So in G2A Consequences of Weakening Unions, I just asked about this topic and Erin at MinnPost had recently written about it.
Now this Steps Lanes chart is just for example. Please remember that this is not for 12 months, it is for about 9.5 months. RDALE Teacher Contract Appendix A
Here are some other reference links:
G2A Steps and Lanes
G2A Pay Grades and Tenure Stress
G2A Why Pay More?
G2A Mpls Teachers and Schools Conundrum
Finally, here are my comments from the Weakening post.
Now this Steps Lanes chart is just for example. Please remember that this is not for 12 months, it is for about 9.5 months. RDALE Teacher Contract Appendix A
Here are some other reference links:
G2A Steps and Lanes
G2A Pay Grades and Tenure Stress
G2A Why Pay More?
G2A Mpls Teachers and Schools Conundrum
Finally, here are my comments from the Weakening post.
"I guess we are back to the question of if people should be paid more just because they are older?
Which would mean people should be paid less just because they are younger or have not been with the organization as long?
Now assuming they have:
- the same work load (1 class or subject)
- the same responsibilities
- the same performance
Should the 50 year old teacher make twice what the 30 year old teacher makes just because they are old? If so, what is the rationale?
As discussed previously, I make about 1.7 times what a new engineer out of college makes. However it is not because I am older, it is because have very different job than they do. They are responsible for the design of various components / machines, where as I manage the release, design, build, installation and acceptance of many complete systems across the world.
Now if highly compensated Teachers had different work loads, responsibilities and performance, then I can understand paying them more?
However having 2 third grade Teachers paid very differently in 2 classrooms that are next to each other with a similar mix of and quantity of students just because one is older makes no sense to me." G2A
55 comments:
If we hire younger teachers, we can pay them less.
--Hiram
Personally I don't want to pay Teachers less...
I want to ensure that their wage is based on their:
- level of responsibility
- difficulty of subject
- level of classroom / school challenges
- performance
Not their age / timed served.
The unfortunate reality is that the highest paid Teachers in the Mpls district are not working in the most challenging classrooms where the kids who need them most are.
The current compensation system is set up to reward Teachers staying put and getting degrees... It is not focused on closing the academic achievement gap. Too bad for the unlucky kids. :-( Very good for the Teachers who like taking classes and staying in the same district for decades. :-)
But many do.
--Hiram
Why are you trying to make sense of a pay system which has no basis in common sense? Teachers need to be paid on merit, including how well they discipline the class, how many students they teach, and how much academic progress the students make in aggregate, compared to both some objective standard and relative to other teachers. Then their total pay gets set compared to what similar employees are paid in the job marketplace, and raises assigned taking all those factors PLUS the amount available in the budget into account. And don't say it cannot be done-- private employers do it all the time.
You are also trying to understand a system concocted to serve a government system. So long as you keep insisting on facts and logic, that's highly unlikely.
Hiram,
I guess I disagree, it seems to me that most people truly want "No Child Left Behind". They want every 18 year old to be academically capable to be independent citizens who can contribute to the success of their children and America.
So the question is how do we use our existing budget more effectively to accomplish this excellent goal?
I guess I disagree, it seems to me that most people truly want "No Child Left Behind".
Sure, it's a focus group derived phrase. Of course people like it. But it doesn't stop them from sending their kids to private schools, more or less expecting to leave public schools behind.
No child left behind can mean all kids are the same. I don't think that's necessarily true. Schools and what it means to succeed in them can mean different things to different people.
we use our existing budget more effectively to accomplish this excellent goal?
I am big fan of never buying an airline ticket, without at least some idea of what you want your destination to be. However, what our life goals and what goals for our schools should be involve much more complicate issues than a desire to spend the holidays in Miami.
I read on this board that success is good, and that it makes sense to reward success, which might otherwise be insufficiently rewarded I guess. But what does it mean to succeed? What is success? Is there an absolute standard for it, or is it possible that success might be that horrible thing, a relative concept?
