School choice

[pat fan]

But if you elect to send your child out of district, you're responsible for transportation.

That's the way it is here. As a matter of fact, our town, for whatever reason, opted NOT to join the collaboration for the local tech school eons ago so there was no transportation provided for him to go there, even though all the towns around got free transport there.

 

[QueenIsabella]

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

OMG, that wasn't even close to being a lecture! Sensitive much? If you're big on letting teachers and districts decide what is best, why on earth are you against charter schools? That's the whole point of them--they're free from a lot of the controls, so they can have longer school days (and years), use techniques that they have found produce results, hire teachers and pay them what they (the schools) think they're worth. Cut through the bureaucracy, and we'll have more money to spend actually IN the classroom.

 

[Gracie09]

OMG, that wasn't even close to being a lecture! Sensitive much? If you're big on letting teachers and districts decide what is best, why on earth are you against charter schools? That's the whole point of them--they're free from a lot of the controls, so they can have longer school days (and years), use techniques that they have found produce results, hire teachers and pay them what they (the schools) think they're worth. Cut through the bureaucracy, and we'll have more money to spend actually IN the classroom.

No actually charter school pay teachers less, have less experienced and less educated teachers. The teacher turn over rate is very high because they don't pay them enough to survive. They spend more on overhead and administration. They have little oversight. So although I don't like testing, there needs to be someone ensuring kids are being taught. They often cherry pick their students so only those without disabilities or other special needs are there. They take money away from the public schools where the special needs kids are stuck. They often do not provide transportation so parents who cannot do that are left behind (usually the poorer parents). Like i have said before charter schools are often great for kids that are there. But harm kids that aren't.
As for being sensitive- you made assumptions about my background and motivation. You know what they say about assuming things right?

 

[kinntj]

I love the idea of school choice. I wouldn't choose any school but the public one my kids go to and we were lucky enough to pick the location. Most poor kids don't have that option. I see many Chicago, DC, L.A. kids and parents that want to move to the best charter schools and can't. There are only so many of the good ones to go around. Right now the charter's cherry pick because they are so few that they can. When I see education, I look for control. Who controls education? Where does the money flow? Not to the teachers. I do think charter school teachers need to have higher degrees to be competitive, but I think that would work itself out as time goes on. Special education and resources for autistic children are needed most. I think giving parents and kids a chance to choose is the best course of action. If the public schools suffer, then like most places in competition, they need to adjust. There are just too many things to list to make either public or charters the way we would want them.

 

[ilovefh]

School choice is something that I am so conflicted about.

First and foremost, I am the parent to a son with special needs. We moved back to NH for a year and a half and I realized that there I had two choices. He could go to public school or I could pay for private. The public schools were not really a great option and we could not pay for private school. When we decided to come back to FL we realized that there were many more options in FL. We specifically chose to move to the city we live in so that he could attend a special needs charter school. At public school he would have been in a class of 18 kids with one teacher and a special needs teacher who came in an hour every day. At his school he is in a class of 18 but there are two dual certified teachers at all times and an assistant. In a public school, like in NH, his teachers were upset that he wasn't potty trained even though all of his doctors said it was normal, but at this school they understand. He has made huge amounts of progress here, including being potty trained this year! They even kept him in prek for an extra year because he was not ready for kindergarten yet. At public school he would have just been pushed along.

In this situation I am appreciative that there are other options.

On the other hand, I am a public school teacher in FL. We have had a "school choice" program for a while. What that amounts to is that first dibs goes to those that are zoned for the school. Any open seats go to those that apply. Most schools in our county require you to find your own transportation and they have to right to send the student back to the zoned school if the student does not maintain a certain GPA or if they have behavioral issues. Like someone else pointed out, this really amounts to faux choice. The "good" schools are already at capacity and there are few seats open for out of zone children.

What happens here is parents that are able to be active in their child's education pursue the best option for their child and most times that is a charter, private or out of zone school. What is left in the most public schools are students who lack support and enrichment at home. Their parents either don't know about other options or don't have time to even think about other options. In a few cases they just don't care.

We don't have a school or teacher problem, we have a society problem. Now, I don't have solutions, just complaints, so I don't know how to solve these problems. Most people would not call my school desirable. But I educate the students who don't know where their next meal is coming from. I educate students whose parents are in jail. I educate students who have seen things I can't imagine. I educate students who are left at the local boys and girls club until 9 pm every night. I educate students whose parents I cannot get get a hold of because they have blocked the school number on their phone. I educate students who live with their extended families in a hotel room. It is ridiculously hard to make up for these things when I see kids for 48 minutes each day.

