Conservative War on Education

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

jhmd sure does love to beat up on that poor strawman of big bad teachers unions preventing accountability, but he never explains how charter schools provide any more accountability. Charters schools are held far less accountable in every single criteria, going as far as some of them being pyramid schemes offering bounties for recruiting poor students.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

They are held directly financially accountable by the parents, as if the parents don't like the school and pull the kids out then the charter school loses its funding and the charter school goes under. It is the ultimate accountability.

Ph likes to talk about the number of charter schools that close; that is the best measure of accountability that there is.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

i don't think that public schools are particularly efficient at using money. They spend money on stupid things that have nothing to do with education (i.e., middle school football teams), they suffer from administrative bloat due to decades of unfunded mandates and a litigious society, and most of them have to keep up with legacy facilities that are inefficient and costly to maintain, just to name a few factors.

What I take issue with is the notion that the solution to these problems is to just say "fuck it" and set up a whole new parallel education system. Time after time, that new system can only be accessed by the comparatively wealthy kids/kids with the most competent parents, and the poorest kids with the crappiest parents get left in the legacy system. That's not an efficient use of resources, system-wide, either. Not to mention the parallel notion of just slashing education funding across the board, without any concomitant reduction in unfunded mandates or administrative structures, and just telling the schools to educate more kids with less money.

That's not reform, that's just giving up on a bunch of our kids.

By the way, the Washington, DC data notwithstanding, there is a large gap in per-pupil expenditures between poor districts and rich districts in this country. (PS, NC and most of the south actually do pretty well on this, which is great). When you dig into the data, you will find that middle-upper class US public school students in these rich districts actually beat almost every other country in those global standardized tests. It's the poor districts that drag our global scores down.

http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-23-states-richer-school-districts-get-more-local-funding-than-poorer-districts/

I don't disagree with you in theory, but practically speaking it isn't going to happen in today's political climate. If President Hope & Change couldn't do it (thanks, Obamacare), then we can be damn sure nobody else is going to do it. So in the meantime, why should we sacrifice all in the name of the Lowest Common Denominator, instead of at least trying to benefit those who can be benefited?

 

[Deacon923]

I don't disagree with you in theory, but practically speaking it isn't going to happen in today's political climate. If President Hope & Change couldn't do it (thanks, Obamacare), then we can be damn sure nobody else is going to do it. So in the meantime, why should we sacrifice all in the name of the Lowest Common Denominator, instead of at least trying to benefit those who can be benefited?

1. This is a false choice. There is no need to sacrifice anyone, and the "lowest common denominator" can be raised to a very high level. US public schools that are well-funded in non-poor districts outperform the rest of the world.
2. If people want to spend their own money to get their kids away from the "lowest common denominator", there is a thriving market of private schools that will be glad to accept their checks and children. Taxpayer dollars need to be spent in a way that will provide the most benefit to the most people, and especially for those who don't have the resources to access private education. In practice, "benefiting those who can be benefited" too often means "benefiting those who already have the most comparative advantages".

I don't expect that either of us will convince the other, I appreciate your civil posts and willingness to engage. You and Wrangor do a good job expressing conservative opinions without trolling, spamming or ad hominem attacks.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

1. This is a false choice. There is no need to sacrifice anyone, and the "lowest common denominator" can be raised to a very high level. US public schools that are well-funded in non-poor districts outperform the rest of the world.
2. If people want to spend their own money to get their kids away from the "lowest common denominator", there is a thriving market of private schools that will be glad to accept their checks and children. Taxpayer dollars need to be spent in a way that will provide the most benefit to the most people, and especially for those who don't have the resources to access private education. In practice, "benefiting those who can be benefited" too often means "benefiting those who already have the most comparative advantages".

I don't expect that either of us will convince the other, I appreciate your civil posts and willingness to engage. You and Wrangor do a good job expressing conservative opinions without trolling, spamming or ad hominem attacks.

But they aren't, in most aspects of government funding. That is just not a realistic expectation. With specific regard to schools, most states tying funding to property tax revenues automatically shifts the playing field.

In reality,the well off kids are going to get fine educations, whether it is via their local public schools or private schools. With respect to the middle and lower tiers, our realistic options are to keep the system as-is and throw even more money at, which is likely just going to continue the general circling of the drain. Or, we at least give the kids who are lucky enough to win into the alternate system the chance to do so. The system we have doesn't serve the poorer kids well, but the chances of overhauling it to the degree needed to fix it just is not going to happen. So we either need to accept that reality and help the kids we can help, or just turn a blind eye and hope things change for the better (no pun intended) despite no evidence that it will.

 

[PhDeac]

They are held directly financially accountable by the parents, as if the parents don't like the school and pull the kids out then the charter school loses its funding and the charter school goes under. It is the ultimate accountability.