--Hiram
Hiram, you are muddying the water again. Academic success means that you can read, do math, and have some reasonable knowledge of how to be a good and productive citizen. Most of it can be proven by passing a test, and the final test is if you graduate and can hold a job. Not that complicated.
And the simple solution to using our budget better, to achieve that rather simple goal for as many kids as possible (no child left behind), is to pay our teachers and our school districts for RESULTS, not platitudes or promises or "programs" that either fail to advance towards, or are even detrimental to, the desired result. Find what works. Do that.
My school has about a 20% pass rate on MCAs and we take some pride in the fact we do better with east african immigrant students/ English language learners than MPS does,(and we do it at a much lower level of funding) How much are we willing to spend to increase that pass rate? Some students like the ones I teach, are just not going to get there. I am imagining which of my students would pass the test if they had 1:1 teaching for the entire day. I think I could get some of them to pass the math test, maybe.
Anyway, I agree with John that teachers who are paid much more could have more expected from them than a beginning teacher - mentoring, curriculum development, more challenging students, etc
I think to decrease the difference in salaries would take more $ as I think beginning teachers deserve a raise and not a paycut for those at the top of the pay scale.
Laurie, a couple of things. First, good to hear from you on this subject. Second, since you do better than MPS, with less funding, WHY doesn't the MPS system adapt your approach, whatever it is that makes you successful to the degree you are? Can you think of ways that the MPS level of funding would make you more successful, and if so, why are they behind?
I don't know if beginning teachers need a raise or not. What I do know is that if we abandoned the steps and lanes and went to a smart merit system, we would get more "bang for the buck." First, there would be salary "ranges" established for beginner, apprentice, journeyman and master teachers (or whatever nomenclature you like). Each would have distinct responsibilities and expectations, and the $ ranges established by competition with other school districts in the area. Then, there would be either an annual or twice-a-year performance review that included class size, class "difficulty" and discipline, and aggregate academic advancement, among other things. Those that scored high would get sizable raises or even bumps into the next higher range (and title?). Those who were meeting expectations for their range would get cost-of-living, and those not meeting expectations would get zero, or a cost of living every 2nd, 3rd or 4th year so their actual compensation would go down and they might take the hint. Now, if you could add the freedom for individual teachers/schools/districts to choose their curricula and methods, you might see rapid progress.
I don't care if that costs more money, so long as it is spent on results, but right now the MPS spends twice the state average and gets half the academic results, with no promise of doing better for all that extra money.
even though we get less funding I think we have smaller class sizes than MPS because we are paid significantly less. That is my main idea of why we do slightly better when looking at academic growth of students.
If I was given significantly more money for my school I would extend the school year and have the students start around Aug 1 rather than the end of Aug.
Laurie, there are no studies which show significant gains in academic achievement due to reducing class size, beyond the second grade. There is a gain to be made by "tracking" students and giving the slower ones extra help in or out of class. It works.
I do like your idea for spending extra money on extended class time-- hours or days or both-- especially for ESL learners. And paid or volunteer 1:1 or small group tutors are a great help, too, and give "bang for the buck." Sometimes a get just needs a little push over the obstacle.
Jerry,
Of course class size matters...
If it didn't then 1:1 and small group tutors would not be advantageous...
I always find it amusing when you drag out that opinion.
Laurie,
I agree that normal NCLB standards do not apply to special needs kids who are academically challenged.
And I agree that your school should get more funding, however Ed MN won't let that happen.
However the Mpls schools have a lot more expense than your school does...
Mpls Special Ed: 17.1%
Banaadir Special Ed: 5.4%
And I assuming they get the most challenging kids since they have more resources.
Report Card
The studies on class size are clear and not an "opinion." Over any PRACTICAL range of class sizes, it doesn't matter beyond the 2nd (some say 3rd) grade.
