[geeks] New Tech Schools: Digital Harbor in Baltimore

[wa2egp at att.net]

> There is some truth to the idea that you get what you paid for.  However,
> teachers are usually paid significantly above average wages in most places
> where I've looked it up, so I'm not sure that's really the problem.

That's total BS.  For the same education?  I don't think so.
And don't look at the top scale.  Too easy to use that.
 
> If they aren't getting paid enough, then neither is anyone else.
 
> Also, in many areas complaints about the funding of education has resulted in
> big increases in pay, and school budgets.  At the same time, the quality of
> the students has dropped significantly.
> 
> While this doesn't prove that paying more gets you less, it does at least
> show that money isn't the fundamental problem.

Agreed.  The fundemental problem is where the money goes.  Example: You can
buy duplicating paper cheaper at Staples than the company the board uses.  
So much for the bid process.

> Just a note: my 6th grade teacher retired at $49K/year in the late 80s or
> early 90s. This was when a major or chief on the police force would only get
> about $35K/year, and the local average retirement pay was under $22K/year.

Factor in how much they get paid, how long they have to work to reach
pension age and how the pay scale goes.  (Teaching is not linear in many
cases.)

> Not that it proves anything, but I'd be real careful trying to draw
> conclusions from pay scales.
> 
> BTW: my sixth grade teacher was a great guy.  He was the only one in the
> entire 7 years of grade school that was worth a damn, so I don't begrudge him
> getting a decent retirement.
>
> The problem is all the crappy ones got it too.

I'll agree with that too. :)

> > It is a little too easy to glorify the education systems of the past.
> 
> Most of the comparisons are noting what is missing now, not glorification.
> 
> Some of this is natural cycles, but in recent history we've also played far
> too much with social engineering, and trying to teach the next generation by
> showing them how to use what the last generation created, rather than how to
> create it themselves.
> 
> Other than that, a lot of things have improved, and that's certainly a good
> thing.
> 
> However, what good does all that knowledge do a graduate, when he is still
> functionally innumerate and illiterate, and unable to create tools?

The perfect voter?  The perfect juror?
 
> > We might get a very different picture by comparing the average
> > vocabulary of all 18 year old students in 1950 and 2006. 
> 
> It would seem better to compare their ability to make use of the vocabulary
> they have.
> 
> Quantitative analysis is popular, but useless in most cases.

And the balance between quantitative and qualitative is hard to find,
especially agreement about the balance between different parties.
A good vocabulary is not a good indicator of the thinking behind
the words. :)

Bob