Author Topic: Education  (Read 288360 times)


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Let the Overqualified Unemployed Teach the Undereducated & Underserved
« Reply #751 on: July 31, 2024, 09:41:32 PM »
I haven’t confessed this but several years ago I dallied in the same sort of program the Shadow President Dr. Mrs. Biden received her terminal degree in: community college education. An aside: in the ed biz a doctorate in community college education is considered the terminal degree those that ride the short bus pursue, a sentiment that bears out should you have the dubious pleasure of perusing the Shadow President’s thesis.

As that may be, I quickly noted a major element of that degree path involved regurgitating back facts and figures extolling the virtues of higher ed with no effort made to explore its pitfalls and indeed pratfalls that were perhaps at a more nascent stage back then, but that are on full if uncomprehending display in the ed biz today.

Perhaps eliminating the need for an advance degree to teach, seeking aptitude instead, might address the teacher shortage and, as a side benefit, remove a couple years of indoctrination that have to be smiled and nodded through in order to obtain a teaching degree:

How to Fix California’s Teacher Shortage
The Beacon / by Kristian Fors / Jul 31, 2024 at 4:21 PM
The California Department of Education reports that in the 2021-2022 school year, there were more than 10,000 teaching vacancies in the state.

Moreover, the number of people pursuing teaching credentials has gone down year after year. According to a recent report by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the number of new teaching credentials issued in California has decreased from 19,184 in 2020-2021 to only 14,309 in 2022-2023—a sharp 25% decrease in only two years.

The reason for the teacher shortage is not a lack of qualified personnel, but rather a lack of teacher credentials being issued by the government.

This shortage could easily be fixed by opening the market up to those with just a bachelor’s degree instead of forcing individuals to go through a costly post-graduate program to become certified as teachers.

According to a recent report from the Strada Education Foundation, almost half of college graduates are “underemployed” 10 years after graduation, working in jobs that don’t require a four-year degree.

Those individuals could better put their education to use by teaching, but current state laws prohibit it.

Teaching credentials in California typically cost thousands of dollars to acquire and can take one to two years to complete. This discourages people who have already spent thousands of dollars on tuition and four years of their lives to get a bachelor’s degree.

Moreover, unlike a master’s degree, which might carry signaling value in multiple domains, teaching licenses are only useful for teaching, making them more like a trade school than a typical degree.

With a master’s in a subject such as international relations, someone could potentially be a diplomat, work for an international business, or work in a litany of other professions. However, with a teaching credential, someone can only teach.

It would be better to eliminate the requirement altogether and judge instructors based on their merit rather than their ability to jump through a series of financial and bureaucratic hoops.

In 2024, the job market for college graduates is very difficult; CNN Business reports that the unemployment rate for college graduates ages 20 to 24 is 12% as of May 2024.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that many of these unemployed graduates, after facing the brutal reality of the job market, would consider teaching if it were not for the costly barriers to entry.

Other states have already made strides in the right direction. Texas allows school districts to issue teaching permits. In 2022, Arizona passed legislation to allow future instructors to complete their teacher training simultaneously with their bachelor’s degree, rather than forcing them to complete additional education.

Teaching is not for everyone. I taught English to first and third graders for a year in Moscow, Russia, and very quickly realized that I was not cut out for elementary education. If I had been forced to obtain an expensive teaching license before this experience, I might have felt more pressure to remain an instructor because of the “sunk costs” involved.

The media today often provides two contradictory headlines: articles about a teacher shortage and, simultaneously, articles about a white-collar recession.

There is a way to kill both birds with one stone: Eliminate the teaching credential requirement so that educated people can use their skills by teaching.

California’s teacher shortage is manufactured, the result of government policy that prevents people who are capable of being excellent teachers from easily applying their skills.

The post How to Fix California’s Teacher Shortage appeared first on The Beacon.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/07/31/how-to-fix-californias-teacher-shortage/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-fix-californias-teacher-shortage


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Homework
« Reply #753 on: September 04, 2024, 06:08:28 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
How Not to Educate a Nation (Or Perhaps Miseducate a Political Foe)
« Reply #756 on: November 09, 2024, 04:11:47 AM »
Pardon some perhaps wild eyed extrapolation here: encountered the paper linked here, with the conclusion shown below, that compares China and India’s efforts to enhance national “human capital” via education reforms/development, with the former taking a bottom up approach that began with creating an accessible primary education system that fed into a robust vocational ed program, and the latter taking a top down approach by focusing on creation of a higher education system with strong law and art major components. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the bottom up approach appears to have produced better results.