And I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and say that there isn't much "featherbedding" in that 17% SE number. But I will question whether these kids are educationally "disabled" or educationally disadvantaged. That is, do they have a real learning disability or simply difficulty in learning-- say by lacking the underlying basic education, for example a 3rd grader that never learned to read well. Either way, it is understandable that costs might be higher, but twice as high for half the results I find hard to believe.
I AM willing to have government spend the money; I would just like some accountability. If they are going to label a child an SE and produce an IEP, they should attach a cost to that. Then we would know.
Same old... Source?
No point attaching a cost to the specific IEP, they have to spend the money to comply with the federal law. And my district often reported the "cross subsidy" where money was reallocated to the special ed bucket.
And we have discussed the impact of poverty and neglect on the brains of young children. Not to mention the terrible long term impact of drugs, alcohol, lead, etc.
Jerry is right that there are studies that say reducing class size often has little impact. From my observations the amount of impact it has depends on the skills and teaching strategies of the teacher. We have an outstanding 6th grade teacher in my building who fits in a lot of small group work and 1:1 teaching with her students. Give her less students and each one will get even more time and support from her. Other teachers do almost all whole group teaching so it makes little difference if the whole group has 25 or 30 students in it.
Laurie,
I think there are many factors regarding what is the optimal class size. If one has a class full of 50 kids like my youngest daughter, no problem... They will all sit there and focus on what the Teacher says, they will work quietly in groups and/or if she knows the content she starts working on homework from another class.
The challenge is as one starts to make the classroom increasingly diverse in:
- academic capabilities
- special ed vs normal ed
- children who do not want to be there
- children with family problems
- high class turnover due to mobility issues
- multiple language learners
Therefore class size does not make much difference in a typical Wayzata classroom. However it could be a big deal a N Mpls classroom.
Please remember that if you give Jerry an inch he will take as mile... :-) He would happily have your classes up to 40 in a class room...
Class size review
Conclusion
"Class size reduction programs are popular with teachers and parents because they are believed to improve academic performance, curtail behavior problems, and accommodate more flexibility in teaching methods. Some experts contend, however, that other types of school reforms are more beneficial and cost effective than class size reduction. It is difficult for a state or local school district to make a policy decision based on the numerous studies because they reach conflicting results. Regardless of the conclusions of the researchers, however, it is likely that educators and parents of public school children will continue to support smaller class sizes."
Laurie,
Do you think the Teacher's could increase the learning if they only had 15 to 18 kids in a class?
If not, what again is preventing these children from learning?
An earlier link I provided noted that charters are attractive to Somalis because it allows the kids to not be exposed to American culture. Which of course means less bad peer pressure, but it also means less good peer pressure.
The kids and parents are surrounded by people who look, act and think just like them. And it is easy to put off learning and speaking in English. None of this is good for the kids who need to learn to be normal Americans if they truly want to succeed here.
Class size Ref 2
Class Size Ref 3
"Funding for schools will only bring fruitful results if there is a healthy teacher-student ratio. Growing diversity in the population means more demographic disparities within a class, affecting student performance. Unless handled individually, these differences cannot be overcome in a one-size-fits-all system.
Several studies conducted over the years show students in smaller classes perform better than in larger classes, especially elementary school students. This is even truer for minority students, special-needs students, at-risk students and those who struggle with English literacy.
Debates about assessments and academic performance being the right measure for student success are raging all over, yet the stress on test scores seems to be rising. The value of small classes is evident with more teacher-student interaction and relation, quality instruction time, greater access to technology, greater adaptability to intellectual and educational challenges leading to less disruptive behavior.
The benefits go way beyond test scores and student engagement. The increased probability of attending college offers long-term success for both the individual and economy. Thus, a manageable K-12 class size can lay the foundation for continued academic and life success. Higher earning potential per person means less crime, decreased welfare dependence and improved citizenship."
