Educational system reforms

[shockmonster]

To be fair, he said her work hours, not whether or not she puts in extra work after that. Many teachers grade papers from home.

I misunderstood. Yes as well as the extra time you alluded to during the summer, and on weekends.

[shockmonster]

Guess you missed the part where I inferred she was loved by parents due to her work performance. I would assume by that provocative comment you or someone close to you is a teacher, and it upsets you that another party who is a teacher could actually have a 40 hour/week job, while performing admirably. Sorry you or that other someone lacks the intelligence and efficiency of my wife. Some people become teachers because they love the field (my wife), others find themselves there because they couldn't eek it in a more strenuous academic field (you or yours perhaps?). Sorry about the sour grapes on the college degree back-up plan.

You probably don't mean it, but from your comments and provocative statements, you sound like you don't have any respect for your wife's vocation or pride in her chosen career. I would think that she makes a difference.

[shockmonster]

On the health insurance front, I'm not sure how you improve on USD 259's setup in the modern context of healthcare (it is free). If I had to choose between a $40K job as a teacher and a $50K job as a PM, I'm choosing the teacher gig every day of the week, no comparison.

I agree that USD 259 is great for a beginning teacher who has a family because they take care of their entire family and the district supplements that insurance. In order to make ends meet, most teachers have a spouse who works too and therefore, they lose that benefit ( I think that's how it works). This benefit helps the Wichita district to gain younger teachers who have families instead of losing them to outlying districts. Districts that surround Wichita, have ok insurance but they don't supplement families insurance (at least I haven't heard of any districts who do).

[ShockBand]

I agree that USD 259 is great for a beginning teacher who has a family because they take care of their entire family and the district supplements that insurance. In order to make ends meet, most teachers have a spouse who works too and therefore, they lose that benefit ( I think that's how it works). This benefit helps the Wichita district to gain younger teachers who have families instead of losing them to outlying districts. Districts that surround Wichita, have ok insurance but they don't supplement families insurance (at least I haven't heard of any districts who do).

USD 259 teachers do not lose the health insurance benefit if their spouse works. The benefit is hugely helpful in keeping veteran teachers, despite the challenges. You are correct that most outlying districts have insurance plans that aren't horrible for single coverage, but family premiums are enormous.

[Aargh]

If we want to raise the salary for teachers in order to attract a better quality of teachers...and that totally fits every free market model and every model of economics based on supply/demand principles, so I'm waiting for the free market advocates to tell me that wouldn't work.

If we are to raise teacher salaries, we're going to have to raise some taxes somewhere. I'd recommend collecting state income taxes on attorneys and doctors. The huge majority of those are in LLP's or LLC's which are exempt from state income taxes under current Kansas statutes. Those professions are not creating jobs. Nor are they "producers".

Anybody seen the ads Brad Pistotnik has on TV where his clients claim getting $600,000 and $810,00 from insurance companies? Brad got at least 1/3 of that, and he isn't liable for 1 penny of state income tax on that money, because he's an LLC. Doctors don't tend to create jobs and they aren't "producers".

Unfortunately, raising teacher salaries hits political problems immediately. Recent legislation to allow long-term teachers to be removed without review for due process makes it possible for school districts to simply fire long-term teachers and hire recent graduates at lower wages in order to make budget. Maybe that won't happen, but it's got to be "on the table" when budgets for education are squeezed.

[Aargh]

Can anybody confirm or disprove this?

I've been hearing from multiple media sources that the legislation to provide block grants to schools also had a clause in it that forbids Regents schools from raising tuitions for 2 years.

I'm also hearing that State funding for higher education has been cut by 2% or something like that. Anybody else hear that? Is it based on actual dollars provided or is it based on $$ provided per student. If it's $$ per student, then the State could actually be providing additional funds compared to a year ago, but actually providing less funds per student, in which case an argument could be made that Regents schools are actually getting an increase in funding.

[JackStraw]

This may be slightly off topic , but it is my personal pet peeve........ I did some volunteer work in the ICT public schools a few yrs back , mostly 6-7-8 grade math...... I was shocked at how many kids did not know their multiplication / division tables , and for that matter , even +/- tables....... Math is such a building process , and if you can't do the basics , then forget ratios , common denominators , anything else ...... It's a lot like basketball ..... forget about intricate moves and 40 footers ....... first learn to just dribble the damn thing and shoot a layup....... And the real scary thing was invariably , every kid would say that if they took the work home , nobody at home could handle that killer stuff.......... I could be prejudiced , Math was always my favorite subject , though I graduated in a diff area.......... Anyway , if I was in charge , you would have to pass Tables Class before you ever move on in the Math field...... otherwise , it's pointless......

[pinstripers]

My grandfather could go on for hours about how angry he is with the Kansas school system. He was a math teacher at a Wichita High School (I believe Heights) for 40 years, and he was absolutely miserable with the school system by the end. He's teaching at Butler CC twice a week now and much happier. I'm sure he taught many on here.