These students don't have the luxuries that my son has. Things like parents who sit and do homework with him or even check to see if it's been done. Parents who are aware of their grades. Parents who attend meetings and volunteer at his school. Parents that are there to field phone calls at any time from the school. Parents who feed him breakfast, lunch and dinner. Parents who make sure his doctors appointments are set.

Everyone keeps saying that competition is good but it's just not true in this situation. It's not that we, as educators, are not doing our job, it's just that it's hard to do when the people you teach and their parents don't have education as a priority. I know this first hand because while I choose to stay at my school, I have 3 friends that transferred to one of the "good" schools in our county. Their test results are at least 2 times what they were at our school. Did they suddenly become better educators when they stepped foot in those buildings? No, they're doing the same thing they have always done but the majority of the families there value education and make it a priority for their child.

 

[kinntj]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that. It means there can be no theocracy and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Where does the Constitution state that schools who practice religion can't take taxpayer dollars for the kids that decides to go there? Your belief doesn't represent what the Constitution states.

 

[bcla]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that. It means there can be no theocracy and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Where does the Constitution state that schools who practice religion can't take taxpayer dollars for the kids that decides to go there? Your belief doesn't represent what the Constitution states.

Several states have laws that specify that state funds can't be used to pay for any religious institution. Besides that, the Constitution hardly has any plain language. It has to be interpreted. The First Amendment in fact says that Congress won't create a law respecting the establishment of religion, but the Fourteenth basically applies it to the states.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

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've seen it in action. For the vast majority in the county next to mine, school choice wasn't a genuine choice. The well connected and a few that got a golden ticket got a genuine choice. The vast majority ended up with a choice of white or wheat bread on their poop sandwich. I didn't see any competition created. What I saw was cronyism. School choice was a faux choice and a false hope.

You mentioned New Orleans. You're right. We as a country can and should learn from New Orleans. And given their average ACT score of 16, the lesson to be learned is don't do what they did.
As for you not buying that any charters cream well it's reality that some charters cream and some don't whether you would buy it or not. As for New Orleans several charters there were found to have been creaming. As unbelievable as it sounds, they creamed to get a district wide average of 16. And the two worst performers were charters at 14 each. That's just awful. It is so bad, insensitive people make nasty special education blasts at scores like that.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

OMG, that wasn't even close to being a lecture! Sensitive much? If you're big on letting teachers and districts decide what is best, why on earth are you against charter schools? That's the whole point of them--they're free from a lot of the controls, so they can have longer school days (and years), use techniques that they have found produce results, hire teachers and pay them what they (the schools) think they're worth. Cut through the bureaucracy, and we'll have more money to spend actually IN the classroom.

Back to New Orleans we go. The charters there were not under local control. Local teachers didn't get to decide anything. They were summarily fired en masse. The local district didn't get to decide anything. They were in the State's RSD The state was ramming it all down New Orleans throat without any local control. A bill has passed to return them to local control. But it's local control in name only.

 

[Colleen27]

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.

EITC and ACTC are sold as means of lifting working families out of poverty or near poverty. Not as a way to free up middle class dollars to spend on extras. Vouchers, on the other hand, would be firmly in the latter category - insufficient for most families trapped in failing school systems, but a nice boon for folks who can afford to live in an average-to-good school district but who want better. And to achieve that they siphon needed resources away not only from local public school districts who stand to lose students but also from the system as a whole, which in turn has an impact on kids and families who have no access to choice because of economics or geography.

As far as your last statement, I suppose that really does say it all. If you don't care about the health of public education as an American institution, only about how it functions for your own kids, there is no reason not to support vouchers. All of the arguments against them are about the drain they present to the system as a whole and the disproportionate impact of that burden on schools that serve the very populations least likely to benefit from school choice. They absolutely would benefit some families - mine included, and believe me I have plenty of other things I could be spending my kids' tuition dollars on! - but when you look at the big picture they weaken public schooling and exacerbate educational inequality.

 

[Colleen27]

choice (competition) brings out the best in everyone

But competition as it pertains to school choice is merely a talking point. Charters and private schools in most places are freed from regulations, mandates, and accountability, not to mention several major expenses that public schools cannot cut. Public schools are still held to all of the established standards, and told to meet them with less funding and fewer resources.

And even with all of that, there are serious questions regarding whether charters really do a better job. It should be cut-and-dried - the public schools could do better too, if they were freed of all legacy costs, special ed mandates, transportation requirements, etc. - and yet in the biggest charter school experiment in my state they only out-perform the public schools by the slimmest of margins.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

EITC and ACTC are sold as means of lifting working families out of poverty or near poverty. Not as a way to free up middle class dollars to spend on extras. Vouchers, on the other hand, would be firmly in the latter category - insufficient for most families trapped in failing school systems, but a nice boon for folks who can afford to live in an average-to-good school district but who want better. And to achieve that they siphon needed resources away not only from local public school districts who stand to lose students but also from the system as a whole, which in turn has an impact on kids and families who have no access to choice because of economics or geography.