"they have to spend the money to comply with the federal law." Yes, but doesn't that give them an incentive to label more kids SE, so that they get more money? If instead the kid is just educationally disadvantaged and having a tutor for a year would get them OFF the SE list, is there really an incentive to do that? Again, I'm willing to spend the money, but I would like to know that the school is accountable for spending it wisely. "Jimmy can't read, and it will cost us another $20,000 a year until he graduates. Sure, we could get him a tutor for one year, for less money, but why would we do that?"
OK, let us state this again. Class size ALONE is not beneficial to academic success beyond the 2nd or 3rd grade. However, things like a strong discipline/classroom control must be in place, and there must be a separation of students by their learning pace. One reason CAE is so effective is because it is a class size of 1 and each proceeds at their own pace. A class of 20 or more can do almost as well, if all are of similar abilities. The greater the disparity, the greater the discipline problems and learning failures.
"But many do."
It is worth noting that all of these teacher pay proposals seem to come from the place of implying that many or most teachers are paid too much. I have yet to see one of these proposals suggest that we increase the dollars spent for teachers to improve the pool of available teachers, for instance.
I certainly would not call my proposal paying teachers less. Indeed, if you multiply the $/pupil and multiply by average class size, our teachers today should be making a LOT more than they are now. Get rid of the overhead and pay teachers by class size and they automatically get a big raise. Then tack on merit pay and a career ladder and they could be paid a lot more still.
What I am uncertain of is whether we want to increase (improve I would agree with) the number of available teachers because that historically has kept teacher pay DOWN, and would continue to do so in a free market for that service. Again, if our teachers were better qualified, and even if we paid them better, we might see a substantial improvement in cost/benefit.
Jerry,
I have never heard of a district who is excited to label kids Special Ed...
Usually Parents have to fight with the district to get special services for their child. It seems you missed the point where I noted that RDale has to steal funding from the normal kids to pay the SE bills. (ie cross subsidy)
I wouldn't use the word "excited," but I am firmly convinced that Districts label kids too readily. They may be doing the right thing, even, to label academically disadvantaged kids as SE, just so they can get needed extra attention to them, to make up for the failure of their previous school/teacher. A lot of that would disappear if we rated both schools and teachers on a "merit pay" system. If a school needs above average money to produce average results, let them specify how much they can do for how much additional money and what additional programs/initiatives, above the state average. Then if they deliver they get to keep getting it. Otherwise they don't.
Jerry,
Are you really that uneducated about the requirements to be labelled Special Education?
Do you really think they can just put normal kids who are academically deficient into that classification?
Reference 2
Reference 3
I thought of an old saying that I could modify for this...
"Well we are losing money on every special needs child we have enrolled, however we hope to make it up on volume." :-)
Hey Laurie,
Jerry thinks you should just label your kids special needs to solve your schools money and academic success issues. Thoughts?
Well, they are "special needs" by a normal, non-bureaucratic reading of the term, are they not?
And you are assuming that schools make decisions on what is a "special needs child" based on a consideration of cost? If that is the case, then why doesn't every IEP carry with it an expected cost? No, a reading of the regulations shows me some "gray areas" where schools can do what parents want, and what they see as what they should do, money no object. They can always just go out for a referendum and raise taxes "for the children." So far as "steps and lanes" are concerned, it is simply another element that shows that school government and school finance are controlled by the special interests-- teachers unions and parents-- not taxpayers. Steps and lanes aren't there because they are the best way to pay teachers and incentivize performance. They are there to prevent performance from being a factor in pay and benefits.
Teachers have this problem. They complain about not being treated (and paid) as professionals (which they are and should be), but then they are managed and compensated like union drones.
Jerry,
I believe that schools base the decision on what the Parents, Doctors and the Other Experts determine is appropriate. I do agree that they sometime resist in border line cases to avoid the extra financial burden and to keep the child from being labeled.
I do agree that Teachers will never be treated as individual professionals as long as they keep the work rules, steps, lanes, tenure, seniority, etc.