I'm an econ guy -- I generally believe economics provide simple and fair solutions to most issues in life. The average starting salary in Kansas for a teacher is around $33k. An E1 in the United States military stationed in Wichita would make almost $40.5k, once you adjust for all of the many parts of the military pay that aren't evident (paid insurances, non-taxed BAH/BAS, etc.).

So in one case you can go to school for four years, rack up significant college loan debt, and begin your career making $33k at 22 ... or at 18 years old a week out of high school, you can make $40k, with significant, constant room for promotion and a guaranteed raise every year, with zero college loan debt, likely a signing bonus, free tuition while you're in the military, and a GI Bill that's currently paying me $80k tax free on TOP of my tuition/books once you're out.

I knew young military folks in Hawaii making ~$110k a year by the time they were 23, with zero education. Why would anyone in this country become a teacher?

The few people who do feel strongly enough about helping the next generation that they accept a terrible salary to become a teacher are not the best of the best. You will get some who are, but you simply cannot pay that low of a salary and attract quality teachers. The people who choose to become teachers given the economic constraints they're forced to live with are absolutely commendable, but by not offering a competitive wage you simply miss out on tons of quality teachers that could bring new ideas and reinvigorate the profession.

So given my viewpoint on the world, I would begin any serious educational reform with economic considerations. Pay teachers more to attract better quality teachers. The average starting salary for a teacher in this country should be $70k. I would also increase economic benefits on becoming a teacher -- 100% student loan reimbursement if you teach in any public school for a set number of years following graduation.

Public school financing through property taxes is another giant problem we have. My cousins all went to Andover High School, because it's an excellent school paid for by wonderful property taxes from a wealthy community. That kind of financing simply institutionalizes generational wealth gaps, though -- you simply get a better quality education, even in public schools, based on the wealth of your parents and the location of your house. That's disgusting to me. The goal of public education should be a quality baseline that exists across the geographic spectrum, so that a student in an inner city has the exact same access to quality education as a student in a wealthy suburb.

That would be a start, at least.

Hell, I might even consider a federally controlled education system, if we wanted to go with an off-the-wall idea. Could the feds really do much worse than Kansas is currently doing? As it is, public schools are all too often a punching bag for state and local politicians. If we had a federal commitment to public education, one that could centrally manage the movement of teachers and resources, reliant only on Congressional funding, paid for nationally by corporate taxes ... I could see that being an improvement. If it adopted tenants of the military, it could work. "Enlist" in an educational corps of instructors, with student loan repayment, ongoing tuition assistance to continuing educating our teachers, national standards, etc. Continually move teachers the same way members of the military are, to prevent stagnation. That would be one way to effectively raise salaries nationwide while controlling quality of education regardless of property rates. It would also prevent insanity like we have in Texas, where they manipulate educational standards in textbooks to fit political and religious motivations. And it would probably solve the issues we have with public schools in over-emphasizing athletics over education -- you wouldn't have the massive football stadiums you see in Texas, or as many problems with teachers inflating grades of athletes, because they aren't as influenced by local factors.

I am gonna guess that the point here is that if you are in it for the bucks, join the Army.

[wu_shizzle]

You want to know what the #1 issue is in Kansas Public Education?

From 1992 to 2009 Student growth was 5% while Non-teaching staff grew at 43%.

The ratio of Students to Teachers is around 13:1 while the number of Students to Non-teaching staff is around 14:1.

http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge--Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools--Part-2.aspx#Map

The average Wichita Teacher makes $50k: http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Pu...er-salary.html

The average Wichita Assistant Principal makes $77k: http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/As...al-salary.html

So when you hear "cuts", know that this is spin from the school spenders. The only "cut" was when the federal stimulus dollars went away. Kansas schools spend almost $13k per child (Yes, this includes Facilities and Pensions) every year: http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolD...1/Default.aspx

[shocka khan]

The average Wichita Teacher makes $50k with all benefits: http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Pu...er-salary.html

The average Wichita Assistant Principal makes $77k with benefits: http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/As...al-salary.html

Dang! You just made my point about principals for our school district here in Houston. Most of the Principals make 110K+ (some elementary schools are high 90's).

The Assistants make 90-110.

I think the administrators are overpaid. I'd like to see the teachers make more.

[wu_shizzle]

I actually made a mistake and will post the correction instead of just editing my original post:

The average Wichita Teacher makes $73k.
The average Wichita Assistant Principal makes $107k.
The average Wichita Principal makes $129k.

When you INCLUDE all benefits.

[SHOCKvalue]

I actually made a mistake and will post the correction instead of just editing my original post:

The average Wichita Teacher makes $73k.
The average Wichita Assistant Principal makes $107k.
The average Wichita Principal makes $129k.

When you INCLUDE all benefits.

