[glenra]

>> why should teachers have more job security than anyone else?

> Because otherwise a number of them would get fired every time someone from the opposing party gets elected.

How would that work, exactly? It seems like on so many levels a bizarre result to expect, and in the rare case where you might expect it seems like it'd be a positive thing more often than not. Or even if it wasn't, there are SO many simpler ways to prevent that outcome than giving EVERY teacher tenure.

Do you expect a republican or democratic political candidate to make firing all the English teachers or PE teachers or music teachers of the other party their first priority when elected to the (nonpartisan) office of Superintendent or to the City Council? Surely not! Does French or Math instruction come in Democrat or Republican flavors? Of course not! You're only really worried about science and history, right? Can you justify offering tenure to ALL teachers on that basis?

On the flip side, what if some teachers are objectively really terrible, a candidate runs on a platform of "I will clean up the schools by getting rid of these bad teachers!", and the candidate gets elected on that platform because the voters agree with it. Why shouldn't those teachers be gotten rid of?

[opendais]

> How would that work, exactly? It seems like on so many levels a bizarre result to expect, and in the rare case where you might expect it seems like it'd be a positive thing more often than not. Or even if it wasn't, there are SO many simpler ways to prevent that outcome than giving EVERY teacher tenure.

Oh? What is this great solution you have? The courts? That takes years, at which point the teacher is unemployed and may years later receive compensation. Good luck expecting that to go well.

> Do you expect a republican or democratic political candidate to make firing all the English teachers or PE teachers or music teachers of the other party their first priority when elected to the (nonpartisan) office of Superintendent or to the City Council? Surely not! Does French or Math instruction come in Democrat or Republican flavors? Of course not! You're only really worried about science and history, right? Can you justify offering tenure to ALL teachers on that basis?

My PE teacher also taught the sex ed class. My English teacher taught a book that was later banned in the School District for a number of years before being unbanned again.

Also? Only 6 of the 12 years is divided up like that.

> On the flip side, what if some teachers are objectively really terrible, a candidate runs on a platform of "I will clean up the schools by getting rid of these bad teachers!", and the candidate gets elected on that platform because the voters agree with it. Why shouldn't those teachers be gotten rid of? Why do you create arguments that are irrelevant?

The teachers that are terrible can be gotten rid of. If you think it is too hard, then streamline the process so they can be fired in X time period. There is a huge range between "can dismiss for any reason" and "can dismiss for performance".

[glenra]

> Oh? What is this great solution you have? The courts? That takes years, at which point the teacher is unemployed and may years later receive compensation. Good luck expecting that to go well.

Nah, it's an institutional problem; you'd solve it with slightly different rules about how schools are run. For instance, you could give principals more autonomy over hiring/firing teachers but make it harder to fire THEM, thereby reducing the ability of nitwit politicians to exert pressure to fire particular people. You could make more of the relevant intermediary jobs (like state superintendent) nonpartisan, and make being nonpartisan an explicit part of the job. You could add more transparency to hiring/firing decisions and leave it to the voters to punish politicians who do that sort of thing - if regular elections aren't enough disincentive, then add a petition-based recall process.

Or you could recognize that political sea changes at the local level don't happen often enough for this to be a significant problem, so we shouldn't worry about it until and unless it actually happens. Don't institute cures that are worse than the disease. (The fact that some district in Texas has this problem doesn't mean you need tenure everywhere in the country.)

Though the real solution is more student autonomy. Let parents decide which schools to send their kids to rather than arbitrarily assigning them to a specific one and the whole issue basically goes away. If parents don't like what's being taught to their kids, make it easy for them to go elsewhere or teach the kids at home and they don't NEED to get rid of bad teachers. (When people don't like what's served at a restaurant, they don't typically lobby to fire the cook, they just eat somewhere else! Because they CAN.)

Fundamentally, the purpose of a school system is to benefit the students, not the teachers. If you want to convince people tenure is a good idea, you need to make the case from that perspective - why it helps the students. Otherwise it just sounds like special pleading.

[opendais]

> Nah, it's an institutional problem; you'd solve it with slightly different rules about how schools are run. For instance, you could give principals more autonomy over hiring/firing teachers but make it harder to fire THEM, thereby reducing the ability of nitwit politicians to exert pressure to fire particular people. You could make more of the relevant intermediary jobs (like state superintendent) nonpartisan, and make being nonpartisan an explicit part of the job. You could add more transparency to hiring/firing decisions and leave it to the voters to punish politicians who do that sort of thing - if regular elections aren't enough disincentive, then add a petition-based recall process.

The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it.

> Or you could recognize that political sea changes at the local level don't happen often enough for this to be a significant problem, so we shouldn't worry about it until and unless it actually happens. Don't institute cures that are worse than the disease. (The fact that some district in Texas has this problem doesn't mean you need tenure everywhere in the country.)

I suggest you employ Google. Its a frequent problem in the South, not just Texas.

> Though the real solution is more student autonomy. Let parents decide which schools to send their kids to rather than arbitrarily assigning them to a specific one and the whole issue basically goes away. If parents don't like what's being taught to their kids, make it easy for them to go elsewhere or teach the kids at home and they don't NEED to get rid of bad teachers. (When people don't like what's served at a restaurant, they don't typically lobby to fire the cook, they just eat somewhere else! Because they CAN.) Fundamentally, the purpose of a school system is to benefit the students, not the teachers. If you want to convince people tenure is a good idea, you need to make the case from that perspective - why it helps the students. Otherwise it just sounds like special pleading.