I am suggesting that the school districts tend to "err" on the side of what parents want rather than what budget might dictate, as well as being "well-meaning" in wanting to make sure every kid succeeds, regardless of extra cost. What I am suggesting as an alternative is that, in these "borderline" cases, that the schools look for an alternative which includes modifying the curriculum and approach for EVERY body, to remedy whatever lack of learning opportunities may have arisen, and implementing extra tutoring or supplemental learning as appropriate to those most affected. In essence, push those kids the other way from the "border" rather than into the SE system. There are schools that do it that way, with some success.
And I think treating teachers as individual professionals would help with that.
Well actually this is exactly what schools with many lucky kids / families and few unlucky kids do. The majority has the time and money to help the minority.
"implementing extra tutoring or supplemental learning as appropriate to those most affected."
Unfortunately this is also why the schools with many unlucky kids and few lucky kids/families struggle. They have a bigger problem and fewer resources.
As for "an alternative which includes modifying the curriculum and approach for EVERY body". I think that is easier said than done.
As I noted earlier...
The challenge is as one starts to make the classroom increasingly diverse in:
- academic capabilities
- special ed vs normal ed
- children who do not want to be there
- children with family problems
- high class turnover due to mobility issues
- multiple language learners
Just because something is easier said than done does not mean nothing should be done. Yes, "diversity" in the classroom is highly detrimental, so one solution is to split classes by ability, even if they are smaller classes (maybe just until some catch up), without necessarily going to 1:1 full time-- that's very expensive. And some of those classes would need a) better (higher paid) teachers, b) a strong discipline policy and c) a curriculum tuned to teach the kids "where they are" academically and socially. That teachers can get more job satisfaction AND higher pay this way seems like a win-win.
For the most part we are aligned on Comp Policy:
"Personally I don't want to pay Teachers less...
I want to ensure that their wage is based on their:
- level of responsibility
- difficulty of subject
- level of classroom / school challenges
- performance
Not their age / timed served.
The unfortunate reality is that the highest paid Teachers in the Mpls district are not working in the most challenging classrooms where the kids who need them most are."
However "a strong discipline policy" always fascinates me.
What do you recommend?
Ref 1
Ref 2
Ref 3 PBIS
Ref 4
Ref 5
This piece represents more what I have heard from some Teachers. Ref 6
The story below reminds me of that comic I love so much.
"“First, districts need to offer more different/alternative learning environments at the K-8 setting. We are told over and over… ‘There are no spots open to move violent or disruptive students out of the mainstream … schools.’ Instead they are running around the hallways, yelling and screaming during class learning time, and generally wreaking havoc on their school, classrooms and classmates. Years ago, each classroom had 1-2 of these disruptive students. Back then, in-house resources and classroom management strategies managed to keep a lid on the behavior so most of the students in the classrooms could learn. Today each classroom has 5-6, if not more, of these violent, disruptive students. Daily, the talk in the lunchroom and teachers’ lounge is about how the ‘tipping point’ has arrived. We can no longer control our classes. With all the talk of test scores and raising the rigor … we just can’t do it with disruptive behaviors controlling our classrooms.
“In a nutshell, I am proposing an alternative setting for these disruptive, violent children early in their school career, providing the education and intervention they so desperately need.
“Second, teachers feel powerless to discipline. I am not exaggerating. We are told to never under any circumstances touch a student as a behavioral intervention. We have no way to discipline. If a child is running around screaming, we let them run around and scream. If a student throws a chair at the Smart Board we remove the other students and call for help. If a student shouts obscenities, we simply use kind words to remind them to use kind words themselves. I am not kidding.
“The only consequence at the elementary level is taking away recess or sending the offending student to a ‘buddy classroom’ for a few minutes. Basically, we are afraid to discipline for two reasons: district policies and fear of parent reprisals. It is more common for the parent to question the teacher’s version than to back the teacher. Every teacher can tell stories of personal threats from students and parents."
Some more funnies
Comic 2
Comic 3
Comic 4
Comic 5
Comic 6
Comic 7
This one is Excellent for those class size does not matter believers.
