Obama's stance on school vouchers?

[John Bentley]

Does anyone know what Obama's stance is on school vouchers? He has stated that his children will attend private schools in Washington, D.C., or attend public schools other than the public schools in whose district the White House resides.

I don't blame him for wanting his kids to attend schools other than Washington inner city public schools. They are notoriously gang, drug, etc. havens. But if his kids deserve better than government schools in his district, don't other kids and their parents deserve the same choice? I'm always surprised at the number of people who don't realize that people who don't have the bucks to send their kids to private school have no choice as to where their kids go to school. You have to go to the public school in your district, regardless of how terrible it might be. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the politicians who live in Washington do not send their kids to public school for this reason. I can't think of a more blatant display of hypocrisy than a politician who won't send his own kid to the local public school, but is against school vouchers.

So is Obama going to be another Washington politician who says, "My kids are too good to go to the trashy government schools here in Washington, but if you want better for your kids, tough luck unless you make enough money to send them to private schools." Or will he push to allow kids and parents to have a better choice through vouchers or something similar?

[Matt Black]

Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers.
Sounds good to me.

Does anyone know what Obama's stance is on school vouchers? He has stated that his children will attend private schools in Washington, D.C., or attend public schools other than the public schools in whose district the White House resides.

I don't blame him for wanting his kids to attend schools other than Washington inner city public schools. They are notoriously gang, drug, etc. havens. But if his kids deserve better than government schools in his district, don't other kids and their parents deserve the same choice? I'm always surprised at the number of people who don't realize that people who don't have the bucks to send their kids to private school have no choice as to where their kids go to school. You have to go to the public school in your district, regardless of how terrible it might be. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the politicians who live in Washington do not send their kids to public school for this reason. I can't think of a more blatant display of hypocrisy than a politician who won't send his own kid to the local public school, but is against school vouchers.

So is Obama going to be another Washington politician who says, "My kids are too good to go to the trashy government schools here in Washington, but if you want better for your kids, tough luck unless you make enough money to send them to private schools." Or will he push to allow kids and parents to have a better choice through vouchers or something similar?
Seems you think private schools are better than public ones. Do you have some proof that they are better? I've heard this assumption before from proponents of vouchers that private schools are better for education, but no data to back it up.

Also isn't voucher code for 'I want my kid to be taught creation'?

Do politicians put their kids in private schools for better education or for better security? Barracks kids should definitely not go to public school. I would think the potential for them to be kidnapped in a public school setting would be greater than at a private school, but this is just an assumption. I wouldn't blame any politician on capital hill for wanting the same safety for the kiddies.

[John Bentley]

Ok. He "supports" charter schools. That's fine by me except for two points. What does he mean by "support"? Does he mean, "wow, I think charter schools are a great idea, and I'm going to send my kids to one." Or does he mean, "I am going to do everything in my power to make sure that all children and parents who are stuck in a degenerate school district in the middle of gangland can have the option of moving to a school that is tuition free and can provide a safe, quality education".

Secondly, since charter schools have limited enrollment, who gets to decide who gets in and who gets stuck with the sucky public school?

No, voucher is not code for "I want my kid to be taught creation", at least not for me. You say Obama's kids should definitely not go to public school. Why not? Is there a special private school in Washington for high security risks? And I don't blame politicians for wanting the best for their kids. I want the best for my kids, too. But these same politicians make it impossible for my kids to go to a safe school without paying tuition. I'm lucky that I can afford to pay that. Most parents can't. If I can't move my kids to a safe school, why should they? Because they're somehow better than me? That's my beef with this.

[casebro]

... other than the public schools in whose district the White House resides.

... You have to go to the public school in your district, regardless of how terrible it might be. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the politicians who live in Washington do not send their kids to public school for this reason.

Presidents are 'assigned housing'. They have to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The rest of the politicians don't, they live in the suburbs. So, none would be expected go to D.C.'s inner city schools anyway. The politicians 'official place of residence ' is back in their home state.

SOooo, is the Presidents family bound by any rule to live in the Palace? Should they be?

[WildCat]

The rest of the politicians don't, they live in the suburbs.
Nonsense. DC officials have to live in DC, they're not allowed to live in Virginia and represent a ward in DC in the Council.

Chicago schools are as bad, if not worse, than the schools in DC. When you have kids, you either move to the suburbs or send the kids to a private school if you can afford it. There are a few charter schools which are excellent, but you literally have to win a lottery to get your kids enrolled there. If you don't win the lottery and can't afford a private school or to move to a good district you are SOL, your kids will have to go to gang-infested public schools where no one gives a damn about anythig but their own paycheck.

[WildCat]

BTW, the problem in Chicago isn't money. chicago spends over $13,000 per student per year. Teacher pay starts at $50,000 - pretty damn good for only having to work 9 months of the year.

The problem is the kids who actually do want to learn are forced into the same classroom as the gangbangers, and everything of course is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Dropout rates approach 50%.

No problem for the politicians, they can afford private schools. But heaven forbid you have vouchers, that would upset the teacher's union. Somehow, Catholic schools here manage to do much better spending less than half the amount per student than the public schools do.