As far as your last statement, I suppose that really does say it all. If you don't care about the health of public education as an American institution, only about how it functions for your own kids, there is no reason not to support vouchers. All of the arguments against them are about the drain they present to the system as a whole and the disproportionate impact of that burden on schools that serve the very populations least likely to benefit from school choice. They absolutely would benefit some families - mine included, and believe me I have plenty of other things I could be spending my kids' tuition dollars on! - but when you look at the big picture they weaken public schooling and exacerbate educational inequality.

EITC and ACTC both take money from somewhere and give it to someone. That's what vouchers would do, same thing.
As to caring more about my kids education than that of the whole. As a parent that's my job, I would love to see the entire system work out perfectly. Problem is their are so many things working against it that I can only fix what I can control. I'm not cruel or uncaring, just being honest.
Don't get me wrong public schools are pretty good, when we bought our home the school was decent, not great but good. Then someone in their infinite wisdom decided to close 3 high schools,4 or 5 elementary and middle schools and bus all the kids to a couple of what I call mega schools. That's the problem I see whenever someone says buy a house in a good school district, ours is not what was their when we bought. I can't buy a new house to change school districts every year.

 

[PollyannaMom]

That's the problem I see whenever someone says buy a house in a good school district, ours is not what was their when we bought. I can't buy a new house to change school districts every year.

That's true!

One of the things we loved about our house when we bought it (DS was only 2) was that he would eventually go to a small neighborhood elementary. He did get to for K and 1st, but they consolidated in 2nd. The new school was fine, he missed out on being a "walker" in grades 4-6 and (in my opinion) on some of the sense of community a smaller school has.

Budgets change, enrollment changes, you can't always predict where a school district is going to go. (Of course, that can work in your favor as well. - DH went to a private high school because the local one at the time was in rough shape, but by the time his sister's kids got there, it was one of the top ones around!)

 

[sam_gordon]

As to caring more about my kids education than that of the whole. As a parent that's my job, I would love to see the entire system work out perfectly. Problem is their are so many things working against it that I can only fix what I can control. I'm not cruel or uncaring, just being honest.

You're right. As a parent it's your job to look out for your kids. But it's the government's job to look out for the citizenry as a whole. I'm still curious what you would say to kids stuck in the "poor (performing)" schools if school choice is allowed the way you'd like it to be. Let's say your child is in a school with 1000 students. But you don't like the school, you use "school choice" to have you child go somewhere else. Others do the same. Some kids don't have that option (uncaring parents, no way to transport, etc). So funding is taken from that school. What do you tell the kids who still have to attend there? "Sorry about your luck, but I got mine."?

 

[ilovefh]

But competition as it pertains to school choice is merely a talking point. Charters and private schools in most places are freed from regulations, mandates, and accountability, not to mention several major expenses that public schools cannot cut. Public schools are still held to all of the established standards, and told to meet them with less funding and fewer resources.

And even with all of that, there are serious questions regarding whether charters really do a better job. It should be cut-and-dried - the public schools could do better too, if they were freed of all legacy costs, special ed mandates, transportation requirements, etc. - and yet in the biggest charter school experiment in my state they only out-perform the public schools by the slimmest of margins.

You're correct, it's not an even playing field so you can't compare. Besides having lower costs, my son's school raises funds like crazy! They had a breakfast in the fall that raised $250k, and they'll have a huge event coming soon that typically raises in the 500-800k range. Now, they're school is almost entirely made up of special needs students, so they are more expensive to educate, but these fundraisers are in addition to huge donations by corporations and business people.

Also, at my school, I have to educate EVERYONE. We can only expel kids in severe situations. At my son's charter school they can kick you out for lack of attendance, grades, behavior, because your parents is difficult, etc. At my school I am held responsible for making sure the kid that has been absent for 45 days each semester passes the standardized test. At his school parents have to sign a contract stating the attendance requirement and acknowledging that students will be asked to leave if it is not met.

Competition only works when the playing field is even.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

You're right. As a parent it's your job to look out for your kids. But it's the government's job to look out for the citizenry as a whole. I'm still curious what you would say to kids stuck in the "poor (performing)" schools if school choice is allowed the way you'd like it to be. Let's say your child is in a school with 1000 students. But you don't like the school, you use "school choice" to have you child go somewhere else. Others do the same. Some kids don't have that option (uncaring parents, no way to transport, etc). So funding is taken from that school. What do you tell the kids who still have to attend there? "Sorry about your luck, but I got mine."?