"The unfortunate reality is that the highest paid Teachers..." Not true in Mississippi. What's wrong with Minnesota?
Interesting that, in discussing discipline and suspensions, the "special ed" kids had several times the percentage of disciplinary actions. That tells me that maybe schools ARE classifying kids as SE simply for behavioral reasons, something that MIGHT be fixable with a more effective discipline policy, whatever that might be.
An effective discipline policy is one that ignores racial disparity and tries to get all kids to engage in constructive learning as quickly as possible. One of your articles noted the correlation between discipline problems and the general failure of the school to teach reading. That makes sense.
Your other articles point out what, for me, is the dichotomy in the "discipline" question. That is, it is a far cry from talking in class to physically assaulting the teacher or a fellow student. Somewhere in there "effective discipline" means expulsion AND arrest.
Hmmm, I know of districts where there are special schools, with bars on the windows, where one can go instead of expulsion or suspension. Call it a "last chance" or "tough love" situation, but it removes the most disruptive from the rest of the students. Seems like a very good idea. Or you could have one or two classrooms in a school so dedicated, employing an ex-Marine as in instructor.
Don't start with Mississippi again, now those folks have some serious academic achievement problems... Of course on the upside they don't have the achievement gap problem MN has, since the lucky kids don't learn as much either...
Please remember that a number of the Special Needs can generate some severe behavior issues. (ie Autism, Emotional Disturbance {They include anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression}, Traumatic Brain Injury, Other)
Unfortunately race is an issue because many more Black, American Indian and Hispanic children come from abnormally dysfunctional and poor families, and therefore have more likelihood of behavioral problems and special needs. And when this shows up in the discipline numbers, the Far Left cries foul and forces the schools to keep them in classroom in the name of "equality".
The worst case I heard of was when a ~2nd grade Black girl told a ~2nd grade white girl that she was going slit her throat if she did something trivial again. The Teacher and Parents brought this to the Principal, and they said no significant punishment could be done to the offending girl because the district was trying to improve their "equal punishment" numbers. Needless the good academically focused family and their students moved schools soon after. Leaving the little "slit your throat girl" with one fewer good role model peers and leaving the Teacher with a slightly more disruptive class. (again...)
Unfortunately your ideas for tough love and special schools are likely illegal and expensive. Please remember that the drill Sgt would be very limited in what he/ she could do.
Don't YOU start with Mississippi again. I've been there, seen it, and my kids moved here AHEAD of their Minnesota classmates. You cannot go by statewide averages. Edina and Mpls have different track records. Even within those schools there are wide ranges of behavior and achievement. What matters is the underlying "system" for dissuading bad behaviors and promoting academic achievement. The easy way is to separate out the disruptive students without denying them the opportunity. You cannot do that by establishing classes/buildings with the same old rules and fear of lawsuits. If necessary, arrest the worst of these kids and send them to "reform school."
I keep coming back to my idea of universal vouchers, and allowing all schools to not accept the voucher if the kid gets too far out of line. Then, the parents will be told that they will be assessed X$ because their kid MUST, by law, attend school, and the only school that will take the little devil costs extra. It might help.
Here is another link stating the obvious... MN is 11 and MS 45
Now assuming that I am correct that most of the highly challenged unlucky kids come from poor broken single parent homes. Who exactly do you think is going to pay this "troublesome child surcharge"?
You did not want Teachers grading Parents and society threatening their benefits, and yet this seems to be what you are recommending. Just in a different way.
So? My kids did NOT come to MN better prepared than the kids who grew up in the MN schools? Funny, I was absolutely certain that they did. And I thought I knew that the best teachers went to the slowest classes, until they caught up (about second grade). Now it may have something to do with the culture of Mississippi, too, where kids say "Ma'am" and "Sir" when addressing elders. And they get a hidin' iffn' they don't.