What is amazing in your above figures is if you replaced "Wichita Teacher" with "Engineer", "Wichita Assistant Principal" with "Lead Engineer", and "Wichita Principal" with "Engineering Manager", no one would bat an eye. My point being is that no one believes engineers are underpaid or economically neglected, but somehow many think teachers are. Sure, those figures are a little light for engineers if you were comparing apples to apples (full compensation), but not by that much in the grand scheme of things.

[SHOCKvalue]

This may be slightly off topic , but it is my personal pet peeve........ I did some volunteer work in the ICT public schools a few yrs back , mostly 6-7-8 grade math...... I was shocked at how many kids did not know their multiplication / division tables , and for that matter , even +/- tables....... Math is such a building process , and if you can't do the basics , then forget ratios , common denominators , anything else ...... It's a lot like basketball ..... forget about intricate moves and 40 footers ....... first learn to just dribble the damn thing and shoot a layup....... And the real scary thing was invariably , every kid would say that if they took the work home , nobody at home could handle that killer stuff.......... I could be prejudiced , Math was always my favorite subject , though I graduated in a diff area.......... Anyway , if I was in charge , you would have to pass Tables Class before you ever move on in the Math field...... otherwise , it's pointless......

You illustrate a ch!nk (<--- apparently a SN blocked word even when used in a non-racial context?) in the armor in the school teacher pay scales. Math and science teachers at the middle school and high school levels should make substantially more than their counterparts. Why? Because you have to compete with what their skill set is worth in the open job market. These are people that could otherwise be engineers, CPAs, scientists, or medical professionals. Conversely, a lot of teachers - while perfectly competent professionals in their field - are in effect professionally operating at their 'highest and best use'. Meaning most of them do not have a better career option outside of education. Completely different set of circumstances from the math and science teachers.

To me, this is likely one of the primary root causes of our education dysfunction in the US. While the vast majority of teachers are simply being fairly compensated for their skill set, many potential educators in the math and science subset are not even making it into the career track in the first place because more desirable options exist.

These variations exist in the economics of higher education, that much is clear. Go to the Wichita Eagle WSU salary database and look up a given engineering/accounting/finance/economics/natural science professor's pay, and contrast that with their compliment in the liberal arts/sciences or humanities. The former regularly out-earns the latter by a factor of 2 or 3. This same logic should be applied to secondary-level educators. Should a kindergartener teacher with 5 years of experience make the same as a honors-level math or science teacher with the same years of experience? No way in hell. It is why a large chunk of educators should feel like they have a pretty nice gig, but a small subset of them are undercompensated to the point that it is has ultimately made the US the dumbest of the World's superpowers in the context of a extremely important educational subset. It is a bit of a dichotomy.

[Iseeoz]

You want to know what the #1 issue is in Kansas Public Education?<br>
<br>
From 1992 to 2009 Student growth was 5% while Non-teaching staff grew at 43%.<br>
<br>
The ratio of Students to Teachers is around 13:1 while the number of Students to Non-teaching staff is around 14:1.<br>

But back in 1992, lots of states still had special needs students in special schools. As students have been gradually placed into the "least restricted environment" for their special needs, it requires a lower student teacher ratio. Add to that, the rise of disorders that were never diagnosed or didn't exist,
<br>
<a href="http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge--Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools--Part-2.aspx#Map" target="_blank">http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge--Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools--Part-2.aspx#Map</a><br>
<br>
The average Wichita Teacher makes $50k: <a href="http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Public-School-Teacher-salary.html" target="_blank">http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Public-School-Teacher-salary.html</a><br>
<br>
The average Wichita Assistant Principal makes $77k: <a href="http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Assistant-School-Principal-salary.html" target="_blank">http://www1.salary.com/KS/Wichita/Assistant-School-Principal-salary.html</a><br>
<br>
So when you hear "cuts", know that this is spin from the school spenders. The only "cut" was when the federal stimulus dollars went away. Kansas schools spend almost $13k per child (Yes, this includes Facilities and Pensions) every year: <a href="http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/SpendingPerPupil/tabid/1271/Default.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/SpendingPerPupil/tabid/1271/Default.aspx</a>

But back in 1992, lots of states still had special needs students in special schools. As students have been gradually placed into the "least restricted environment" for their special needs, it requires a lower student teacher ratio. Add to that, the rise of disorders that were never diagnosed or didn't exist and your ratios again need to be lower because of the greater amount of services delivered. I also believe that in the not too distant past, states put an emphasis on lowering class sizes in the lower elementary levels. There have been studies which show that learning increases with lower class sizes especially in lower elementary levels. These factors don't account for all the change in student/teacher ratios, but some of them make a lot of sense.

[wu_shizzle]

Add to that, the rise of disorders that were never diagnosed or didn't exist and your ratios again need to be lower because of the greater amount of services delivered.

And the cycle of out of control spending continues.