Michelle Obama, btw, went to a Catholic school here. Her life would have been much different if her parents had to send her to a public school.

[John Bentley]

Presidents are 'assigned housing'. They have to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The rest of the politicians don't, they live in the suburbs. So, none would be expected go to D.C.'s inner city schools anyway. The politicians 'official place of residence ' is back in their home state.

If I remember the stats right, about 47% of Washington politicians send their kids to private schools in their home states. So if they refuse to allow us a choice unless we can pay for it, why should they have one? The original idea behind the U.S. republic was to have elected officials represent their constituents and then go home and live with the laws they passed for everyone else. As it stands now, politicians are becoming a ruling elite exempt from a lot of the laws they pass for the rest of us poor schlubs. Where they send their kids to school is just a symptom of the problem.

So I guess with Obama its "Yes, WE can, but No, YOU can't". Just another hypocrite on at least this issue.

[Tony]

Also isn't voucher code for 'I want my kid to be taught creation'?


Not quite, you're close though. Voucher is code for " I want my kids to be indoctrinated with Christianity, taught the suppressed truth of creationism and the suppressed facts about the USA being a Christian nation".

Do politicians put their kids in private schools for better education or for better security? Barracks kids should definitely not go to public school. I would think the potential for them to be kidnapped in a public school setting would be greater than at a private school, but this is just an assumption. I wouldn't blame any politician on capital hill for wanting the same safety for the kiddies.

I agree.

[Tony]

BTW, the problem in Chicago isn't money. chicago spends over $13,000 per student per year. Teacher pay starts at $50,000 - pretty damn good for only having to work 9 months of the year.

The problem is the kids who actually do want to learn are forced into the same classroom as the gangbangers, and everything of course is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Dropout rates approach 50%.


I agree thats a problem. I think we should start by not force attendance on kids who don't care and don't want to be at school, then we can move onto not allowing people in gangs to attend. What solution would you propose?

[fuelair]

Nonsense. DC officials have to live in DC, they're not allowed to live in Virginia and represent a ward in DC in the Council.

Chicago schools are as bad, if not worse, than the schools in DC. When you have kids, you either move to the suburbs or send the kids to a private school if you can afford it. There are a few charter schools which are excellent, but you literally have to win a lottery to get your kids enrolled there. If you don't win the lottery and can't afford a private school or to move to a good district you are SOL, your kids will have to go to gang-infested public schools where no one gives a damn about anythig but their own paycheck.
I expect ( though I am willing to have it demonstrated as otherwise) that by politicians in DC reps, senators,admin. etc. at the national level were what was being referenced, NOT local D.C. officials.

[fuelair]

I agree thats a problem. I think we should start by not force attendance on kids who don't care and don't want to be at school, then we can move onto not allowing people in gangs to attend. What solution would you propose?
Quite correct - and, to keep them off the streets, work farms. Now, try to get laws doing that in a democracy. The class of student is not the fault of the schools. Nor is the reduction of the quality of learning. When schools must accept anyone in a specific area of the appropriate age........(Oh vouchers are a great idea - voucher schools get to choose their students.
But then you have the problem of what to do with the students the voucher schools won't take. Or, you can make voucher schools accept any student who applies, but then..... Drat, nothing legal works.):):):):)

[fuelair]

And - just e-mailed to me: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
which is op-ed on Obama/education.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Secondly, since charter schools have limited enrollment, who gets to decide who gets in and who gets stuck with the sucky public school?

The charter school my son goes to is "first come, first enrolled" with the single exception being for siblings of those already attending. There are no racial, ethnic, religious, or economic requirements. If you can go to a local public school, you can go to my son's school.

And, yes, there is a waiting list (we were on it for about 6 months) for many of the grades ... just like with a lot of private schools and even good pre-K/daycare. So the "who" who gets to decide is the parent who researches their area school options and chooses one in a timely manner.

[John Bentley]

Not quite, you're close though. Voucher is code for " I want my kids to be indoctrinated with Christianity, taught the suppressed truth of creationism and the suppressed facts about the USA being a Christian nation".



Let's try, Its a code for "I want to get my kids out of this hellhole and into someplace where they have some chance to get an education that will allow them to permanently leave this hellhole behind". If that takes sending them to a religious based school, then better that than getting mugged, robbed at knifepoint, stabbed in the restrooms (requiring a trip to the emergency room and leaving some impressive scars), and beaten several times by gangbangers -- leaving broken fingers, broken toes, two scars on my face, and 3 cracked ribs. That, at least, was my experience in wonderful public school land from grade 5 through 12. My parents couldn't or wouldn't put me and my brother into private school, and the government wouldn't allow them to transfer us to another public school with less gang activity.

[Tony]

Let's try, Its a code for "I want to get my kids out of this hellhole and into someplace where they have some chance to get an education that will allow them to permanently leave this hellhole behind". If that takes sending them to a religious based school, then better that than getting mugged, robbed at knifepoint, stabbed in the restrooms (requiring a trip to the emergency room and leaving some impressive scars), and beaten several times by gangbangers -- leaving broken fingers, broken toes, two scars on my face, and 3 cracked ribs. That, at least, was my experience in wonderful public school land from grade 5 through 12. My parents couldn't or wouldn't put me and my brother into private school, and the government wouldn't allow them to transfer us to another public school with less gang activity.

