Conservative War on Education

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

Why charter instead of robust school options and year-round within the mainline public system? Mixing arts, gifted, language academies, etc. under the umbrella of the public system without private intervention.

 

[bym051d]

Why should they be required to provide bussing when (at least in NC), they don't get the capital bussing funds otherwise allocated to the students they take? Most would love to provide bussing if the state would allocate them the money to buy the busses as is done with a district school. Transportation is usually one of their biggest problems.

My understanding is they get the same $$$ / student as the public school, but don't have to provide bussing. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

But, they definitely SHOULD provide bussing because that's the equalizer that truly allows people of every income level access.

 

[Deacon923]

Testing is a valid device in the portfolio, even if it makes some people uncomfortable (#NOSAT DEACS, stand up!).

I prefer that parents be given a choice of where their kids go to schools, because it makes the hierarchy accountable to the end user; the people for whom the entire system was conceived, funded and sustained. I trust parents more than tests and far more than I trust self-interested administrators.

Check out the article PH posted on the Detroit charter school debacle. It involves self-interested charter school administrators taking advantage of parents who don't have the tools to make informed decisions. It also talks about how difficult it is for people without means to access all the "choices" when they are dependent on crappy public transportation.

The Detroit model is pretty much exactly what you advocate for. Wide-open choice, free-market incentives, and defunding of the public schools.

Testing is absolutely a valid device for measuring performance. The point of testing, though, should not be to stigmatize a school to induce its most-informed, most-involved, wealthiest parents to move elsewhere. It should be a tool for teachers to evaluate student performance and adjust teaching methods appropriately, and for supervisors to evaluate teacher performance and train and adjust staffing accordingly.*


ETA: *this part is where public school systems, especially those with entrenched unions, often fail miserably. Principals have to have the authority to get rid of bad teachers. On the positive side, you need highly trained professional principals with the time and ability to train and mentor their teachers, giving feedback on actual classroom performance based on observations and testing. This also goes to funding. When class sizes are too big or schools are gigantic, it becomes very difficult for teachers and principals to have the capacity for this kind of time-intensive observation, analysis, and training.

 

[jhmd2000]

Why charter instead of robust school options and year-round within the mainline public system? Mixing arts, gifted, language academies, etc. under the umbrella of the public system without private intervention.

Because public resources don't have all of the answers, and a private "voice" is an important part of the equation. An exclusionary, monopoly is generally a bad idea in any context.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Because public resources don't have all of the answers, and a private "voice" is an important part of the equation. An exclusionary, monopoly is generally a bad idea in any context.

and what is that private 'voice' saying?

 

[Deacon923]

There is no shortage of private schools if that's where people want to send their kids. The question is why taxpayer dollars should be used to pay private organizations to provide education instead of spent to improve the public school system.

 

[jhmd2000]

and what is that private 'voice' saying?

A point of view outside the public education orthodoxy. Just look at some of the special snowflakes graduating with identity studies degrees who've never been exposed to a second point of view.

 

[jhmd2000]

There is no shortage of private schools if that's where people want to send their kids. The question is why taxpayer dollars should be used to pay private organizations to provide education instead of spent to improve the public school system.

Do you consider the public school system to be a self-healing being?

 

[bym051d]

There is no shortage of private schools if that's where people want to send their kids. The question is why taxpayer dollars should be used to pay private organizations to provide education instead of spent to improve the public school system.

It's my money and I need it now!

I really feel the deep down issue for most is people want free schools where only kids like theirs go.

For others, it's an ignorant belief that everything "government" is bad.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

A point of view outside the public education orthodoxy. Just look at some of the special snowflakes graduating with identity studies degrees who've never been exposed to a second point of view.

how does a private school make a kid pick a better college degree program?

 

[jhmd2000]

how does a private school make a kid pick a better college degree program?

By bringing in voices and experiences from the private sector, kids get exposed to mentors from other points of view. I'm guessing Archie Manning's kids had better exposure to their Dad's career path than say, you or I did.

 

[jhmd2000]

Check out the article PH posted on the Detroit charter school debacle. It involves self-interested charter school administrators taking advantage of parents who don't have the tools to make informed decisions. It also talks about how difficult it is for people without means to access all the "choices" when they are dependent on crappy public transportation.

The Detroit model is pretty much exactly what you advocate for. Wide-open choice, free-market incentives, and defunding of the public schools.

