By Oldprof

April 28, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Is calling you “smart” considered ad hominem in your books? And “monster” isn’t? My, you’re confusing. BTW, you need updated stats: for example, last year, teacher salaries once again lost 1% compared to inflation. http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2005/nr051205.html We can continue to conflate teachers with “all instructional personnel” as your Hanushek source seems to do, but even that paper recognizes that teacher salaries have degraded. One last thing: the cost of benefits (health care, retirement) certainly has ballooned. Our nation could fix that if we’d recognize the advantages of a single-payer system. But that’s not the teachers’ fault, and it’s clearly not salary.

By KDeRosa

April 28, 2006 7:54 AM | Link to this

OldProf, shame on you. You argue about teacher salaries back to the 50s and yet you provide data on only a small slice of that period. And, let’s not forget that salary is only one part of total compensation. The other part includes benefits which were also rising rapidly during the period you cite. Here’s some more data (in current dollars) going back to 1960. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_069.asp Also, what’s up with the strawman arguments, there is no dispute that other education spending has outpaced teacher compensation and this was not your original arument. In any event, my original cite can be found at: http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/20th%20century%20growth.JHR.pdf And, do I detect some lurid innuendo at the end of your comment. I thought smart guys like you didn’t resort to such ad hominem attacks.

By Oldprof

April 27, 2006 11:28 PM | Link to this

Come on, surely a person as informed as you are on instructional methods is not entirely ignorant on salary trends? Educator salaries have failed to keep pace with inflation since the 1970s. There are dozens of reliable studies that show the trend. Consider http://www.mspolicy.org/mcppreports/mcppreports_view.php?entryID=23 which shows how most of the new “education” spending went to something other than teachers—in constant, not inflation-adjusted, dollars. Consider this honest appraisal: http://www.altp.org/news/040100.htm “The difference in the gap is we have more administrators and higher paid administrators compared to the rest of the country.” There’s a rampant “an overstatement of school spending growth” according to http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97535/97535jx1.asp Finally, check http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d00/dt077.asp and see that in constant dollars, a solid majority of states have seen a decline in teachers’ salaries. I might say I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that you should spread misinformation. BTW, do you have a complete citation for that source you’re relying on—I can’t find it. Are you the author? Maybe I don’t want to know.

By KDeRosa

April 27, 2006 5:15 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, all aspects of education spending have skyrocketed since 1950, some just more than others, including instructional salaries (the largest classroom cost) which tripled in constant dollars. From “Understanding the 20th century Growth in US School Spending” to name but one source.

By Oldprof

April 27, 2006 3:05 PM | Link to this

Glad to see that you are open to discourse, tho’ I plan to politely decline your offer. Notes, however: (1) It’s ad hominem whenever it appears in the essay. (2) Entertaining? Probably only to fans of the rude, sound-bite-ridden fury that passes for debate on those few contemporary talk shows that permit more than one viewpoint. (3) As for the earlier comments about costs of education: it depends on definition I guess—but there are fewer real dollars going to faculty salaries, classroom supplies, library materials, and classroom maintenance than in 1950, and more “education” funding going for marketing, administration, athletics, and banks. I’m sure a data-driven guy like you can confirm those figures without my help.

By KDeRosa

April 27, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Old Prof, clearly my introductory descriptions of Kozol are meant to be entertaining and not ad hominem attacks. It’s not like I used any of those descriptions to prove my points. As you indicate, I later used hard data to make my points and didn’t also rely on the statement that he was a “monster” to back them up, which would have been a true ad hominem attack. I’ll give you all the space you want to support the opposing viewpoint if you want to if that’s a problem, just leave your remarks in a comment or drop me an email and I’ll post it up front and respond. I’d be intrerested to see Kozol’s ideas supported with some hard data because he’s failed to do sohimself.

By Oldprof

April 27, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Hi D-ed. I’m afraid I don’t have space here to go into a full critical analysis of your fallacies. But let’s just take the first example: do you not recognize that calling someone a “monster” is an ad hominem attack? When you show hard data on the ideas—such as your good support for direct instruction—then you’re being logical, relying on hard evidence, and addressing the problem. When you slather on the name-calling, partisan bickering, and general “win at all costs” rhetoric, then you’re fallacious. (See how I acknowledge the truth on your side, I stick to valid criticism, and avoid calling you names? It’s possible, even in this America, and it generates more light and less heat.)

By KDeRosa

April 26, 2006 7:42 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, your comment is long on conclusory criticism and short on supporting detail. Why don’t you go ahead and support your conclusions so I can properly dismantle them. (Aren’t you the one a few comments back who didn’t realize how much education funding has ballooned in the past fifty years and that there was no golden age of education in the US?) I’m especially interested in hearing some of your “truths from the other side” and seeing some of these good school systems (not just the ones filled with high SES students who are easy to educate). D-ed Reckoning

By Oldprof

April 26, 2006 3:15 PM | Link to this

Not much of a debate when only one side gets to present. D-Ed Reckoning engages in a range of fallacies—ad hominem, straw man, false analogy, faulty causation, unsupported universalities (D-ed may never have seen a good school system, that doesn’t mean that nobody ever has—maybe D-Ed is blind?). D-Ed’s good data and positive ideas get lost in his partisan bickering and refusal to acknowledge truths on the other side. Interesting, maybe. Good? Not nearly what we deserve in a discussion of education.