Posted on 01/30/2007 5:45:59 AM PST by wintertime
(snip)
1. The practitioners know and can do things the public in general cannot do. They have a specialized body of knowledge.
2. The specialized body of knowledge practitioners have takes an extended period of time to learn.
3. The educators who prepare the practitioners are experts who agree upon the specialized body of knowledge practitioners must have.
4. Admission to a professional training program is highly selective.( snip).
6. Only members of the profession set the standards for licensure and certification.
7. The primary responsibility and loyalty of a professional is to serve the client and not simply the institution or governmental agency in which the practitioner may be employed.
8. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may control the way in which professionals relate to their clients, or the treatments, methods or procedures they use.
9. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may set the purpose, goals or objectives for the practitioner’s practice with clients.
10. The public at large does not decide how to evaluate professionals.
11. Only members of the profession can determine malpractice and dismiss or disbar practitioners.
12. Professionals determine the cost of their services.
19. Professionals are trained to serve clients with problems. By definition “professionals” do not seek to perform services to clients without problems.
21. Professionals share a code of ethics to which they commit and adhere. They cannot be directed to perform or not perform services for clients which conflict with their professional code.
The case that teaching does not meet any of these twenty one criteria can be readily made.
(Excerpt) Read more at ednews.org ...
OMG..............I can't believe you have the audacity to post this on the public forum.....have you no shame?
As you point out in an earlier post, that is largely the way it happens now...the worst schools get the least expensive (least experienced) and worst teachers, thus perpetuating the cycle.
There's such a thing as common courtesy.
It's obviously a concept with which you haven't much acquaintance.
the worst schools get the least expensive (least experienced) and worst teachers, thus perpetuating the cycle.
Well yeah, that's one of the things that needs to be fixed.
I think you've described what we already have. The difference being that the best teachers choose where they want to be based on something other than salary. Quality of living, quality of kids/families attending, appointment to desired duties (coaching, dept head) etc.
Point being that the reasons you cite for not making education private already exist: poorer kids already have lower quality education - unless a way is found to send them to a better school. Talent may not be spotted at the lower end now too, so you get inefficiencies in potential today too.
But a capitalist system maximizes quality. That's why capitalism produces all the best.
Arguing that privatizing education may result in the same problems we already have today - while omitting capitalism's obvious advantages - isn't cogent. jmho
Salary is as important to teachers as any other profession. NYC has been poaching teachers from Texas and other low salary states for years. They'll actually find young teachers and set them up in apartments in NYC. If you're under thirty with a graduate degree and a couple years experience, then it's a good deal.
Capitalism maximizes quality within a very narrow band at the top. Again, it's a get what you pay for world. You expect quality of any product to coincide with price. Low price equals low quality. Education is no different.
What is $25,000 a year buying? Answer: Indoor swimming pools, manacured lawns and playing fields, ivy covered buildings, squash and racquett ball courts, weight lifting rooms,,,,etc.
$25,000 a year is buying a country club environment, NOT necessarily a better education
Quick, somebody tell all those folks with kids at Choate they're throwing their money away. But note -- Bill Gates owes his success in large part to the Lakeside school, which invested in a computer system for students in the early 1970s.
Agreed - mostly.
But right now the quality isn't there to any degree comparable to what it would be as private. It seems that this point of view is willing to forego quality education for some in lieu of [below] average education for all.
"It's rather difficult to make that case that teachers are 'professionals' after you've made a statement like that, isn't it..."
Where did I make the case they are professionals?
I'm making the case there are very many good teachers, and that most people working in this system are good people doing the very best they can do.
Having said that....getting rid of a tenured incompetent teacher is nearly impossible. I think Stossel did a good job showing all the hoops a principal has to jump through to tackle that job.
And yes...the purpose of the NEA is to take the teacher's side. That's what unions do.
So..unless there is overwhelming proof against the teacher, the NEA will predictably paint the administrators as clueless meanies who have some tainted agenda.
Catholic schools ,at one point, did a good job with non degreed Nuns who were paid nothing.
It seems that this point of view is willing to forego quality education for some in lieu of [below] average education for all.
Agreed - mostly.
The force of will isn't there.
Jesuits, too. But they had hundreds of years of educational experience behind them. In NY they're shutting down Catholic schools left and right because they lose too much money.
"Seriously, how anyone can say the schools need more money, and that'll solve the problem, bewilders me. Fiscal responsibility from the money they take from me by force is more like it. Has the amount we spend on education ever gone down? Money and results seem to be totally unrelated in the government education system."
We agree on something!
our local school is outperforming neighboring districts even though they spend less per student.
Not sure what you mean- that kids don't have the will to work sufficiently hard to get an excellent education?
Irrespective of your reply, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
I'm hittin' the sack- ~Prince
The force of will of the communities. The ability to spend more money and then oversee the expenditures and demand results.
There is much talk about "throwing money at education" and it's a trick statement. A very tricky statement, actually, because it's half true. If you spend money willy-nilly, then you are assured of not getting results. If you apply money in a thoughtful manner, then you will get results, but this takes a massive amount of effort, parent involvement and expertise. So all expenditures are not "throwing money" at the problem.
Yes, a great discussion. Take care.
"Point being that the reasons you cite for not making education private already exist: poorer kids already have lower quality education - unless a way is found to send them to a better school. Talent may not be spotted at the lower end now too, so you get inefficiencies in potential today too."
Exactly right...which is why a woman was arrested this week for lying about her residence so she could send her child to a different school district.
People lie about their residence all the time.
--Criterion 19 is the one that's a bit iffy as too medical.--
A professional will solve the client's issue before it becomes a problem.
Why aren't our schools based on the Catholic model of schooling?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.