Straw. I never said "religious based school". A school can be religious based and still teach proper science and history.

It's not like I'm unsympathetic to situations like the one you've described. It's just that I'm under no illusion that vouchers are about anything more than iron-fisted control over young minds. They're about indoctrination and a parent's "right" to decide what their kid learns. I could support a voucher type system if they were exclusive to secular schools that passed a stringent curriculum review.

[John Bentley]

The charter school my son goes to is "first come, first enrolled" with the single exception being for siblings of those already attending. There are no racial, ethnic, religious, or economic requirements. If you can go to a local public school, you can go to my son's school.

And, yes, there is a waiting list (we were on it for about 6 months) for many of the grades ... just like with a lot of private schools and even good pre-K/daycare. So the "who" who gets to decide is the parent who researches their area school options and chooses one in a timely manner.

I wouldn't expect there to be any requirements for entry in a charter school, as most are recipients of public money in some fashion. However, if you only have a waiting list of 6 months, then you are very fortunate. Most charter schools in my area fill up by a lottery, with many, many more applicants than there are places. Also, unfortunately, lots of kids have sucky parents, or ones who have little choice of where to live due to economic problems. You can't choose your parents, so if the above applies to you, then you are SOL under the current system.

[John Bentley]

Straw. I never said "religious based school". A school can be religious based and still teach proper science and history.

It's not like I'm unsympathetic to situations like the one you've described. It's just that I'm under no illusion that vouchers are about anything more than iron-fisted control over young minds. They're about indoctrination and a parent's "right" to decide what their kid learns. I could support a voucher type system if they were exclusive to secular schools that passed a stringent curriculum review.

I'm assuming you either aren't serious or didn't read your own post. Let me show it to you again.

Voucher is code for " I want my kids to be indoctrinated with Christianity, taught the suppressed truth of creationism and the suppressed facts about the USA being a Christian nation".

Exactly what other schools other than religious based ones would be doing the above?

Secondly, in a single paragraph above you decry the rights of a parent to have a choice in their child's education because that would be "indocrination" and then immediately outline a plan to indoctrinate the same children with your exclusive views. That doesn't seem a bit contradictory to you? Are you OK with a nebulous "them" deciding what curriculum your kid gets? What if this same "them" decided creationism taught as science in the classroom was to be the norm for your public school district and you couldn't get your kid out of that school because you can't move and you can't afford to send them to a decent school with only science taught in science class? What would be your views on vouchers then?

[mrbaracuda]

Without reading anything here other than the 1st post, nor consulting the interwebs: Can one of you tell me, a poor German, just real quick tell me what these school vouchers are?

[Tony]

I'm assuming you either aren't serious or didn't read your own post. Let me show it to you again.


I'll say again. I never said "religious based school". A school can be religious based and still teach proper science and history. I am talking about fundie schools that eschew reality for dogma. In some parts of the world they're called madrassas. It's wrong of you to assume that ALL religious schools fit that mold.

What about that do you not understand?

Exactly what other schools other than religious based ones would be doing the above?

A free lesson in logic. The fact that some religious based schools might teach junk science and history doesn't mean they all do.

Secondly, in a single paragraph above you decry the rights of a parent to have a choice in their child's education because that would be "indocrination"

No I didn't.

and then immediately outline a plan to indoctrinate the same children with your exclusive views.

No I didn't.

All you've done is drag out straw.

That doesn't seem a bit contradictory to you?

It seems like a strawman. How about actually addressing what I say instead of addressing your spin on what I say?

Are you OK with a nebulous "them" deciding what curriculum your kid gets? What if this same "them" decided creationism taught as science in the classroom was to be the norm for your public school district and you couldn't get your kid out of that school because you can't move and you can't afford to send them to a decent school with only science taught in science class? What would be your views on vouchers then?

I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you can man up and address my points in an honest manner.

[Tony]

Without reading anything here other than the 1st post, nor consulting the interwebs: Can one of you tell me, a poor German, just real quick tell me what these school vouchers are?

The short answer is is that they're funds taken from tax money given to parents that they can use towards sending their child to a school of the parent's choosing. There might be more nuances and caveats tho them, but like I said, thats the short answer.

[mrbaracuda]

Hm, the Wiki-Article didn't really help, but I assume it's safe to say it's basically a coupon you use to send your kid to a school and the state / fed gov pays for your kid's education at that school!?

Thanks Tony! ;)

[John Bentley]

Tony,

Got to go bathe kids, but as the Governator says, "I'll be Bach". I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll go back over your posts and try to figure out what you "really" meant.

[kallsop]

Obama owes the teachers unions, so as the soup nazi might put it, "no vouchers for you".

[John Bentley]

Tony,

Your first post reads:
Voucher is code for " I want my kids to be indoctrinated with Christianity, taught the suppressed truth of creationism and the suppressed facts about the USA being a Christian nation".

