No endorsement yet of Mr. EveryHope by the WEA, but that cannot be far behind.

Competition is the driving force behind the success of America and the capitalist system.

Preservation of one's economic position by having the government supress others is a tactic used by those who are unable to compete. Public schools are failing bacause they don't have to compete.

This clown is a science teacher? He is an oxymoron. I thought science depended on critical thinking, rigorous testing and evidence, not wishful thinking or the rejection of contrary data.

gary b: do you have additional info on this guy or are you making your judgment solely based on this blog entry?

jed: i agree that one reason public schools are failing is their lack of competition, but i see it from a different angle--public school teacher salaries are not competitive enough to attract the necessary teacher talent. i know a lot of lawyers who chose their profession over teaching because of the money (and i know several, who after making some money and dealing with billable hours, are moving back to teaching).

dinesh: careful... you're actually making an argument FOR charter schools: let teacher salaries be determined by free market competition brought on by charter schools.

:)

i'm not very informed of the issue regarding charter schools, as i don't have kids and am thankfully no longer in school. thus, i don't have a position one way or another.

i am for making teachers' salaries more competitive (read higher) and for improving the skills/requirements of teachers.

as most people (i would think), i believe kids should have schools that were akin to mine growing up in texas--well maintained, well run facilities, with many extracurricular activities, and strict, demanding teachers who insisted on performance.

it seems that charter schools promise this. what i don't really understand, again b/c i haven't paid attention to the issue is what differentiates a public school from a private school from a charter school.

Hmmm, so teacher's salaries are uncompetitive with those in similar professions where people have three month's vacation every year, job security for life, and pay unrelated to performance.

So, how is it my sister and her husband, both teachers, drive new cars and are spending $300K on a custom-built house?

In previous blog entries Shark has shown to my satisfaction that the WEA (supported through my property taxes in the form of union dues from teachers, much to my chagrin) has two main goals:
1) Preserve the power and thus enormous salaries of union officials.
2) Push an ultra-left wing political agenda.
Thus, opposition to charter schools (can't have even one teacher who is not paying dues, can we?) and apparently to Rep. Quall is not based on any idea of improving school performance or any other educational goals.
Dinesh, I don't think the teachers are the problem, which is implied if you say we need higher salaries to attract better ones. I bet there are plenty of dedicated teachers that are suffering under the 'system' we have in place now, and would choose to try out some new ideas in a charter school if they had a choice. Too bad their union won't allow it.

Science teacher Airhead says

"putting schools in competition for limited dollars is a recipe for disaster, not a way to improve accountability.

"I think schools work best in a cooperative, safe environment," he said. "We shouldn't be competing with the school down the street. We should be helping them."

To ignore the contrary data regarding competition and improved product quality, it's customer focus and it's success in other human activities is just the kind of nonthinking a "science teacher" wouldn't engage in. You don't need an indepth interview with this clown to understand his position. It's right in front of your face.

i admit i'm out of my league on this one. i was not trying to suggest that many current teachers are not dedicated, skilled, etc., but rather that by making salaries more competitive with other professions, teaching would attract a greater number of qualified candidates, thereby improving competition in that regard.

i simply don't know enough about the operation of schools, their administrations, teachers' unions to make an informed comment. further, as i don't have school-going kids, i don't really have any stake in this (yet).

Dinesh

I think you're wrong about not having a stake in this debate just because you don't have children. We all have a stake educating all children so they pocess the tools and skills to be productive citizens. You too will suffer if the next generation in school is poorly educated. Our nation's ability to grow it's economy, create wealth, fund retirements, invent and make the USA a better place to live is put at risk with a populace whose educational level falls with each generation.

Rethink your position, understand the differences between educational approaches and vote.

gary: your point is well taken. what i meant to convey is that by circumstance this is an issue i have not addressed. having spent a lot (too much?) time in schools, i fully recognize the need to promote education to our kids (btw i have been reading some very distressing studies regarding the significant decline in u.s. college students pursuing science degrees). with politicians and parents abdicating their responsibility to ensure a child becomes educated, i worry who will look out.

i will become more informed, out of my own necessity as well as for the sake of the greater good.

any suggestions on where to get a non-partisan start on understanding the charter school issue?

How about some help for Dinesh Shark? I don't have a ready source except a google search. I think the Shark is already a great source of info on education in general.

> To ignore the contrary data regarding
> competition and improved product quality,
> ... is just the kind of nonthinking a "science
> teacher" wouldn't engage in. You don't need an
> indepth interview with this clown to
> understand his position. It's right in front
> of your face.

A favorite here seems to be personal attacks rather than addressing the issues. So how about this: At least EveryHope doesn't make grammatical errors like "indepth interview". (The correct usage is "in-depth interview". Maybe your teachers should have been paid more, as EveryHope suggests. Or maybe YOU went to a charter school ... that would explain it.

And to address your point: There's no data to "ignore" about improved "product quality". First of all, it's not a "product", it's our children. Second, charter schools do NOT improve quality. Higher salaries and smaller class size have been proven, time and again, to be the best way to improve education. Charter schools favor the few and penalize the many. And they cost a LOT. The data speak for themselves, as any good "science teacher" knows.