I think the govt abandoned the idea of looking out for the citizenry as a whole a long time ago. If we're going to play on emotions, perhaps I should tell my child, "sorry, I know their is the possibility of a better opportunity for you, but little jimmy two blocks over that we've never met and don't know can't go. So we'll just hold you back to be fair, can't have you getting a leg up and all."

 

[Colleen27]

EITC and ACTC both take money from somewhere and give it to someone. That's what vouchers would do, same thing.
As to caring more about my kids education than that of the whole. As a parent that's my job, I would love to see the entire system work out perfectly. Problem is their are so many things working against it that I can only fix what I can control. I'm not cruel or uncaring, just being honest.
Don't get me wrong public schools are pretty good, when we bought our home the school was decent, not great but good. Then someone in their infinite wisdom decided to close 3 high schools,4 or 5 elementary and middle schools and bus all the kids to a couple of what I call mega schools. That's the problem I see whenever someone says buy a house in a good school district, ours is not what was their when we bought. I can't buy a new house to change school districts every year.

But don't you see a material difference between taking from the "haves" to lessen the struggle of the "have nots" and taking from the poorest to boost the middle and upper?

I know the feeling about public schools. We moved to this town for the schools - we couldn't afford to buy in a decent district in suburbia, so we sucked it up on long commutes and limited opportunities for me to return to the workforce to be in a good school district. That was when my oldest was 5. He's the only one who graduated from the public schools. By the time my middle daughter was in 5th grade it was glaringly obvious that public school wasn't meeting her needs. So we moved her to private school for middle and high school, and my youngest has never attended a public school at all. But the public school still serves hundreds of kids who don't have the options we have, and it serves most of them well (our issues were with the dismantling of gifted ed and elimination of AP offerings - not things every student needs). I want to see it stay strong for them.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

But don't you see a material difference between taking from the "haves" to lessen the struggle of the "have nots" and taking from the poorest to boost the middle and upper?

I don't think anyone should have anything taken from them to benefit anyone else, but that's another topic for a different board.
Who is the money for school being taken from? Taxes paid by everyone. I pay property taxes like everyone else, I probably pay more than average as I have rental properties I pay on as well. I just want to have a say in were mine goes.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think the govt abandoned the idea of looking out for the citizenry as a whole a long time ago. If we're going to play on emotions, perhaps I should tell my child, "sorry, I know their is the possibility of a better opportunity for you, but little jimmy two blocks over that we've never met and don't know can't go. So we'll just hold you back to be fair, can't have you getting a leg up and all."

First, way to avoid the question I asked you. Second, who's preventing your child from getting a leg up? If you don't think he's getting the education he needs at the school he's at, get him a tutor, put him in private school, home school him, find someway to get him what you want.

Who is the money for school being taken from? Taxes paid by everyone. I pay property taxes like everyone else, I probably pay more than average as I have rental properties I pay on as well. I just want to have a say in were mine goes.

You have a say in where your property taxes go the same as you do with your income taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes... through your elected representative. The childless couple pays property taxes, as do those with kids not in public schools. Why not go to your school board and say they need to spend money on 'x'? That's giving you a say, isn't it?

 

[shelly3girls]

I think people's opinions on school choice vary greatly depending on their experience just like everything else. I know many people in our area who feel school choice has created opportunities for students of all income levels. In our area, school choice means two main things.

First, students can choose to attend vocational schools or academic academies. The academies are run at local and county levels but generally anyone from the county can apply. The academies offer significantly more dual enrollment credits with many kids graduating with Associate's degrees. Some like the music one offers students the ability to take their music classes at a local university. I've heard people criticize these academies as "brain drain" from the local schools. I don't understand the sentiment. These schools are accessible to everyone in the county and the student population needs to be representative of the sending districts. If a student wants to attend an engineering academy with other strong math and science students then why shouldn't he/she have the opportunity? Our local high school has less than 100 kids per graduating class. The school struggles to meet the needs of kids with specific academic interests. They don't even offer a computer science class because not enough kids signed up.

The second kind of school choice is where towns allow students from other districts in the state to attend their schools. This is done through a lottery system and in general allows over-crowded districts to send kids to districts without full enrollment. The students must maintain certain academic and behavioral standards to stay. We have many districts that use school choice to fill in grades with low enrollment. It is a win-win for both districts. It certainly requires parent involvement but sometimes it can literally be the difference of a couple of walkable blocks.