School choice

[Gracie09]

And those services (ESL, special ed) cost money. Aren't the vouchers made available to all? Covering the gap is the same way the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credits are sold, as a bridge to help people provide. Heaven forbid the middle class get something. To the critical infrastructure. So what, schools aren't doing a peachy king job now, therefore I'm not concerned with their infrastructure. I'm concerned with getting my child an education.

As a middle class person my family benefits greatly from the public school system. As a parent of a daughter with ADHD and severe dyslexia and dysgraphia there is no way I could afford to provide her with the private assistance she receives in school or send her to the nearest special needs school that specializes in her disability ( it's over an hour away and costs around 40k$). Your arguments about ESl programs are the same as the arguments many made (and still make) about ieps. But 1) kids are entitled to a free appropriate education. It's federal law. It's in many state constitutions. 2) kids who are educated actually become productive members of soceity instead of a drain on resources. If they can get an education and a job they contribute to the tax base for a heck of a lot longer than the time they were in school.
3) you you are assuming esl kids all come from poor families. In our case that is simply not true. Several of the families own small businesses in and near town. But all of the parents work.
As a member of society you should be concerned about the overall school health- public school health. Many great discoveries over the past 100 years have come from people educated in public schools. The person who eventually cure cancer is likely going to be educated in public schools. As a parent in concerned about my child getting an education. That is why when one said she was bored with math because it was too easy I spoke with her teacher and she is given more challenging math lessons. When the other could not read even close to grade level - i spoke with her teacher and we started the testing needed for her iep. When their teachers as for classroom donations we always participate because its one less thing for the teachers to deal with although I should be mad that they have to go begging for tissues and papertowels instead of being supplied with the items they need for their classrooms.
The us had a system of private and homeschool education and it worked for the elite but the poor and working class were without an education, so the public school system was started. Is it perfect no - I think there is way to much testing and not enough hands on learning and recess for the younger grades. But it provides access for kids. And a start.

 

[Gracie09]

I've been following this thread with some interest, and I don't understand some people. How is more choice a bad thing? Ever? Competition helps everyone--or in this case, every school. If a public school is losing tons of students because of (vouchers, charters, homeschoolers, pick your poison), then they need to step up and compete. I don't buy that the charter schools, etc. cherry-pick the best students, although I can see where they get the students with the more involved, caring parents (generally--if it's done by lottery, the parents have to be concerned enough to enter the lottery).

As a country, we've been debating this for decades. Problem is, the kids in problem schools don't need an answer in 20 years--they need one NOW.

For people who are opposed to charters, vouchers, etc., I suggest taking a good, hard look at New Orleans. After Katrina hit, they needed to do something--NOW--to continue to educate their students. Now, something like 92% attend charter or private schools, because there simply wasn't time to rebuild the public schools, and wasn't time to bicker. New Orleans inadvertently provides a wonderful opportunity to look at revamping the public school system--what works, what doesn't. And I'm sure it's not perfect, they had a unique, urgent situation. But, we as a country can learn from their experience.

I know about Nola - I lived there. But ten years in - things are not as wonderful as you would make out. There are many failing schools and some like lusher are under scrutiny because they appear to be cherry picking higher income students based on location. The system it replaced also had chapter schools and it was failing g miserably.

 

[Hikergirl]

Louisiana is rated at the bottom of education in the nation.

 

[Aurora_Australis]

We are having a similar debate here.

For me it boils down to equity vs. equality. One party supports set per student payments that follow you anywhere. That's equality. The other supports needs based funding and directing funds to lower ses schools, high % esl and additional learning needs schools and rural schools, providing equity in access to all.

I have the means to send my child elsewhers if I feel the need to. Others don't.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

As a middle class person my family benefits greatly from the public school system. As a parent of a daughter with ADHD and severe dyslexia and dysgraphia there is no way I could afford to provide her with the private assistance she receives in school or send her to the nearest special needs school that specializes in her disability ( it's over an hour away and costs around 40k$). Your arguments about ESl programs are the same as the arguments many made (and still make) about ieps. But 1) kids are entitled to a free appropriate education. It's federal law. It's in many state constitutions.

To the bolded, I haven't made any argument for or against ESI, I simply stated they also cost money. But to your point, ok kids are entitled to an education, we're discussing the best way to do it. I think school choice is an option worth looking into, even trying out. I guess you think everything's working fine.

2) kids who are educated actually become productive members of soceity instead of a drain on resources. If they can get an education and a job they contribute to the tax base for a heck of a lot longer than the time they were in school.

Ok, not really sure the point your making. I guess you think I'm anti-education?