I assume from this statement that either:
1. You believe that parents who want vouchers for their children to go to better schools are really just trying to get their kids into schools that teach the drivel you posted above.
2. You believe that the politicians who support the use of vouchers have an agenda that includes teaching children the drivel you posted above.
I cannot see any other way to interpret your statement, but please feel free to correct me. I assumed you meant that parents or politicians who support vouchers really just want to send their kids to Christian schools, and I still think a reasonable person who read that post would also assume the same thing.

I am claiming that vouchers would give all parents the same right to choose which school they want their children to attend that the Obamas have with their children. I don't want to take that choice away from the Obamas, I simply want every parent to have the same choice regardless of their economic or geographic situation.

I am further claiming that politicians that deny that right to parents and then send their children to private schools are at best inconsistent and at worst hypocrites.

Your second post said:
It's not like I'm unsympathetic to situations like the one you've described. It's just that I'm under no illusion that vouchers are about anything more than iron-fisted control over young minds. They're about indoctrination and a parent's "right" to decide what their kid learns. I could support a voucher type system if they were exclusive to secular schools that passed a stringent curriculum review.

I simply have no idea what you mean by vouchers being about iron-fisted control over young minds. I mean WTF? And then I assumed that you were talking about a parent's right to decide what their kid learns as if that were a bad thing. And finally you state that in order for you to support vouchers, the parents could only use them to send their kids to secular schools that have a curriculum that passes muster with someone -- you're a little hazy about who exactly would review the curriculum or what that curriculum should disallow.

You then head off into tangents about some religious schools having good educational creds, but I would have to assume that the very fact that they are religious would disallow them for vouchers in your opinion?

Have I missed anything? Misrepresented anything? I've got to say that you giving me logic lessons was a hoot!

[Alferd_Packer]

I know that before Obama became famous, his kids attended Shoesmith, a CPS elementary school just down the road from his house. I did some work there a while back.

I have done a lot of work in CPS schools, and I can say that about 95% of the Principals and administrators including the LCS are very committed to quality education. I don't have much contact with the teachers, so I can't say anything about them.



Unfortunately the saddest commentary on the society that we live in is the metal detectors in the elementary schools.

[DavidJames]

I simply want every parent to have the same choice regardless of their economic or geographic situation. Ah okay, you want more socialism then.

[John Bentley]

Ah okay, you want more socialism then.

Actually, I want government to spend time and money on equalizing opportunity and less on trying to make everybody equal.

[Random]

BTW, the problem in Chicago isn't money. chicago spends over $13,000 per student per year. Teacher pay starts at $50,000 - pretty damn good for only having to work 9 months of the year.

The problem is the kids who actually do want to learn are forced into the same classroom as the gangbangers, and everything of course is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Dropout rates approach 50%.

No problem for the politicians, they can afford private schools. But heaven forbid you have vouchers, that would upset the teacher's union. Somehow, Catholic schools here manage to do much better spending less than half the amount per student than the public schools do.

Michelle Obama, btw, went to a Catholic school here. Her life would have been much different if her parents had to send her to a public school.

Actually, this paragraph sort of explains the “success” of private schools. Simply put, they get to choose their students. Weed out the troublemakers and dummies and you are left with a class with of model students and high test scores.

Public magnet schools, which do get to choose their own students, obtain similar success stories to the private schools.

As for vouchers, they sound good if you don’t think about them too hard, but when you do you get two big problems.

First, you lose a lot of control over what your tax dollars are paying for. If your neighbor is spending his voucher to send his son to a school that uses Das Capital, Steal This Book, The Anarchist’s Cookbook, and Mein Kampf as texts, that is none of your business (at least until the child hits puberty and starts making passes at your daughter).

Second, what happens if everyone gets a voucher? If every kid gets a voucher for $5,000, what is going to stop the private schools from raising their rates by $5,000 per student? Everyone ends up right back where they started in terms of what school they are going to, but the owners of the private schools end up with a big pile of taxpayer cash in addition to their enrolment fees.

[WildCat]

I know that before Obama became famous, his kids attended Shoesmith, a CPS elementary school just down the road from his house. I did some work there a while back.
It's also a magnet school, meaning the Obama's had to win a lottery (assuming there was no favoritism involved) to get their kids enrolled there. Do you think they would have sent their kids to a non-magnet public school if they hadn't been lucky enough to win the lottery? And oh yeah, magnet schools also factor race into the applications!

Why shouldn't every public school be as good as a magnet school? Why should a lottery or your child's race be a factor in whether or not they get a good education?

[WildCat]

Actually, this paragraph sort of explains the “success” of private schools. Simply put, they get to choose their students. Weed out the troublemakers and dummies and you are left with a class with of model students and high test scores.
So why not have special schools for the troublemakers and dummies, instead of forcing everyone else to have their education disrupted by them?

eta: actually, the gangbangers should be kicked out entirely.

[Random]

So why not have special schools for the troublemakers and dummies, instead of forcing everyone else to have their education disrupted by them?

