4 ms·

Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education (chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this comment

Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education (chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could afford to send their kids to private school if necessary. I think a few things are worth pointing out here: The best 10-20% of teachers are really good, because teaching is (although not as admired as medicine or law) admired enough that some seriously talented people enter it. Those teachers are highly desired and usually end up at the most reputable schools teaching honors and AP classes. So if you're lucky enough to have such teachers, you're going to get a good education. Good schools have no problem getting a satisfactory percentage of students to pass the assessment tests and therefore actually teach. Mediocre schools that are on the bubble begin "teaching to the test" (which means a focus of attention and resources onto the worst students, to the detriment of average and good students) and therefore the quality of education declines even further.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Focusing attention/resources onto the worst students will raise the median/mean quality of education at the expense of the quality of the 90'th percentile. For an egalitarian [1], this should probably be a good thing. [1] I use the word "egalitarian" in the liberal sense of favoring equal outcomes for all people/groups.
grandalf 16y ago
I think you make an accurate point that people who teach (who are capable enough to have other options) are probably not motivated solely by the financial rewards. But there is nothing about teaching that would prevent a top teacher from earning $250K per year. The reason that doesn't happen (and the reason we don't see more luxury cars in the teachers' parking long) is because unions have forced wages to be based on seniority and not based on merit. This means that rather than one teacher (a good one) making $70K and another (not so good one) making $30K, they both make $50K. This gives the bad teacher every incentive to continue being a mediocre teacher for decades rather than moving on and finding a career he/she is good at.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Focusing attention/resources onto the worst students will raise the median/mean quality of education at the expense of the quality of the 90'th percentile. For an egalitarian [1], this should probably be a good thing. [1] I use the word "egalitarian" in the liberal sense of favoring equal outcomes for all people/groups.

grandalf 16y ago

I think you make an accurate point that people who teach (who are capable enough to have other options) are probably not motivated solely by the financial rewards. But there is nothing about teaching that would prevent a top teacher from earning $250K per year. The reason that doesn't happen (and the reason we don't see more luxury cars in the teachers' parking long) is because unions have forced wages to be based on seniority and not based on merit. This means that rather than one teacher (a good one) making $70K and another (not so good one) making $30K, they both make $50K. This gives the bad teacher every incentive to continue being a mediocre teacher for decades rather than moving on and finding a career he/she is good at.