monte-esque wall of text incoming. im still in GRE writing mode

(1) US public education is heavily state- and local-controlled. I have no problems with this except when it comes to state censorship of history and science texts and curriculum by school boards. It seems like local control could lead to fewer "shackles" - I'm in favor of the federal government doing as little as possible.
I think the single greatest element of the stimulus package was block grant money to save teacher's jobs (in my opinion far more valuable than construction projects); if I have time I'm curious to know (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/spending/arra-program-summary.pdf) whether states that overall decried the stimulus were more likely to defund their schools and thus benefit disproportionately from these funds. I do know Rick Perry did not use these funds as intended.

‎(2) Relatedly, therefore, the federal Department of Ed is really more like a grandmother than a parent, if you'll forgive the metaphor. Even with No Child Left Behind, states set their own standards, and they set their own targets for how schools should meet these standards. DoEd hands out extra money (before the 60's it did not do this at all) and historically has required very little in return, until NCLB. As a scientist, I think the fact that we're collecting data is a good thing, even as I'm frustrated by how crude our measurements are. As time goes by, the tests will get better (I really believe this, more than most of you, I know). As for my metaphor - programs like Race to the Top are basically incentives - schools that don't want to try anything radically different don't have to apply for that money. They'll still get their other money. The states still determine day-to-day operations, and sometimes grandparents spoil their grandchildren, but ultimately the character of the kid depends on how their parents raise them.
It can't tell schools the minimum salary it must pay teachers, it can't tell schools to lengthen their school day, it can't tell schools not to cut extracurricular programs, it can't tells schools to get rid of vending machines. And that's how it should be, most people seem to think. So I don't see why it should be expected to give tons of money to states indiscriminantly. I think there's moral hazard in doing that anyhow.

&#8206;(3) I only taught for one+ year, and it's true that that's not enough to have real perspective, and that it's still more than many "education professionals." Faculty/community-run schools are very intriguing to me, and I'm much less scornful of administrators than I was when I was in school (principals were pretty much the only adults I remember openly ridiculing as a child). Teachers have plenty of work to do teaching their subjects. There are many teachers who do much much more for their students, which is wonderful, but they shouldn't have to, and supplemental staff that can support students are good things. Sec of Ed talked about paying science and math teachers (who are effective) more than humanities/social science teachers, and I agree with him, because hours spent with a teacher who doesn't know their content and can't answer excellent out of the box questions from their students are wasted hours. This is not to say that a teacher who knows their content but is not compassionate is what we want, it is simply to state that paying them a bit more would attract science- and math-knowledgeable adults, whose job prospects, outside of teaching, are higher paying. Frankly, if people are gonna talk to me about how they hated chemistry all the freaking time, and how their teacher made them hate it, and how they could never teach it, and <<I>> am willing to teach it and I do a good job, you should pay me more. Just like if I teach kids who are further behind and I do a good job, you should pay me more.

I maintain that education is so contentious because (1) much more than the average job, people think they understand it because once, long ago, they went to school, or their kids went to school and (2) because the product of your labor is SO incredibly precious. Even though we pay them more, and they have harder degree programs, our expectations for teachers are so much higher than doctors and lawyers because not everyone ever needs a meaningful professional relationship with a doctor or a lawyer in life (I've never had one, other than my childhood dentist), much less the 80+ teachers we have while we're in school. It's one of the most public and most scrutinized professions, and I'm glad that education is finally the topic of so much conversation (albeit for depressing reasons) because kids have been failing, and being failed FOREVER in ways that are often only EVIDENT in and not DUE to school. It's painful to examine the broken parts but I think we are getting somewhere. Honestly, doing anything else other than being in a classroom teaching, since I have those memories, often makes me feel like I am wasting my time, and I should just go back. But you can't do everything at once.

dammit, i thought i got rid of all the &#83297s

But as for the article: as soon as athletes and teachers are on the same payscale, I will consider the argument.

As soon as the public pays $400 for a family of 4 to go watch a science class that will happen.

Haha, I think i could mayyyyyybe get away with charging 5$ to watch a webcast of some of my classes. So I guess I'm in class A ball in this analogy.

$400 to watch a science experiment? only if there's a particular element involved...

The highest priced tickets are in the MC Escher section

Verms, I just don't see the point of demonizing the teacher's union in the public press, other than to score cheap political points and to stoke the libidinous rage of the rabble (as Thraxie so wonderfully demonstrated for us).

Real change in the system will only happen in partnership with the teacher's union.

Anyways, don't get your hopes up. Congress, for the most part, does not have any real incentive to do anything with the school system other than kicking it around every election cycle.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/09/How-Members-of-Congress-Practice-School-Choice

I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory public school education for all the children of members of congress. If you have to eat your own cooking, it is unlikely you will make a shitloaf.

I talk about shitty teachers that I had in high school that were nearing retirement and didn't give a fuck and that is consider a "rage of rabble"?

Unions serve a noble purpose but in the end they bastardize the process by holding entities hostage. Tenure is a fucking joke on teachers as very little is ever done to analyze the goings-on in a classroom setting. If there is analyzation the teacher knows about it in advance and minds his/her P's and Q's that day.

If you must work through unions, fine, but eliminate tenure. Contract teachers for short periods of time (3-5 years?). Allow students, faculty, parents, and administration to evaluate every teacher every semester. Make the pay scale base off the effectiveness of a teacher. If that includes graduation rates, proficiency in their particular subject matter, college entrance percentages, college graduation percentages......so be it! Use technology to get the parents and teachers involved with each other so that the parents stay involved with their children.

Making Congress's children go to public school won't work as they'll simply make sure they move to the best school district they can find. All public schools are not created equal which is why my wife and I just moved to a different school district for our children.