Public school consolidation, vouchers, and charter schools

[daenku32]

In Indiana we are getting all of it. Public schools are consolidated to bigger and bigger districts. The schools are just huge, in my opinion. The HS our oldest goes to is so big she barely has time to visit her locker between her classes because of the physical distances in the class room locations.

Even the elementary school is huge. Cannot even try to put the number of classrooms they have for each grade.

And now they are passing a bill to allow "school choice". They say that people should have choice to take kids out of "failing schools", which is code for public schools. After all, people already have a choice to take them out of charter or private schools.

So, the idea is still to introduce number of small charters and increase the religious school enrollment, under the idea of choice. Assuming the noblest intentions, which is more small schools, then why pursue public school consolidation. All that did was limit school choice amongst traditional public schools.

I would have a much easier time accepting the idea that they think schools can be specialized to fit kids needs (gifted as well as special needs) if they allowed this to be done with traditional schools.

[Jeff Corey]

Interesting piece on "Fresh Air" on NPR today. Former Assistant Secretary of Education, Diann Ravitch, was highly critical of charter schools.
""What has happened ... is that [charter schools have] become an enormous entrepreneurial activity and the private sector has moved in," she says. "So there are now charter chains where the heads are paying themselves $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year. They compete with regular public schools. They do not see themselves as collaborators with public schools but business competitors and in some cases, they actually want to take away the public school space and take away the public school business."

Ravitch says that charter schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like "second-class citizens." http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135142895/ravitch-standardized-testing-undermines-teaching?ps=cprs

[Westwall]

Considering the woeful state of public schools I see no alternative but some form of voucher system to try and fix it. Have you ever looked at old school books? I own several from teh Los Angeles Unified School District from 1927 and they are significantly better then the books in schools today. How on earth did that happen?

[TheJim]

Considering the woeful state of public schools I see no alternative but some form of voucher system to try and fix it. Have you ever looked at old school books? I own several from teh Los Angeles Unified School District from 1927 and they are significantly better then the books in schools today. How on earth did that happen?


Really schools in Massachusetts test right up there with the best in the world and for that matter schools with less than 10 percent of the students on free and reduced lunch would be the best schools in the world. Schools with 10 to 25 percent free and reduced lunch would be 3rd in the world. And schools with less than half the kids on free and reduced lunch kids are 9th in the world. The problem is not schools the problem is poverty.

[Dancing David]

Charters chools have a couple of big issues, they do not accept all students, they receive extra funding.

[BobTheCoward]

Charters chools have a couple of big issues, they do not accept all students, they receive extra funding.

I would call those benefits, not defects.

[AvalonXQ]

Charters chools have a couple of big issues, they do not accept all students, they receive extra funding.

I would call those benefits, not defects.

So are we opening up the door to the option of not educating all our children? Isn't that dangerous?

[themusicteacher]

I would call those benefits, not defects.

They get to play by a different set of rules, cost more and they still don't do any better on average. That's the problem.

[Beth]

So are we opening up the door to the option of not educating all our children? Isn't that dangerous?

Isn't that already the case?

[AvalonXQ]

Isn't that already the case?

Right now, when some of the children aren't educated, it's considered a failure of the system. The stated objective is to educate all children.
My concern is that we're dropping that objective if we call selective enrollment a feature.

[sherizzle]

Interesting piece on "Fresh Air" on NPR today. Former Assistant Secretary of Education, Diann Ravitch, was highly critical of charter schools.
""What has happened ... is that [charter schools have] become an enormous entrepreneurial activity and the private sector has moved in," she says. "So there are now charter chains where the heads are paying themselves $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year. They compete with regular public schools. They do not see themselves as collaborators with public schools but business competitors and in some cases, they actually want to take away the public school space and take away the public school business."

Ravitch says that charter schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like "second-class citizens." http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135142895/ravitch-standardized-testing-undermines-teaching?ps=cprs



I am part of a failing public system in Calif. The Charters for us in CA are not so much failures as the future for our educational system. For many of us it was an alternative that offers our kids a chance for even getting an education that is viable. WE have classroom sizes here of 40 plus kids. Kids have to stand as there no seats, its beyond horrible. WE had the CST testing this week (our charter) and I volunteer, I could not get over how many new families have come on board.


Jeff IMO, education in my state is well into it's 10th year of moving towards privatization.

I think it is too late here, capitalism is in full force.

[Beth]

Right now, when some of the children aren't educated, it's considered a failure of the system. The stated objective is to educate all children.
My concern is that we're dropping that objective if we call selective enrollment a feature.

That's a reasonable concern, but I don't see it that way. You don't have to have every school required to take every child in order to achieve the goal of educating all children. You need to make sure that every child finds a slot in an appropriate school. Making sure that happens in practice would be difficult, but given that we aren't managing to educate all our children now, I think that allowing both schools and parents to self-select the best fit between schools and children might produce superior results at a lower cost per child.

[keale]

I am part of a failing public system in Calif. The Charters for us in CA are not so much failures as the future for our educational system. For many of us it was an alternative that offers our kids a chance for even getting an education that is viable. WE have classroom sizes here of 40 plus kids. Kids have to stand as there no seats, its beyond horrible. WE had the CST testing this week (our charter) and I volunteer, I could not get over how many new families have come on board.


Jeff IMO, education in my state is well into it's 10th year of moving towards privatization.

I think it is too late here, capitalism is in full force.