Haven’t you heard of “tracking”? You put the brighter students in more advanced classes and the inferior students in remedial classes. It is engaged in by large numbers of school systems. It is also somewhat controversial as some view it as a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Briefly parodied in the “James Bond” episode of the Simpsons when Bart gets placed in a remedial class. “Wait, we’re behind the other students and we’re supposed to catch up by going slower then they are?”

The question of what you do with underperforming students is difficult. Do you devote less resources to them and focus on the “best and brightest”, or do you devote more resources to them in an effort to raise them up to higher levels of learning?

[WildCat]

Haven’t you heard of “tracking”? You put the brighter students in more advanced classes and the inferior students in remedial classes. It is engaged in by large numbers of school systems. It is also somewhat controversial as some view it as a self-fulfilling prophesy.
What about the kids with the gang tattoos who go to school primarily to recruit others into their gang? Or those who wait after school to beat up the smart kids for being uppity? Why should those students who actually want to learn be forced to contend with these predators every single day?

The question of what you do with underperforming students is difficult. Do you devote less resources to them and focus on the “best and brightest”, or do you devote more resources to them in an effort to raise them up to higher levels of learning?
Underperforming is one thing. Those who spend their school years assaulting other students have no business being in school.

[volatile]

The question of what you do with underperforming students is difficult. Do you devote less resources to them and focus on the “best and brightest”, or do you devote more resources to them in an effort to raise them up to higher levels of learning?

You're exactly right.

"Kick them out" sounds great on paper and as a piece of "common sense" rhetoric, but in reality things are much more complex. In effect, doesn't kikcing these kids out, cutting them loose, just make their sense of alientation that much greater, as wel as giving them more time, more opportunity and, perhaps, even more motive to carry on being disruptive and anti-social, and to engage in criminal activity?

[volatile]

Those who spend their school years assaulting other students have no business being in school.

I understand your concern,but what you propose guarantees that these kids will never change their ways, and will condemn them (and the state who has to pick up after them, even if by locking them away) for the rest of their lives.

In other words, it'd make things worse (for society as a whole), not better.

[fuelair]

You're exactly right.

"Kick them out" sounds great on paper and as a piece of "common sense" rhetoric, but in reality things are much more complex. In effect, doesn't kikcing these kids out, cutting them loose, just make their sense of alientation that much greater, as wel as giving them more time, more opportunity and, perhaps, even more motive to carry on being disruptive and anti-social, and to engage in criminal activity?
That's why the suggestion they get moved to a farm/production facility where they must work to receive more that life sustaining level food and drink. Keeps them off the street and at least attempts to instill some level of work ethic. Not the three beatings a day program like in Depression - just controlled environment.

[volatile]

That's why the suggestion they get moved to a farm/production facility where they must work to receive more that life sustaining level food and drink. Keeps them off the street and at least attempts to instill some level of work ethic. Not the three beatings a day program like in Depression - just controlled environment.

A little Dickensian for my tastes, but I see where you're going with this. Specially-targeted schools, with rigorous, proven teaching methods, are precisely what's required.

I saw an interesting documentary a while back about illiteracy - adults and teenagers alike who had learning difficulties that had hampered their ability to learn to read (but were otherwise smart, engaged and funny) all told of simply being rejected by the school system. They were condemned as idiots, ignored by their schools and teachers. One young lad, in his early 20s and the classic "troublemaker" archetype told how he was left to do wordsearches (which he did by matching letter shapes, not by reading) whilst his peers were doing lessons, and how he was made to sit in exam rooms taking exams at 16, even though he couldn't even write his own name.

No kid is born bad, and no kid is beyond redemption. We just need better, more directed teaching, and more awareness of the social, personal, intellectual and pedagogic factors that give rise to misbehaving kids. Kicking them out is just about the worst possible solution to an extremely complex problem. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't stand up to any sceptical scrutiny at all.

A lot of the worst-behaved kids come from parents who were themselves badly behaved. Not only does expelling them condemn them to a life of troublemaking, but also, more than likely, their children to a life of troublemaking too.

[John Bentley]

No kid is born bad, and no kid is beyond redemption.

I just so disagree with you here. Kids are not born as blank slates onto which their environments paint a picture of who they are. Your sentiments are noble, but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to go with Pinker here and say people have genetic tendencies which their environment subdues or reinforces. Some kids are just born mean, and their poor environment just makes them meaner.

We just need better, more directed teaching, and more awareness of the social, personal, intellectual and pedagogic factors that give rise to misbehaving kids. Kicking them out is just about the worst possible solution to an extremely complex problem. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't stand up to any sceptical scrutiny at all.

That's all fine and good, but get them out of my kid's school while you're trying to understand them. Or at least let my kid get out of their school.

A lot of the worst-behaved kids come from parents who were themselves badly behaved. Not only does expelling them condemn them to a life of troublemaking, but also, more than likely, their children to a life of troublemaking too.

Yes, and dare we say nature and nurture again?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I just so disagree with you here. Kids are not born as blank slates onto which their environments paint a picture of who they are. Your sentiments are noble, but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to go with Pinker here and say people have genetic tendencies which their environment subdues or reinforces. Some kids are just born mean, and their poor environment just makes them meaner.

