others see as the reason for public education (or believe we should just get rid of it).

[Sue U]

BSG--while I agree with you re the history of public education, I am not sure there is any justification for public education other than the goal I provided in my post. Public education is not babysitting, nor is it religious based, but it does serve a legitimate public need. I would be interested in hearing what others see as the reason for public education (or believe we should just get rid of it).

While it would certainly be nice to have "a population of literate persons who are educated enough to understand and discuss the issues of the day," I think that is at best an aspirational goal of public education. The first and foremost purpose of schooling is to give students the basic tools to manage their own lives and be productive -- or at least, not parasitic -- members of society. In addition to basic math, communications (including the creative arts) and natural science, that should include some education on how our society works and the role of the citizen. Beyond that, the most important thing is simply teaching how to learn -- how to find, filter, analyze and absorb information using critical thinking to advance one's own personal knowledge and skills for whatever use may be desired. Stimulating interest in and teaching the foundations of any number of fields is great, but not everyone will want to understand or discuss the issues of the day, or to read (if at all) for anything other than pleasure, or to ponder the meaning of existence.

[BoSoxGal]

Precisely why it’s such a shame that there is very little civics education in the curriculum these days - something that is reflected in nearly every conversation about politics on social media, where it is shockingly clear how few people learned much if anything about the structure and functioning of federal government, much less state and local. Frankly I’m convinced that there are many ‘powers that be’ who wish to keep things exactly that way - ignorant people are often apathetic about a system they don’t understand and thus either don’t vote, or are easily persuaded to vote against their own interests.

And what is the point of all the college prep in high school without also teaching the basics of personal finances, including compound and deferred interest so kids can walk out of school with a diploma prepared to defend themselves against unscrupulous credit practices in the marketplace - and also prepared to thoughtfully consider whether college and student loan debt is truly the path that holds the most promise for them. But again, lots and lots of powerful interests that don’t want a populace educated in that fashion, prepared to make critically considered choices about the many paths to wage slavery.