Ph likes to talk about the number of charter schools that close; that is the best measure of accountability that there is.

Ugh. So you're saying it's best for kids to get shuffled from school to school for 13 years.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

There is some zero sum game at play here. Research shows that there is a tipping point of the percentage of low-income kids that affects the school at large. Since poverty is concentrated geographically in this country, kids need to be moved around (bused) to achieve the balance that will improve the conditions for the worst off. Wake County used to be held in high regard as a school district that did this well and had some of the best results for low-income children. However, parents in the fast-growing suburbs -- Apex and the like -- did not like their kids on a bus (or more likely, in a Tahoe) for 45 minutes to get to school and they elected a "school choice" school board that returned to the neighborhood model. I sympathize, but if we're serious about providing real opportunity for low-income kids then there needs to be some sacrifice from the most well-off.

Money is important, but so is breaking up schools with 100% low-income populations. You can have your KIPPs with 14-hour school days that turn kids into drones and that might be good for a few, but it's really addressing the wealth gap. The education flaws are a symptom of economic inequality.

 

[Biff Tannen]

There is some zero sum game at play here. Research shows that there is a tipping point of the percentage of low-income kids that affects the school at large. Since poverty is concentrated geographically in this country, kids need to be moved around (bused) to achieve the balance that will improve the conditions for the worst off. Wake County used to be held in high regard as a school district that did this well and had some of the best results for low-income children. However, parents in the fast-growing suburbs -- Apex and the like -- did not like their kids on a bus (or more likely, in a Tahoe) for 45 minutes to get to school and they elected a "school choice" school board that returned to the neighborhood model. I sympathize, but if we're serious about providing real opportunity for low-income kids then there needs to be some sacrifice from the most well-off.

Money is important, but so is breaking up schools with 100% low-income populations. You can have your KIPPs with 14-hour school days that turn kids into drones and that might be good for a few, but it's really addressing the wealth gap. The education flaws are a symptom of economic inequality.

I'm not sure that Wake County actually realized better results for low income students as much as they made all of their schools look better by playing a shell game with better achieving students. The busing program just spread upper and middle income students to the poorly performing schools, resulting in better test scores across the board and fewer failing schools. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has a 54% poverty rate and some schools have a 90%+ poverty rate. Busing isn't going to break up concentrations like that. And I can tell you right now that if my kids are expected to ride the bus for 45 minutes when there are perfectly good public schools 1.5 miles away, charters and private schools will be at the top of my to-do list.

ETA: The schools 1.5 miles from my house are 40% non-white.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

I'm not sure that Wake County actually realized better results for low income students as much as they made all of their schools look better by playing a shell game with better achieving students. The busing program just spread upper and middle income students to the poorly performing schools, resulting in better test scores across the board and fewer failing schools. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has a 54% poverty rate and some schools have a 90%+ poverty rate. Busing isn't going to break up concentrations like that. And I can tell you right now that if my kids are expected to ride the bus for 45 minutes when there are perfectly good public schools 1.5 miles away, charters and private schools will be at the top of my to-do list.

This is a perfect example. Mecklenburg County has a 12% family poverty rate, yet the school system has a 54% poverty rate. People that can afford it remove their kids from the system. Good education becomes only available to the rich, exacerbating the problem. You prefer the convenience of sending your kid to the school in your very wealthy neighborhood. Again, I get it, but that's part of the sacrifice required to level the playing field. Most people couch this desire in lofty language around school choice and accountability when it really comes down to their own distaste with the inconvenience of being a part of the solution. Let's just call it what it is.

Socioeconomic diversity is not going to solve the school system on its own. Most educational practices are outdated for modern life and, as I said earlier, most problems have economic roots that the school system is not equipped to fix. However, working toward more balanced schools is a part of the solution.

 

[bym051d]

And I can tell you right now that if my kids are expected to ride the bus for 45 minutes when there are perfectly good public schools 1.5 miles away, charters and private schools will be at the top of my to-do list.

ETA: The schools 1.5 miles from my house are 40% non-white.

This is the part where I have sympathy for charter schools. No kid should involuntarily be subjected to a 45 minute bus ride.

Our kid has a 45 minute bus ride, but it's by choice, for a magnet school.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i had a 40-45 ish bus ride and I lived like 2 miles from the school but was on a route that picked up all the rural kids. i don't remember it sucking; i just read a lot and chatted with friends

:noidea:

 

[TownieDeac]

yea i was 45 minutes from NW Winston to Hanes because we were picking up kids from Clemmons and stuff.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

They are held directly financially accountable by the parents, as if the parents don't like the school and pull the kids out then the charter school loses its funding and the charter school goes under. It is the ultimate accountability.

Ph likes to talk about the number of charter schools that close; that is the best measure of accountability that there is.