Testing is absolutely a valid device for measuring performance. The point of testing, though, should not be to stigmatize a school to induce its most-informed, most-involved, wealthiest parents to move elsewhere. It should be a tool for teachers to evaluate student performance and adjust teaching methods appropriately, and for supervisors to evaluate teacher performance and train and adjust staffing accordingly.*


ETA: *this part is where public school systems, especially those with entrenched unions, often fail miserably. Principals have to have the authority to get rid of bad teachers. On the positive side, you need highly trained professional principals with the time and ability to train and mentor their teachers, giving feedback on actual classroom performance based on observations and testing. This also goes to funding. When class sizes are too big or schools are gigantic, it becomes very difficult for teachers and principals to have the capacity for this kind of time-intensive observation, analysis, and training.

How did the Detroit model get the way you characterize it presently? Have you seen 60 Minutes documentary I mentioned yesterday (your turn to answer me)?

 

[Deacon923]

How did the Detroit model get the way you characterize it presently? Have you seen 60 Minutes documentary I mentioned yesterday (your turn to answer me)?

I don't know, dude, you've skipped a lot of turns.

I have not see the 60 minutes documentary.

The article PH posted says this:

Creating Competition, and ‘Replicating Failure’

The 1993 state law permitting charter schools was not brought on by academic or financial crisis in Detroit — those would come later — but by a free-market-inclined governor, John Engler. An early warrior against public employee unions, he embraced the idea of creating schools that were publicly financed but independently run to force public schools to innovate.

To throw the competition wide open, Michigan allowed an unusually large number of institutions, more than any other state, to create charters: public school districts, community colleges and universities. It gave those institutions a financial incentive: a 3 percent share of the dollars that go to the charter schools. And only they — not the governor, not the state commissioner or board of education — could shut down failing schools.

For-profit companies seized on the opportunity; they now operate about 80 percent of charters in Michigan, far more than in any other state. The companies and those who grant the charters became major lobbying forces for unfettered growth of the schools, as did some of the state’s biggest Republican donors.

 

[jhmd2000]

I don't know, dude, you've skipped a lot of turns.

I have not see the 60 minutes documentary.

The article PH posted says this:

Well, you should. It's worth the time and eye-opening on the perils of "Just send more money, we'll take it from here" approach that has comprised the Democrat War on Education.

 

[PhDeac]

It's my money and I need it now!

I really feel the deep down issue for most is people want free schools where only kids like theirs go.

For others, it's an ignorant belief that everything "government" is bad.

TITCR

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Well, you should. It's worth the time and eye-opening on the perils of "Just send more money, we'll take it from here" approach that has comprised the Democrat War on Education.

someone should tell the defense department

 

[Deacon923]

It's my money and I need it now!

I really feel the deep down issue for most is people want free schools where only kids like theirs go.

For others, it's an ignorant belief that everything "government" is bad.

This is pretty ungenerous. Parents want to do what's best for their kids. I have one in private and one in public because I feel that's what is best for them.

I personally think the charter school/vouchers thing is a symptom of the overall decision of the right to basically opt out of governing which started under Clinton and intensified in 2008. Improving public schools (and any other aspect of government) is hard work. It requires engagement with communities that may not look like you, and compromise with people whose interests may not align with yours. Conservative legislators and thought leaders have increasingly shown no interest in this kind of work. They want it their way, they want it now, and they don't want to have to listen to people who don't agree with them. So rather than do the hard work necessary for incremental improvement, there's this tendency to just cash out of the system and build a parallel system that is more instantly responsive to what they want. Anyone who objects to this is labeled as an obstructionist who just wants things to be like Detroit, or some other strawman. That's definitely been the case in North Carolina.

 

[bym051d]

This is pretty ungenerous. Parents want to do what's best for their kids. I have one in private and one in public because I feel that's what is best for them.

I personally think the charter school/vouchers thing is a symptom of the overall decision of the right to basically opt out of governing which started under Clinton and intensified in 2008. Improving public schools (and any other aspect of government) is hard work. It requires engagement with communities that may not look like you, and compromise with people whose interests may not align with yours. Conservative legislators and thought leaders have increasingly shown no interest in this kind of work. They want it their way, they want it now, and they don't want to have to listen to people who don't agree with them. So rather than do the hard work necessary for incremental improvement, there's this tendency to just cash out of the system and build a parallel system that is more instantly responsive to what they want. Anyone who objects to this is labeled as an obstructionist who just wants things to be like Detroit, or some other strawman. That's definitely been the case in North Carolina.

I believe that private schools have some advantages and public schools have some advantages. We've considered sending our child to a private school, but I have no belief that it's anyone else's responsibility to pay for it.

I don't like charter schools. There are parents who send their kids to them because they think charter schools are better. I don't really think they are.

 

[jhmd2000]

someone should tell the defense department

Blackwater is the Charter School of DoD.

 

[bym051d]

Now, public schools have some serious issues. We've faced some serious issues with classroom disturbances that I don't believe would exist in private schools.

I think a lot of these problems are society systemic and can't be fixed by the school system. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't believe it's funneling money to schools where poor kids can't attend.