3) you you are assuming esl kids all come from poor families. In our case that is simply not true. Several of the families own small businesses in and near town. But all of the parents work.

Point to were I said that.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I don't think giving parents a choice is hurting anyone. So we disagree.
How is it that paying for special tutors to teach children English is not removing money from the greater good, but letting a parent take the funds (for their child) to a private school goes against the greater good?
My parallel is solid. You might disagree but that's why we're here, to discuss.

By claiming that ELL services take money away from the greater good, you are sating that ELL is not a benefit to society. Please explain how teaching ELL is not for the greater good.

Oh, and it's rather insulting for you to continue to call ELL teachers simply "tutors." They are certified teachers, just like every other teacher in the school building.

 

[Gracie09]

To the bolded, I haven't made any argument for or against ESI, I simply stated they also cost money. But to your point, ok kids are entitled to an education, we're discussing the best way to do it. I think school choice is an option worth looking into, even trying out. I guess you think everything's working fine.

Ok, not really sure the point your making. I guess you think I'm anti-education?

Point to were I said that.

Easy easy when you equated education with Eic and asked why the middle class gets no benefit.
Point to where I said it was working fine? In fact I said it needed improvement.I said teachers shouldn't be begging for supplies. Teachers and school need more support not less. There is too much testing and not enough thinking time. And having looked at school budget you know what costs more money than esl programs - sports, particularly football in my district. That one sport is the entire esl budget. But they can't get rid of the football program and as someone who has played multiple varsity sport I get the value of sports, but it seems priorities have gotten a bit screwed up.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

By claiming that ELL services take money away from the greater good, you are sating that ELL is not a benefit to society. Please explain how teaching ELL is not for the greater good.

Oh, and it's rather insulting for you to continue to call ELL teachers simply "tutors." They are certified teachers, just like every other teacher in the school building.

I don't remember calling them "tutors"

 

[Gracie09]

I don't remember calling them "tutors"

Then look at what was quoted. It's even in bold for you

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Easy easy when you equated education with Eic and asked why the middle class gets no benefit.
Point to where I said it was working fine? In fact I said it needed improvement.I said teachers shouldn't be begging for supplies. Teachers and school need more support not less. There is too much testing and not enough thinking time. And having looked at school budget you know what costs more money than esl programs - sports, particularly football in my district. That one sport is the entire esl budget. But they can't get rid of the football program and as someone who has played multiple varsity sport I get the value of sports, but it seems priorities have gotten a bit screwed up.

Someone further back thread called vouchers welfare for the middle class. As in they didn't need it because it failed to help the poorest who couldn't afford private school tuition. That's the context of which I brought up EIC.

I think some people feel everything is fine, if that's not you then we agree.
As to teachers needing supplies, I'd start out with an audit of the school funds to find were the money is spent. Theirs no reason schools can't afford tissue, tp, etc. the money's their they just spent it elsewhere.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Then look at what was quoted. It's even in bold for you

Ok, I called them tutors. Isn't that what they are? What do you want me to call them?
Last I check "tutor" wasn't an insult.

 

[Gracie09]

Ok, I called them tutors. Isn't that what they are? What do you want me to call them?
Last I check "tutor" wasn't an insult.

A teacher has specialized education often a graduate degree in their subject area. They are licensed by the state and have to maintain continuing education requirements to keep their license and job. They also have administrative tasks - report cards, parent teacher conference- and class room management to handle.
A tutor has no education or licensing requirements and no oversight. I was an honors history student in high school. I tutored another student in history. I was not even close to a teacher. I just helped explain some things and with their homework. Big difference.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

A teacher has specialized education often a graduate degree in their subject area. They are licensed by the state and have to maintain continuing education requirements to keep their license and job. A tutor has no education or licensing requirements and no oversight. I was an honors history student in high school. I tutored another student in history. I was not even close to a teacher. I just helped explain some things and with their homework. Big difference.

But can't a teacher be a tutor? I thought tutoring was more in the act of teaching a smaller group, more personalized instruction, one on one or very few students, usually in a specific corse, normally outside of the traditional classroom.
I guess I define tutor more by their action, and your using it more in the person. Not insulting, just different.

 

[DisneyOma]

You suggested I go to another country to learn a new language.

That doesn't answer my original question at all.

If a child doesn't speak English how can it not hold up others? At the very least it takes $$ for tutors. Which is the argument some in this thread use against school choice. So it's not flawed.

Oh heaven forbid we spend money to help people become more independent, productive members of society.

choice (competition) brings out the best in everyone

No, it doesn't. Not in education. It excludes, segregates, and harms. You basically end up with a system of schools based on levels of ability. If you factor in private charters, you end up with a money-making scheme for those who are trying to suck up more of the middle class tax money into their own very deep pockets. Pearson and Parcc jump out as a great example.