Yeah, absolutely no harm in measuring a school by whether or not it shuts down. That philosophy is beyond stupid. Children need consistency and stability. Pitting their school against market forces is an idiotic idea. Poorly performing children come from unstable homes with inconsistent nutrition, domestic violence, moving around all the damn time, and you want to remove one of the only consistencies in their lives.

 

[DG3]

Yeah, absolutely no harm in measuring a school by whether or not it shuts down. That philosophy is beyond stupid. Children need consistency and stability. Pitting their school against market forces is an idiotic idea. Poorly performing children cone from unstable homes with inconsistent nutrition, domestic violence, moving around all the damn time, and you want to remove one of the only consistencies in their lives.

Sounds like you are suggesting two parent households and more accountability for the parents. I'll be damned.

 

[Biff Tannen]

This is a perfect example. Mecklenburg County has a 12% family poverty rate, yet the school system has a 54% poverty rate. People that can afford it remove their kids from the system. Good education becomes only available to the rich, exacerbating the problem. You prefer the convenience of sending your kid to the school in your very wealthy neighborhood. Again, I get it, but that's part of the sacrifice required to level the playing field. Most people couch this desire in lofty language around school choice and accountability when it really comes down to their own distaste with the inconvenience of being a part of the solution. Let's just call it what it is.

Socioeconomic diversity is not going to solve the school system on its own. Most educational practices are outdated for modern life and, as I said earlier, most problems have economic roots that the school system is not equipped to fix. However, working toward more balanced schools is a part of the solution.

Busing costs millions of dollars and it doesn't do black kids or white kids much good to spend two hours a day on a bus.

When you have such a high poverty rate in the school system, you are destined to have schools that reflect those concentrations of poverty. And in 1 in 11 children in Mecklenburg County lives in deep poverty, the school system isn't the right vehicle for fixing it. And black families that I know aren't in love with the idea of busing as a panacea either. They want attention paid to their schools and resources made available nearby. And has been pointed out before, involvement in the child's schooling is made much more difficult when they're bused 10 miles away.

And, I'll point out that while I live in a nice neighborhood, I'm much closer to the concentrations of poverty than my neighbors in the northern and southern parts of the county.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

has anyone suggested that parents should just make more money?

 

[PhDeac]

has anyone suggested that parents should just make more money?

Well they can do that by getting married. Problem solved.

You see these "two parent household" posts and you get the idea kids with single parents are doomed and we shouldn't even bother trying to educate them.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Well they can do that by getting married. Problem solved.

You see these "two parent household" posts and you get the idea kids with single parents are doomed and we shouldn't even bother trying to educate them.

 

[Deacon923]

I don't know what Biff's school/neighborhood looks like, but his posts tie back into my other hobby-horse, urban planning and land use.

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/12/is-this-new-high-school-really-an-upgrade?utm_content=buffer8a57f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

We have a 50+ year history of building new infrastructure, like schools, farther and farther out of town in places that are not walkable or bikable and can only be reached by cars/buses. People who can afford cars move out there and drive around. People who can't afford cars are stuck with the rotting infrastructure downtown, which gets neglected because the political power in town is spending all the money on the outskirts where the monied people live. Of course, a lot of this is historically tied to redlining, white flight and other racially-biased practices, but it can be analysed solely on the basis of economics.

Some of this is starting to reverse as our downtowns revitalize, but in too many cases those old walkable schools were neglected for too long and ended up being torn down/abandoned, so the new downtown residents no longer have access to walkable schools. Meanwhile, because the suburban (white, wealthy) families are used to a relatively short Tahoe drive to their suburban school, they freak out at the notion that their kid might have to be bused elsewhere to keep other schools from being 100% poor. The poor kids, in order to escape their crumbling schools, are expected to find their way to charters or ride on long bus rides to magnet schools.

We need to stop doing this.

 

[Biff Tannen]

i had a 40-45 ish bus ride and I lived like 2 miles from the school but was on a route that picked up all the rural kids. i don't remember it sucking; i just read a lot and chatted with friends

:noidea:

1. That's idiotic. Why not pick up the kids down the road from the school last after you've loaded up all the hicks ?
2. How many other local high schools were you driving past to get to the one in your neighborhood ? My guess is zero.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

1. That's idiotic. Why not pick up the kids down the road from the school last after you've loaded up all the hicks ?
2. How many other local high schools were you driving past to get to the one in your neighborhood ? My guess is zero.

only one HS. It was idiotic, I guess. It was 80% full bus of kids over a widely dispersed rural area. I was outside the 'city limit' so I was included in the rural group vs the suburb group. Some kids had to be first and some had to be last on the route. I was towards the end of the pick up but right at the front of the drop off in the afternoon since they reversed the route.