And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure.

Strangely, people seem to pretend that they don't exist and/or balk at the full price tag.

It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due.

If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid."

[glenra]

> The voters vote these people in intentionally. They campaign on it.

Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-)

> And when people like you are willing to pay the full cost, including an externalities beyond just the price of tuition on everyone involved, sure.

What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do.

> It is alot like the USPS. Even UPS and Fedex don't want its unprofitable routes in rural areas because they can't be made profitable. The problem is, when you rip away the profitable portion of the process, it ends up costing the taxpayer just as much when the bill comes due.

UPS and Fedex aren't legally allowed to charge less than the post office does to deliver mail nor are they allowed to carry non-urgent mail or packages. The fact that they focus on high-priced delivery options is NOT because they're cherrypicking, it's because that's the only niche they've been able to wrest legal access to. (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!)

Get rid of the laws prohibiting competition with the post office, let the post office go broke if need be, and the private carriers would make money in rural areas too. Mail delivery would likely cost half as much if the private sector did it.

Incidentally, it has long been the case that in some rural areas the Post Office would deliver mail to the nearest "mail stop" (which could be miles away from a home) while UPS and FedEx would drive right up to the door.

>If you want vouchers, you need to fund every child equally...including the fact they may live in the wrong neighborhood. You don't get to say "Too bad, kid, you live in Compton. No one can get you to a good school on time unless we gave you more than every other kid."

Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to.

[dragonwriter]

> Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do.

Private schools should cost less per student because most of them systematically exclude the most expensive to educate students.

Public schools don't have that luxury.

[glenra]

That is a popular story, but I'm pretty sure it's not true. Do you have a source?

I suspect you're thinking of the sort of elite academy type schools that have tough entrance exams - but those are a very tiny fraction of private schools. There also exist private schools that that take anyone who applies and even private schools that specialize in special-needs students.

Also: in several parts of the US (including all of Florida, Ohio, Georgia and Utah as well as various municipal districts), special-needs students actually have their own separate voucher system which parents can use to attend private schools because the public schools aren't good at educating those kids.

[opendais]

> Great, then let them! What's the matter, don't you believe in democracy? :-)

It elects people who believe delusional things that are not grounded in reality sometimes, doubly so at the local level. I believe in checks and balances. There are no real checks and balances at the local level except in a timespan measured in years which isn't 'acceptable'.

> What externalities? Private schools don't have tenure and cost on average about half as much per student as public schools do.

Providing transportation with adult supervision for single parents who need to work and don't have a car to drop the kid off with. Providing food for those that can't afford to at lunch. Etc.

Things like that are part of the $13k figure. So, unless you are planning to drop all of that?

> Why would you expect there not to be good schools in bad neighborhoods? Absent the political incentive to centralize and bureaucratize you'd have lots of tiny schools all over the place meeting local needs rather than huge monolithic schools that folks have to be bussed over to.

1) Economies of Scale

2) People in wealthier areas can pay more and schools are partially funded through property tax...drum roll please...this means schools in richer neighborhoods have more money.

> (And they were able to do that because the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!)

LOL.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/13/pos... "Rising online shopping has sparked a jump in package revenue, while a gradually rebounding economy has stabilized mail revenue. That’s why the USPS forecasts a $1.1 billion operating profit this year. Quite simply, the package business is booming for the Postal Service."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fix-for-a-profita... "In 2006, lawmakers mandated that the Postal Service do something that no other public or private entity is required to do — pre-fund future retiree health benefits. That $5.6 billion annual chargeaccounts for 100 percent of the red ink."

That is simply was never true and has never been true. I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your rant.

[glenra]

> Providing transportation with adult supervision for single parents who need to work and don't have a car to drop the kid off with.

Is this really necessary? Surely a substantial fraction of kids could walk, bike, and/or take a public transit bus to the nearest school like I did. Or if driving has to be involved (why?) they could organize/join an informal neighborhood carpool.

Anyway yeah, I'd probably drop most of that. Or pay for it out of a very small fraction of the money saved.

> People in wealthier areas can pay more and schools are partially funded through property tax...drum roll please...this means schools in richer neighborhoods have more money.

That would have been a fine argument to make in, say, 1970. Nowadays, not so much. Though it might depend on what state you're talking about. Today there is in most states quite a lot of redistribution of state funds to make up for local variation. And many of the worst schools and school districts spend the most money - they just spend it badly.

>> the post office was at the time losing money on package delivery - it was only seen as a valuable market niche after Fedex showed that it could be done at a profit!)

> LOL. [random links]

Your two articles are completely irrelevant to whether package delivery and urgent message delivery were profitable for the post office in the 1970s, which was when Federal Express (now FedEx) got started. (The "urgent letters" exemption to the postal monopoly was made official in 1979.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

As for time-sensitive delivery today, FedEx is so much better at it than the Post Office that by 2000 the Post Office entirely gave up on providing that service themselves; they now subcontract to FedEx and UPS to carry most of the post office-branded urgent mail and packages.

(They don't do this just because they were terrible at delivering stuff quickly and reliably, but also due to a boneheaded post-9/11 rule change about carrying packages on commercial flights that broke their previous business model.)

(the post office also now subcontracts a lot of local rural delivery, fwiw.)