And those services (ESL, special ed) cost money. Aren't the vouchers made available to all? Covering the gap is the same way the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credits are sold, as a bridge to help people provide. Heaven forbid the middle class get something. To the critical infrastructure. So what, schools aren't doing a peachy king job now, therefore I'm not concerned with their infrastructure. I'm concerned with getting my child an education.

I'd look up to the upper class billionaires to give something back to the middle class, not try to take it from the struggling lower class. Where do you think all this money is going? The billionaires are trying for the last pocket of money they haven't been able to get their hands on yet - city/town tax money. Privatizing public education is just going to put money in the pockets of the wealthy. Pearson and Parcc is just the beginning.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

That doesn't answer my original question at all.
.

What was your question? I went back and best I can figure your asking if I know how long to learn a language? The answer is no.

Oh heaven forbid we spend money to help people become more independent, productive members of society.
.

That's all some of us are asking, I guess we just have different ideas of how to do it.

No, it doesn't. Not in education. It excludes, segregates, and harms. You basically end up with a system of schools based on levels of ability. If you factor in private charters, you end up with a money-making scheme for those who are trying to suck up more of the middle class tax money into their own very deep pockets. Pearson and Parcc jump out as a great example.


I'd look up to the upper class billionaires to give something back to the middle class, not try to take it from the struggling lower class. Where do you think all this money is going? The billionaires are trying for the last pocket of money they haven't been able to get their hands on yet - city/town tax money. Privatizing public education is just going to put money in the pockets of the wealthy. Pearson and Parcc is just the beginning.

I'm not getting into a debate over who pays more in taxes vs who recieves more in benefits.

Of course the Billionares are the ones building and running the private schools, who else did you think was going to do it? For a profit no less. In a free, capitalist society that's exactly the point.

 

[pat fan]

If a public school is losing tons of students because of (vouchers, charters, homeschoolers, pick your poison), then they need to step up and compete

I agree with this. My one concern (and I admit I don't know all the ins and outs of any of this) is that when a student chooses not to go to the school "assigned" to them, the money follows the student and that does hurt the school he/she does not attend. It's hard to improve the school being left behind with less funding. Now, funding isn't everything. Where I work, we were in trouble. Now, we have capped classes in some cases for size because we are an attractive school to send your kids to. Very attractive! A LOT of work went into revamping us, it didn't happen by accident. Just something else to consider. I do have only a small amount of sympathy for a school kids choose not to go to, and that's only from personal experience, so I don't want to make a blanket judgement on all schools. There are probably a variety of reasons why a student opts to go to a different school than the one "assigned" to them. But in my case, the HS didn't give a hoot why my child chose to go to a different HS, then cries they don't know why kids leave etc...Try asking! But they don't really want the answer, they just want to skate.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I know about Nola - I lived there. But ten years in - things are not as wonderful as you would make out. There are many failing schools and some like lusher are under scrutiny because they appear to be cherry picking higher income students based on location. The system it replaced also had chapter schools and it was failing g miserably.

I never claimed New Orleans was doing "wonderfully"--in fact, I said, let's take a good look at it, see what works and what doesn't. I'm 100% sure that there are imperfect charter schools, there and elsewhere. I just find NO fascinating because they were in dire circumstances and HAD to change, so they did. That's what makes it such an interesting case study. And the fact that Louisiana school are/have been consistently at the bottom makes it even more interesting to me--those students have everything to gain.

Look, you clearly aren't open to considering the benefits of charter schools. I get it. A lot of people sacrifice in other ways in order to live in a high-quality school district, and they like the status quo. The problem is the kids who are stuck in underperforming schools, whose parents can't (or won't) move to better districts--how do we help them? The current system isn't working for them. And before you start, yes, I get that schools aren't a panacea for the problems of poverty, absent fathers, crime-ridden streets. But, it's a public place where we can reach these children.

 

[sam_gordon]

IMO, if you (general) want "choice", you have it under two options...
1) Currently, if you want your child to go to a certain school, move to that district. You have the choice of where you live. Can't get much plainer than that.
2) IMO, your taxes guarantee your child a "free" (aside from book fees, field trip fees, etc) education at a public school. If you want to send your child to a private school or home school them, that's your choice, but your taxes are now going to educating the public (just like the taxes of the childless couple). Now, I can see one way "vouchers" can work. Each school can take a certain number of students (whether per school or per grade). Everyone districted for that school gets to go to that school. If your child is supposed to go to another school but you want to go to the "good" school, you put your name on a waiting list. At some point (a month before classes start?), a lottery is held. The number of slots in the lottery depends on how much space is left in the school after all the kids in that district agree to go. It might be one opening, it might be 100. But if you elect to send your child out of district, you're responsible for transportation. If you "win" the lottery, the money from your child follows them. Again, if you decide not to partake of public schools, the money doesn't go with you.
This is similar to various college scholarships/savings plans. That money is only good if you go to an in-state school. If you go out of state (your choice), you sacrifice that money.

