Thinking About Schools

In my online reading, I've been looking over The American Enterprise, and their latest online issue features a story about
Education Myths. The article actually refers to myths pertaining to the public school system. Right now, some of my family's money is supporting the system, so anything to help change the idea that public schools are unassailable is useful to me, and I think there were some good points made, although I've seen a lot of them made before. I also agree with the article's endorsement of vouchers, especially if they are applied to homeschooling and we could keep our money to use for education at home. But there were some questions about the article that I'd like to share.

Myth: Teachers are underpaid. They give some pretty persuasive arguments against this but one statistic given was surprising to me. This was that the average teacher in a departmentalized school (where various instructors teach different subjects) teaches less than 3.9 hours per day and therefore has time to grade papers and plan lessons during the day as well. I have only my own experience to go by, but I was pretty sure my sister, who teaches middle school level art in a very large suburb of Cleveland, had classes all day. This past year, she was not only teaching all day, she was on the road all day, traveling from middle school to middle school, without a fixed classroom. She definitely didn't have time for planning lessons and grading during the day, and was she supposed to do them in her car? I didn't go to a public high school, but in my parochial high school, the teachers taught most of the day too, with maybe one study hall duty. Anyone else have a different story?

I'd also agree that it's a problem that teachers can be so hard to fire. I've read lots of horror stories about teachers who have assaulted students, etc, or those who are just poor teachers, receiving myriads of parents and student complaints, who cannot be fired because of the bureaucracy involved. However, teachers can still be let go if a school levy fails, and around here, it seems to be a constant threat, so there's not necessarily the unparalleled job security the article asserts.

Myth: Smaller class sizes are better. I agree it would be difficult to find the number of quality teachers needed, and that the cost required would be staggering and therefore impractical. But I think smaller classes can be more useful than they are made out to be here. One of the big reasons I homeschool is that frankly, the Scientist was always near the top of her class, but the class was taught to the level of the students near the bottom. Individual students have individual needs, and it is much easier to teach to different abilities and learning levels with a smaller class. The article questions studies of smaller versus larger classes, and only test scores are used as criteria anyway. Well, my daughter got excellent test scores, because she already knew much of the material. We still weren't happy with the level of education she received. Smaller class size still is probably unachievable due to the difficulties stated. Classes set up by ability rather than age might help, but are likely to traumatize too many parents and students to be implemented.

Myth: The idea that private schools have an unfair advantage over public schools because they are wealthy; therefore vouchers are unfair. The article points to the average amount of money spent in a year on a public school student, versus the significantly average lower tuition of a private school, even less for the average Catholic school, to say that private schools actually have less money to work with. However, I would imagine that some of the costs of running a parochial Catholic school are covered the same way the costs of running a Lutheran school are covered: through the donations of members of the church or churches associated with the school. Just using tuition to measure the cost to educate a private school student, then, is not necessarily accurate. Now if the general public will be contributing in taxes towards school vouchers instead of public schools, whether one agrees with this course or not, the difference currently made up by church members would probably be covered. What the actual costs per student will be is another question.

Now the essay in The American Enterprise is adapted, so some of the things I have questions about may be covered in more detail in the original work. But I still wanted to share my thoughts with you. I just don't see the demand for a centralised school where students are sent to learn going away any time soon, if ever, so I'd like to see those schools run as well and with as little of my money as possible.