Er, do you have evidence that people are "born mean" (Excluding the rare medical disorders)?

I could just as easily say with the same level of evidence that since both nature and nurture play a role in development, some people are born Jewish and their environment makes them Christian :p .

[scratchy]

If Obama think parents themselves should pay when sending their kids to other schools than the public ones, and he then does just that himself, i cant see anything hypocritical about it.

[John Bentley]

Er, do you have evidence that people are "born mean" (Excluding the rare medical disorders)?

"How the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker. Good read, lots of research. Also, common experience shows us that siblings raised in the same home have different personalities. My kids, all raised in the same home, have a huge range of personalities.

I could just as easily say with the same level of evidence that since both nature and nurture play a role in development, some people are born Jewish and their environment makes them Christian :p .
:D

You could also just as easily say with the same level of evidence that no kids are born bad, and that no kid is beyond redemption. Oh, but wait, volatile already did that for you. I'm curious as to why you didn't challenge volatile for evidence of his claim.

[IchabodPlain]

A little Dickensian for my tastes, but I see where you're going with this. Specially-targeted schools, with rigorous, proven teaching methods, are precisely what's required.

I saw an interesting documentary a while back about illiteracy - adults and teenagers alike who had learning difficulties that had hampered their ability to learn to read (but were otherwise smart, engaged and funny) all told of simply being rejected by the school system. They were condemned as idiots, ignored by their schools and teachers. One young lad, in his early 20s and the classic "troublemaker" archetype told how he was left to do wordsearches (which he did by matching letter shapes, not by reading) whilst his peers were doing lessons, and how he was made to sit in exam rooms taking exams at 16, even though he couldn't even write his own name.

No kid is born bad, and no kid is beyond redemption. We just need better, more directed teaching, and more awareness of the social, personal, intellectual and pedagogic factors that give rise to misbehaving kids. Kicking them out is just about the worst possible solution to an extremely complex problem. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't stand up to any sceptical scrutiny at all.

A lot of the worst-behaved kids come from parents who were themselves badly behaved. Not only does expelling them condemn them to a life of troublemaking, but also, more than likely, their children to a life of troublemaking too.


Well put. In my experience, it seems that there are kids who need special attention, those who are prone to misbehavior and violence, and those who simply lack the desire and do not see the value in education. The problems have been sticking all of these kids in one classroom.

Some children should be in a specialized classroom with small numbers of children who have similar disabilities. Due to behavioral problems, some students shouldn't be allowed to interfere in others learning, and inhibit the teachers ability to do his/her job. Others still, should be given the option to attend a trade school if school is not important to them.

My point is that, while no kid is beyond redemption, it isn't just their education that is disrupted by their actions. In this sense, I think we sort-of agree that specialized schooling is what is needed. This is why I have been a proponent for vouchers, though I think there could be stricter guidelines to how the money is spent.

Also, I would like to see students, if after their tenth year of schooling a student is below a "C" average, they could be able to "opt-out" of their final years to attend a trade school. Maybe it could be sent home as a note to parents to discuss with their child after the first semester of the second year of high-school.

[WildCat]

I understand your concern,but what you propose guarantees that these kids will never change their ways, and will condemn them (and the state who has to pick up after them, even if by locking them away) for the rest of their lives.

In other words, it'd make things worse (for society as a whole), not better.
No, it's more akin to having 10 people in a boat at sea, with one of them continually trying to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Toss that guy overboard, and the rest don't drown along with him.

[WildCat]

Also, I would like to see students, if after their tenth year of schooling a student is below a "C" average, they could be able to "opt-out" of their final years to attend a trade school. Maybe it could be sent home as a note to parents to discuss with their child after the first semester of the second year of high-school.
What makes you think someone with a "D" average would make it in a trade school? Skilled trades aren't careers suitable for idiots.

[volatile]

No, it's more akin to having 10 people in a boat at sea, with one of them continually trying to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Toss that guy overboard, and the rest don't drown along with him.

Seriously, WildCat - what do you think happens to these kids when you, as you so wonderfully put it, toss them overboard?

When you kick these kids out of school, that's it. You've lost them forever, and given them a great deal of time, motive and opportunity to become career criminals and / or career welfare recipients who will almost inevitably go on to be the parents of yet another generation of career criminals and career welfare recipients.

How does this "plan" of yours help anyone at all? It just makes a bad situation worse, and guarantees it will continue for decades to come.

[volatile]

What makes you think someone with a "D" average would make it in a trade school? Skilled trades aren't careers suitable for idiots.

Not all, or even most, kids with D averages are idiots.

There are plenty of pedagogic schemes which, if applied correctly, take "failing" or "stupid" students and turn them round. What would you prefer? That we leave them with no skills, no chance of employment ever, and condemn them to necessarily live on the margins ogf society, as a burden to the rest of us?

You're all rhetoric, no scepticism.

[volatile]

"How the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker. Good read, lots of research. Also, common experience shows us that siblings raised in the same home have different personalities. My kids, all raised in the same home, have a huge range of personalities.