Which I really don’t give a shit about. Instead, these efforts got me thinking about the US ed system where primary ed in many school systems appears to involve inculcating existential dread of an impending climate apocalypse unless trash is dropped into the correct bin and electric vehicles are plugged into coal provided power sources, pronoun proliferation, culture shaming, and real or imagined recompense for sins of one’s fore bearers, while higher ed is heavy on various self-flagellations guised as victim studies, chemical and surgical self-mutilation support and solicitation structures, art and law studies (hmm, like in India), and even hard science, engineering, and math courses of study are subject to “Progressive” prerequisites.

The worst of both worlds, in short.

Our train wreck of an education system didn’t happen by accident. Though some sort of pedagogical Dr. Evil is unlikely, liberal cum “Progressive” do-gooder impulses unwritten by geopolitical foes in possession of a long game might lead to an outcome not dissimilar from the present. That game’s hardly won, and with homeschooling and school choice programs leading to outcomes that are difficult to empirically argue against, perhaps the tide will turn. There are forces out there, however, that have a first hand understanding of how human capital can be developed from hardscrabble scratch, the acumen to imagine how best to do the opposite, and the opportunity, desire, and aptitude to apply what they’ve learned as divisively as possible to a political foe. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge patent failures and use this political moment to chart a better course.

The piece and conclusion thereof is shown below: 

We show that China and India has taken different paths to build their education systems.
China has focused first on Primary, then on Middle and in recent years is investing more in
it’s Tertiary level education. On the other hand, India has given more emphasis to it’s Tertiary
level education since the beginning of 20th century. The educational differentiation (more
vocational education, better distribution of the disciplines at Tertiary level) in China is higher
than India. The path of education development in China aligned better with it’s economic
requirements and possibly led to higher growth rate after 1980’s. The human capital produced
due to educational differentiation also helped in building robust manufacturing sector in China.
The gradual emphasis on different levels of education has led to lower education inequality in
China. The result of this pattern of education and economic development has resulted into
lower level of income inequality. The path of educational development in India was a riskier
choice in the beginning as the country was far from the technological frontier. The case study
of China and India provides insights for other developing countries in building their education
system with a rider that 21st century is different than 20th century.

https://congress-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2021-12/Human_Capital_Accummulation_in_China_and_India.pdf

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
WSJ: School choice winning in TX
« Reply #757 on: November 12, 2024, 07:49:14 AM »
Texas Clinches a School-Choice Majority
Gov. Abbott secures three more GOP votes for school vouchers.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 11, 2024 5:52 pm ET

Greg Abbott needed to win 76 seats out of 150 in the Texas House to enact his school-choice plan next year, and last week he did that and more. “Counting what I call only true, hard core school choice proponents, there are 79 votes in favor in the Texas House,” the Texas Gov. said last week.


Republicans won 88 total House seats, and some who aren’t “hard core” may support Mr. Abbott’s plan. The GOP state Senate improved its school-choice majority, too, with the victory of Adam Hinojosa over incumbent Democrat Morgan LaMantia. Texas is now poised this spring to pass its first private school choice program, and the nation’s largest, serving some five million students.

It’s a hard-fought win for Mr. Abbott, who made Republican opponents of his plan pay a political price. Twenty-one of them joined Democrats last fall to vote down his bill for scholarships worth about $10,000, plus billions in public-school funding. The Governor vowed to go after those who ran for re-election.

During the GOP primaries, Mr. Abbott endorsed 11 pro-school choice challengers. Eight won, and last week all eight were officially elected, along with other school-choice candidates the Governor backed in open races. One Republican incumbent who was ousted in his primary, Steve Allison in district 121, later endorsed the Democrat running for his seat in the general election. But Marc LaHood, the Republican backed by Mr. Abbott, won handily, 52.6% to 47.4%.

GOP school-choice proponents last week also flipped two Democratic House seats in open races. Denise Villalobos upset Solomon Ortiz Jr. by nearly 11 points in district 34, which leans left. Don McLaughlin Jr. beat Cecilia Castellano by 19 points in district 80.

Last week’s results are more proof that Texans want access to schools that meet their children’s needs. A survey of the state this summer by the University of Houston and Texas Southern University found 69% support for education savings accounts. That included 72% of Latino and 73% of black residents, as well as 68% of Texans in rural areas.

“We desperately need school choice,” said Joel Enge, founder of Kingdom Life Academy, a small private school in Tyler, where Mr. Abbott spoke Wednesday. As a former public school teacher, Mr. Enge said he’d watched students struggle “because they did not fit traditional education.”

Mr. Abbott deserves credit for putting his political capital on the line to press for the kind of change that will make a difference in the lives of parents and children in Texas. Most politicians wouldn’t risk it.