 

[Gracie09]

I never claimed New Orleans was doing "wonderfully"--in fact, I said, let's take a good look at it, see what works and what doesn't. I'm 100% sure that there are imperfect charter schools, there and elsewhere. I just find NO fascinating because they were in dire circumstances and HAD to change, so they did. That's what makes it such an interesting case study. And the fact that Louisiana school are/have been consistently at the bottom makes it even more interesting to me--those students have everything to gain.

Look, you clearly aren't open to considering the benefits of charter schools. I get it. A lot of people sacrifice in other ways in order to live in a high-quality school district, and they like the status quo. The problem is the kids who are stuck in underperforming schools, whose parents can't (or won't) move to better districts--how do we help them? The current system isn't working for them. And before you start, yes, I get that schools aren't a panacea for the problems of poverty, absent fathers, crime-ridden streets. But, it's a public place where we can reach these children.

I'm happy to consider the benefits of charter schools but there are public charter schools, private charter schools and private schools. When people are allowed to take resources from public schools and funnel them to charter schools that can and do cherry pick their students and then proclaim look at what we have done we are so great, I have a problem with that. The charter schools in Michigan and Louisiana work great for the kids they work for, but suck for those that don't.
I would get rid of the rigid curriculum, the excess testing ( does my kid really need to take a multi day test every year? No) get the profit making corporation out of the education system. Schools should be palaces of learning. I don't think we spend too much on schools, I do t think we spend enough. Make class sizes smaller. Pay teachers what they are worth. Extend the school year, even the school day. But the billionaires in charge won't see the benefit of this so don't want to spend the money. So we test the kids to "prove" they are learning and the money is being spent wisely. Instead of letting teachers and schools decide what works best for them.
And don't try to lecture me about the inner city schools and poor school districts. I went to school in a place where less than ten percent of the kids went on to any form of higher education. Where there were drug deals on the school grounds and where fights breaking out were the norm. So yes I sacrificed to live in a town with good schools, not the best in the state, but solid schools. And I work with the schools to help all the kids

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

IMO, if you (general) want "choice", you have it under two options...
1) Currently, if you want your child to go to a certain school, move to that district. You have the choice of where you live. Can't get much plainer than that.
2) IMO, your taxes guarantee your child a "free" (aside from book fees, field trip fees, etc) education at a public school. If you want to send your child to a private school or home school them, that's your choice, but your taxes are now going to educating the public (just like the taxes of the childless couple). Now, I can see one way "vouchers" can work. Each school can take a certain number of students (whether per school or per grade). Everyone districted for that school gets to go to that school. If your child is supposed to go to another school but you want to go to the "good" school, you put your name on a waiting list. At some point (a month before classes start?), a lottery is held. The number of slots in the lottery depends on how much space is left in the school after all the kids in that district agree to go. It might be one opening, it might be 100. But if you elect to send your child out of district, you're responsible for transportation. If you "win" the lottery, the money from your child follows them. Again, if you decide not to partake of public schools, the money doesn't go with you.
This is similar to various college scholarships/savings plans. That money is only good if you go to an in-state school. If you go out of state (your choice), you sacrifice that money.

This is my thought exactly. Here in NY (in my county anyway) there are huge fluctuations in property taxes from one district to the next. The parts of the county with higher taxes usually (not always) = better schools.

When we were shopping for our current home we knew that it would most likely be the place we would (God willing) have children. Because of that, we decided the school district would be the most important factor in determining which home to buy.

For the most part, the "good schools" in our county are located in areas where the property taxes are in the $15k-$25k or more per year. Those numbers were too rich for my blood. Thankfully we were able to find some middle ground and chose a good district with more manageable property taxes.

To me, the biggest factor in a child's educational success is not the school district, but the parent(s) of that child:

1) Stressing the importance of education both early and often.

2) Even more important than #1) above, is following through on that and devoting enough time, attention, and energy to the child's success. Things like sitting down at the table next to a child doing homework, asking questions each and every day at the dinner table about the school day, being able to quickly identify when a child might be falling behind on any given subject and bringing them back up to speed early, when it is easiest to catch up. Productive communication with teachers also plays a big role as well IMO.