Lots of research that is, sadly, at odds with a great deal of other research. I love Pinker on language; he's peerless. But beyond that, he hits some very serious problems.

It's been a long time since I read The Blank Slate, and to be honest I didn't read the whole thing. That said, one of the best critiques of his rather blunt ideas is here (http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/bmenadonpinker/). I suggest you read it, as it cuts to the very heart of why Pinker is if not entirely wrong, far too forceful in asserting the veracity of his hypothesis.

[John Bentley]

What makes you think someone with a "D" average would make it in a trade school? Skilled trades aren't careers suitable for idiots.

According to John Kerry, they'll all end up in Iraq.:)

There are plenty of pedagogic schemes which, if applied correctly, take "failing" or "stupid" students and turn them round. What would you prefer? That we leave them with no skills, no chance of employment ever, and condemn them to necessarily live on the margins ogf society, as a burden to the rest of us?

volatile,

You have an excellent point. It is not in my best interests to let child sociopaths turn into unemployed adult sociopaths. However, the problem still remains, what to do with them? The system isn't working now, and the changes you propose will take great amounts of time, assuming you could get them implemented at all, which I seriously doubt.

[WildCat]

Seriously, WildCat - what do you think happens to these kids when you, as you so wonderfully put it, toss them overboard?

When you kick these kids out of school, that's it. You've lost them forever, and given them a great deal of time, motive and opportunity to become career criminals and / or career welfare recipients who will almost inevitably go on to be the parents of yet another generation of career criminals and career welfare recipients.

How does this "plan" of yours help anyone at all? It just makes a bad situation worse, and guarantees it will continue for decades to come.
I don't think they should just be abandoned, but it is those kids who should be put in special schools. As it is now (at least here in Chicago) the good students have to will a lottery (and the odds are slim) to get into a magnet or charter school. In other words, there are a few special schools for a small percentage of the good students who are lucky enough to get into them, while the rest of the kids are basically (or as Mayor Daley says "basicky" :p) thrown under the bus.

And the reason for this, from what I can see, is the teacher's union which is bitterly opposed to charter schools. It seems in these schools teachers are actually held accountable for their work, the horror!

[volatile]

I don't think they should just be abandoned, but it is those kids who should be put in special schools.

Well then, we are (kind of) in agreement. This is a rather softer stance from "throwing them overboard" or even "kicking them out", as you intimated earlier, and I'm glad to hear you say it.

[volatile]

You have an excellent point. It is not in my best interests to let child sociopaths turn into unemployed adult sociopaths. However, the problem still remains, what to do with them? The system isn't working now, and the changes you propose will take great amounts of time, assuming you could get them implemented at all, which I seriously doubt.

Sure, the current system is busted. I agree (though you're talking about the US system and I the UK one, which are not directly comparable). And it needs time and money, of course. But that is no reason not to try.

[fuelair]

Volatile, I have no argument with your ideas here - and an adaptation that would take it even further and apply to all students. The problem, and the reason for my way of thinking on it is this: NO ONE is willing to put in the money, organizational time and administrative changes necessary to accomplish what is really the best practice set (and I do not have space or time to fill in all details here, Just the basics.):

A) match teachers for every subject to students who learn best using the teacher's education strategies [I learn best by reading and lecture that expands on the reading - I do not learn well by doing projects and working in groups as they are too slow for me and too much off point in discussion as an example)

B)Have specific, necessary requirements to enter anything beyond basic subjects - i.e. do not put students in courses they cannot handle (I have honors chemistry students who are reading as low as 2nd grade level and/or doing math at the elementary school level. They, of course, cannot pass and are not interested in the class - though, they at least sit quietly and listen, or carry stuff to help their lab groups (hard to say that sarcastically in writing but it is)].

C) Do not put students in classes they cannot handle for other reasons, parents should have no say in this: my favorite of these (as in, the parent should have been arrested rather than caved in to - I suspect he wanted his son dead and out of the way, but) is the father who forced the school to let his son play soccer during PE even though his son had a minor vision problem that made it somewhat dangerous for him - his entire field of vision was exactly like most of us having our eyes sealed over except for a place where a soda straw stuck through.

There is more - but that problem nobody seems to recognize where the post keeps jumping back up unless you are actually typing and occasionally even then has slowed me down dramatically. More later if any interest.

[volatile]

Fuelair - I totally agree. The UK's National Curriculum, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, is a disaster -- it is essentially a teaching strategy entirely at odds with your first proposal, and it fails precisely because of the reasons you identify.

[John Bentley]

Sure, the current system is busted. I agree (though you're talking about the US system and I the UK one, which are not directly comparable). And it needs time and money, of course. But that is no reason not to try.

But that is exactly my point. At least here in the US, the public schools have enormous inertia. Any change, vouchers for instance, is met with monumental obstructionism. It seems everyone knows the system sucks, but no one wants to try to make any sweeping changes. Charter schools and magnet schools handle such a small part of the problem that they are band-aid solutions at best. We simply don't have time to wait for incremental changes over decades. Yes, changes such as you suggest are great for the long haul, but we need to stop the hemorrhage before we can treat the cancer.