The "troublesome child surcharge" is best used as a threat to bring unruly kids into line. If you want parents to understand the value of better behavior, and incentivize it, you have to put a dollar figure on it for them. The teachers are NOT "grading parents." They are directly reacting to the kids' behavior and comparing that to the standards and expectations. It is strictly a discipline policy. Of course, you first have to stop the schools from contributing to the problem by NOT offering an effective and engaging education. The kid that can't read is going to find other things to occupy their time. It should start out in K, 1 at the latest, where peer pressure and "restorative" efforts can take place. We used to make kids sit in the corner or clean the chalk board. I'm not sure why we cannot do that anymore for the little ones. Bigger ones will take more effort and must be "color blind."
Maybe you were at one of the good schools in MS... The data shows clearly that MS has big on going problems.
So you are going to threaten a poor dysfunctional single Mom with a bill that they can in no way pay... What are you going to do when they fail? Double dog dare them?
Please feel free to keep your dream.
So, the minute somebody talks about holding parents accountable, you want to sympathize?
You are Also the one who insists that poverty prevents academic achievement, and Mississippi has a LOT of poverty.
Please, pick a side.
I guess I have never thought that "poverty prevents academic achievement"... I know great 2 parent families who have little money and the kids do good to great.
I believe that it is "dysfunctional and/or negligent mamas and papas who academic achievement very difficult for their children".
And because of those same dysfunctions and/or negligence, they often tend to be poor.
I want to hold Parents accountable for their personal behaviors and choices, not because their child has issues that may not be their fault.
Some of those simple personal behaviors and choices:
- Do parents show up for conferences?
- Is child rested, clean and fed when they arrive at school?
- Do they make sure their child is doing their homework on time?
- Do they take action regarding concerns that are raised by the Teachers?
You know... The simple stuff that all good Parents do.
Now let me get this straight. You consistently use poverty as a proxy for "dysfunctional and irresponsible parents." You insist that you want to hold these parents "accountable" for their children's education. THEN, when I propose a means by which they might be held accountable not only for their children's education but for their child's disruption of the education of all other children, you seem to think it is impossible to hold "those people" accountable. I really want to know what miracle you have in mind to create accountability out of nothing, with nothing?
Correction: You want to punish people who have difficult children. (ie extra fees) And worse yet your plan will need a collection agency to try to get the blood out of the turnips.
I want to reduce benefits if Mamas / Papas are not fulfilling the basic Parental tasks and responsibilities. Therefore holding them directly accountable for their choices and actions.
We tax payers are already paying these folks, let's set some work expectations for the good of their children.
As for the relationship between:
- poverty
- parental capability / responsibility
- child skills / behaviors
- educational attainment
It is complicated to say the least and varies by situation.
However it comes back to:
Why are Poor People Poor?
and
What Contributes to Children Failing in School
Unfortunately people are often poor because they lack:
- a drive for continuous learning
- personal impulse control / self discipline
- a passion for work
- academic or skills capability
- a willingness to sacrifice for others
- a long term personal objective
All of these are critical to being a great Parent, so if they are lacking... It is no wonder that the children suffer...
Now I acknowledge that few Parents are perfect since they are human. However our society should hold mamas / papas accountable for some base level of performance. Especially since are helping to pay for the care and feeding of the child...
Somehow I am still not understanding. I suggest that we should tell parents their kids are misbehaving in school and if they cannot control them, they will have to send them to a "special" school that will deal with those behavior problems but probably cost them some extra money. Instead of taking money away from them by reducing the benefits that supposedly help the children and expecting them to change multiple aspects of their own behavior in exchange, I let them keep the money as a reward for changing just one behavior – that of their child. Which do you think more likely to succeed?
As I have asked before:
How are you going to force broke / irresponsible / overwhelmed people to pay for their child to go to school?
If the child's behavior is not able to be controlled by the Parents, will you still punish the Parents?
This seems like we are back to that very old discussion.
- How would we set the amount of the voucher so it is aligned to the unique needs of the child?
Post a Comment