[Vision2020] MSD Pay and Tenure--a reply

[John Moss]

Ted's last post reminds me of a quip I heard from a professor: "The real
difference between an M.D. and a Ph.D. is that an M.D. makes more money."

But we all know that you earn the most money if you wear cleats.

John Moss

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
To: <dale@courtneys.us>; <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] MSD Pay and Tenure--a reply


> Dale and Others:
>
> Parental involvement is a critical factor in a child's education.  I won't
> list facts and figures (this is not a research paper) but most people
would
> consider this assertion obvious.  And given this assumption,  I think one
of
> the best arguments for sending a child to a private school is that the
> parents pay for this education directly out of their pocket (unless there
> are vouchers or grants etc.), and therefore are motivated to be involved
in
> the education of their child, to get their money's worth, as it were.  Or
> maybe this is backwards:  the fact that parents pay for a private school
is
> evidence they were more involved with their child's education to begin
with.
>
> Either way, I believe if you take two groups of children of identical
> potential, and put each group in the same school, with all variables equal
> except one group has parents who basically ignore the child's education,
and
> the other group has parents who read to and with their children every day,
> enthusiastically discuss ideas with them, and help them with their
homework
> every night, you would see a major difference between the two groups in
> educational performance.  Of course I am assuming someone else is not
giving
> the child of the neglectful parents a lot of educational attention outside
> of school.
>
> Therefore one of main causes of the difference in performance as measured
on
> students test scores between private and public schools is due to this one
> variable of parental involvement.  The actual quality of the education in
> private vs. public schools does not explain the whole difference between
the
> measured performance of the students.  Might not some of the test score
> results of students in public schools in recent years be due to the
> increasing number of families with both parents working who have less time
> to be involved with their child's education?
>
> If you took all the children from public schools and put them in private
> schools and vice versa, and measured their performance years from then, I
> believe you would see the public schools performance as measured on test
> scores go up, and the private schools performance go down.  And not solely
> due to the fact that the private schooled children might be better
educated
> at the start of the experiment, or because the pool of students in private
> schools is skewed towards a congenitally brighter group, or from a
wealthier
> background, which are all important variables to consider, but in large
part
> because the group of children in private schools have parents who are much
> more involved in their child's education.
>
> One of the other variables that influence the differences in makeup of
> private school children compared to public school children is the fact
that
> private schools are not forced to educate every child that shows up at the
> door.  They can reject children that are disruptive or perform poorly, or
> are handicapped, children that the public schools must attempt to educate,
> with only the most extreme cases being expelled.  This variable clearly
> skews the performance of the public schools in a disadvantageous manner.
> Some of the disruptive students who perform poorly are probably influenced
> by a lack of nurturing parental involvement in their life, so this
variable
> in part just leads us back to my main point.
>
> I don't doubt many of the facts you present about MSD spending, Dale.  My
> experience in the MSD revealed some serious faults with the public
> educational system, including teachers of questionable skill with
> comfortable tenured jobs!   But I think you overlook other variables that
> weaken your case that the public schools are a bloated entrenched liberal
> bureaucracy that wastes money without putting education first.
>
> There are reasons why the public schools might need to spend more money
per
> child than a private school, valid reasons that address educational needs
> that the private schools do not address, such as attempting to educate
> neglected children whose parents look at school as state subsidized day
> care, or busing children to school from remote rural areas, or dealing
with
> seriously disadvantaged or handicapped students, or funding a football
team
> that travels all over Idaho, a football team I might think to be a waste
of
> money, but that supports activities many parents and youth and the
community
> wants as part of MSD.  Another factor to consider is that the public
> schools, being tax supported government institutions, need an added layer
of
> bureaucracy to deal with all the reporting requirements and documentation,
> etc. imposed on them.  If you looked at all the expenses connected to all
> the programs and services and administrative costs that public schools
> incur, this partly explains why public education is more costly per child
> than private in some cases.
>
> Doing an exacting item by item cost comparison between, say, Logos in
Moscow
> and the MSD, would reveal, I believe, that there are programs that MSD
> offers that do drive up costs compared to Logos, such as the Moscow Bears
> Football team, but that this program and others are ones the community
> wants.
>
> As far as salaries for public school teachers and administrators being too
> high, I believe the argument over this can cut both ways.  Of course you
can
> point to schools where the teachers do a good job on a salary that is
equal
> to or below the average salary at MSD.  So why increase teacher salaries?
> Because the cases of some schools getting by with low paid teachers does
not
> prove that paying higher salaries will not attract more qualified and
> motivated teachers to the teaching profession which could improve public
or
> private schools.
>
> You hear it often stated, at the U of I, in the corporate world, etc. that
> the justification for paying the U of I President, or the deans of certain
> colleges, or the CEOs of some corporations, the huge salaries or stock
> options or golden parachutes etc. is that it's the only way to get the
best
> people for the job.  Odd how this argument seems to be abandoned by some
> when looking at the salaries of some other professions, teaching among
them.
>
> When the best and brightest can become a lawyer, a doctor, a statistician
or
> a computer engineer, etc. and earn far more than ANY public school teacher
> in Idaho within a few years of entering their profession, do these people
> favor teaching in the public schools as a option?  When our capitalist
> economic system financially rewards the best and the brightest far more
for
> other professions than teaching, what does this say about the priority
given
> or the respect shown by our society for the profession of teaching?
>
> I know you can quote average professional salaries and claim that teachers
> in Idaho are reasonably well paid in comparison.   But this ignores the
fact
> that a lawyer or doctor or computer scientist who is among the best and
> brightest, and at the top of their profession, can earn way more than ANY
> public school teacher in the state of Idaho, no matter how long they
teach.
> This fact is well known, so I need not give facts and figures.
>
> The best and brightest in our universities, when looking at maximizing
their
> future financial success, almost never consider going into teaching in a
> public school, unless they have some other side venture they might be
> working on to supplement their income.  "There's no money in it" they will
> say!!!!!!!!!!This well known fact weakens your thesis that public school
> teachers are overpaid, and raises serious questions regarding your thesis
> that raising public school teaching salaries will not result in attracting
> better qualified, brighter teachers who can improve public schools.
>
> Ted
>
>
> >.
> >
> >As they say in California: "yea, uh-huh, whatever".
> >
> >The argument just continues to fall apart from there:
> >
> > >Just like vouchers are way out for people not to work
> > >with the community to better the local educational system.
> > >With vouchers, they can relieve themselves of the responsibility
> > >of working in the community by benefiting from the labor of others
> > >who worked to make their community a better place with better
> > >schools.
> >
> >This is also a *very* interesting argument. If there were vouchers, just
> >*where* would those kids go to school? In the local community (as opposed
> >to
> >Donovan's thinking, I guess, of bussing them out of state).
> >
> >It's absolutely *ridiculous* thinking that the only way you are going to
> >get
> >community involvement is by having government schools. That's absolutely
> >backwards from reality.
> >
> >As has been pointed out many times, competition in education drives
prices
> >down and quality up. Monopolies are always the worst possible option.
> >
> >What the liberals are *really* afraid of is that parent will have
> >educational
> >choice -- and parents may not choose what the liberals are feeding.
> >
> >This would probably only *really* hit home if every MSD parent had to
write
> >a check for $1,000 every month of the school year (since the cost at MSD
is
> >over $8,000 per child). I think if parents knew what was being charged
for
> >the education they are getting, there would be quite the little uproar.
> >
> >Best,
> >Dale Courtney
> >Moscow, Idaho
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>