Also, I read the Pinker critique. Not impressed, really. It is more a screed against Pinker overstating his case and making up "Just So" stories (which I agree he does). The critiquie does not refute the idea that you are born with certain personality traits that your environment enhances or subdues. In fact, the only piece of hard evidence offered in the critique (that about the "anxiety" gene) supports this contention rather than refutes it.

[ponderingturtle]

Why shouldn't every public school be as good as a magnet school? Why should a lottery or your child's race be a factor in whether or not they get a good education?

Easy, it is cheaper to try to salvage the best and brightest from a community than try to educate the community.

[ponderingturtle]

So why not have special schools for the troublemakers and dummies, instead of forcing everyone else to have their education disrupted by them?

eta: actually, the gangbangers should be kicked out entirely.

So you do not think education can be helpful to try to prevent them from seeking criminal work and thus encouraging them to be criminals?

At what age should education give up on children?

[ponderingturtle]

Haven’t you heard of “tracking”? You put the brighter students in more advanced classes and the inferior students in remedial classes. It is engaged in by large numbers of school systems. It is also somewhat controversial as some view it as a self-fulfilling prophesy.


I think this depends on how you do it. You need to proportion a much higher amount of resources to the students in the lower performing grades. In much of elementary school I was in classes that had a teacher a teachers aid and maybe 8 students. I broadly caught up and had no significant difficulty in mainstream and advanced classes in high school.

[ponderingturtle]

What makes you think someone with a "D" average would make it in a trade school? Skilled trades aren't careers suitable for idiots.

And yet look at all the idiots with MBA's...

[casebro]

Funny thing is, the public schools in America ARE on a voucher system of sorts. The states pay the schools per student/day. So the schools don't want to loose any students, and keep the flunkies in class. No way do they want to let even the most disruptive student drop out, why that would cost them their budgets! So the better students suffer. And after graduation, the poorer students go out and get jobs that have always been taken by the flunkies anyway. While the better students have gotten a lesser education than they could have. But the teachers and administrators are all employed.

Lessee the math: At $5,000 per student/year, and a class size of 25, thats $125,000 per class. 400 square feet of space is worth about $5,000 per year, the teacher costs $50k, what with bennies and retirement. That seems to leave $70,000 per classroom /year for books. I think system is broken, what with admin bloat and regulations that go beyond teaching the 3Rs. The best way to fix it is to turn the whole thing over to capitalism- Voucher Schools!

[ponderingturtle]

Funny thing is, the public schools in America ARE on a voucher system of sorts. The states pay the schools per student/day. So the schools don't want to loose any students, and keep the flunkies in class. No way do they want to let even the most disruptive student drop out, why that would cost them their budgets! So the better students suffer. And after graduation, the poorer students go out and get jobs that have always been taken by the flunkies anyway. While the better students have gotten a lesser education than they could have. But the teachers and administrators are all employed.

Lessee the math: At $5,000 per student/year, and a class size of 25, thats $125,000 per class. 400 square feet of space is worth about $5,000 per year, the teacher costs $50k, what with bennies and retirement. That seems to leave $70,000 per classroom /year for books. I think system is broken, what with admin bloat and regulations that go beyond teaching the 3Rs. The best way to fix it is to turn the whole thing over to capitalism- Voucher Schools!

But much of the money in any school system comes from local taxes. And of course higher quality schools have enormous impact on housing prices. So a good school system raises housing prices thus permitting it to collect more property taxes.

[Tmy]

I dont want to use the public transportation system. Therefore the govt should give me a voucher so I can go buy a car!!

[leftysergeant]

If I remember the stats right, about 47% of Washington politicians send their kids to private schools in their home states. So if they refuse to allow us a choice unless we can pay for it, why should they have one?

Because they can pay for it. Were we subsidizing them, you would have a valid complaint. As it is, they pay out of pocket for the privillege, while still paying the taxes that subsidize the education of the rest of our kids. Vouchers would end that, and becoime a subsidy to the yuppies who want more for their larvae. And, since the funding for public education comes mostly from property taxes trhat must be approved by voters, the subsidies that go to the high-tax bracket families would create a disincentive for the beneficiaries of vouchers to approve them, thus further reducing the amount of money available to educate the children of the lower income families.

I disagree in large part with Obama in regards to charter schools. I think that they are a valid concept only as a test bed for concepts that could later be applied to public schools.

As for the elite sending their children to private schools, it is actually more practical for several reasons.

For one thing, there need to be security measures put in place for the First Family that would be a serious burden on the schools and the students. Private schools which teach the children of high-profile politicians just add it into the normal burden of operating. The other children will not look at the Obama daughters as the reason that they cannot enjoy a normal routine.

Thoise who complain about this arrangement are fighting the wrong battle. Concentrate on how we go about ending the violence in the public schools. Vouchers just condemn the poor to further declining schools.

[kallsop]

Obama and Michelle are millionaires and they have earned a better choice for their kids. It's awesome to get liberals onboard with support for that.