My experience is different than yours. Ive found it seems to vary by area as in if you live in a better area generally speaking you have better schools. Around here in OC the schools that have the highest asian enrollment have the highest ratings Irvine with its large asian population has some of the best schools.

[Dancing David]

I would call those benefits, not defects.

You can not compare charter schools to regular public schools to say they are more effective then, they could be more effective because they screen out students and receive extra funding.

[Dancing David]

Isn't that already the case?

The main problem is archaic funding based upon local property taxes, so you have students in Illinois who have $20,000 extra to state funding per student and districts that have $1,000 extra to state funding per student.

So Evanston Township High School and Maine South have higher success rates because of the property tax based funding.

[Dancing David]

Right now, when some of the children aren't educated, it's considered a failure of the system. The stated objective is to educate all children.
My concern is that we're dropping that objective if we call selective enrollment a feature.


And mainly blaming the children for the sin of being born poor. the consequence of the protestant puritan blame the victim mentality along with the capitalist social darwinism shame game. So if a child gets born to a poor parent the fact that they struggle ins school is their fault. Never mind that they did not ask to be born into higher rates of violence, lack of support and chaotic families.
Then place them in under funded schools, no academic after school programs…

[sherizzle]

You can not compare charter schools to regular public schools to say they are more effective then, they could be more effective because they screen out students and receive extra funding.

I have to agree, the Charter experience is a lot different, for a lot of reasons, but I'll just mention a few.The public ones have stringent enrollment requirements(in other words they screen for a certain type of kid) and a child in the online virtual academies in most cases is getting one on one attention.

You almost can't go wrong with one on one attention, the charters have online classes in the subjects and they are recorded so a kid can go back and re take the class as many times as needed. In a public setting the kid gets one shot and if they do not get it or are absent they miss out.

[Dancing David]

Um, I happen to work as a lab aide in a public school, and I am very familiar with teh use of computers in grade schools. That has nothing to do with charter schools and academic acheivement, they screen out the slow learners, they screen out the behavior problems, they receive more money per student.

[sherizzle]

Um, I happen to work as a lab aide in a public school, and I am very familiar with teh use of computers in grade schools. That has nothing to do with charter schools and academic acheivement, they screen out the slow learners, they screen out the behavior problems, they receive more money per student.

Ah, I see you are on a different subject all together. Thanks for the information.

[Madalch]

Considering the woeful state of public schools I see no alternative but some form of voucher system to try and fix it. Have you ever looked at old school books? I own several from teh Los Angeles Unified School District from 1927 and they are significantly better then the books in schools today. How on earth did that happen?
Vouchers are a way of pulling public money out of public schools and funneling it into private schools. What a wonderful way of trying to fix public education- make sure all the cash is sucked out.

[redhotrebel]

I think the fundamental principle is choice. Why can a person choose what college to attend but a school aged child must attend a school within a "district". Freedom to choose the best school for your child improves the quality of education. It seems that the argument for or against is trying to keep children as a separate topic than money and that is naive. In the educational system a child is a dollar sign.

There are a lot of variables even with the free market alternatives to public education. Transportation for example. Even if a parent has a choice they may still be deprived of adequate choices because of mere distance to a better school.

The fact remains still that our current public education system is a failure in most of our country. We have teachers refusing to teach because they have tenure and can't be fired, we have over-crowded classrooms with books that are outdated. We have violence and intimidation and all the other social-economic reasons children are being stunted in their education.

Is public education better than nothing? of course it is. Are there better options? Can we logically conclude that choice, be it in the car you buy, the grocery store you go to or the school you send your children to is better than not having a choice? I think so.

[sherizzle]

I think the fundamental principle is choice. Why can a person choose what college to attend but a school aged child must attend a school within a "district". Freedom to choose the best school for your child improves the quality of education. It seems that the argument for or against is trying to keep children as a separate topic than money and that is naive. In the educational system a child is a dollar sign.

There are a lot of variables even with the free market alternatives to public education. Transportation for example. Even if a parent has a choice they may still be deprived of adequate choices because of mere distance to a better school.

The fact remains still that our current public education system is a failure in most of our country. We have teachers refusing to teach because they have tenure and can't be fired, we have over-crowded classrooms with books that are outdated. We have violence and intimidation and all the other social-economic reasons children are being stunted in their education.

Is public education better than nothing? of course it is. Are there better options? Can we logically conclude that choice, be it in the car you buy, the grocery store you go to or the school you send your children to is better than not having a choice? I think so.


In my case the most viable alternative was do it ourselves, I literally had to revise my whole life to home school my youngest son. That has included going back to school for me.

You bet it would be wonderful if my son could get the education he deserves, we tried to seek enrichment through the public system he was in, but what was available was not hopeful.

The reality for me is our system is in such bad shape, I was a teachers aide I couldn't live with myself knowing what I knew and pretending it was other then. For us my husband has a great job so we took the pay cut.

My middle son stayed in public school(for football)we are aware of the many problems, in other words we do not pretend or hope for the best. We know the best is gonna come from us what we do or do not do. So we subsidize his academics. Meaning I have to learn the subjects he doesn't have the basics for and teach him in a way that he can apply the data so he can pass, generally I have the summer to accomplish this. I have been doing this for a long time, so far we have been successful, but it it is a lot of work for me and I cannot do too much else.

I hope the the system gets better, but do I think it will , well lets just say it won't be this year, if anything it is getting worse.

[blutoski]

The fact remains still that our current public education system is a failure in most of our country. We have teachers refusing to teach because they have tenure and can't be fired

I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend, but I wonder why anybody even believes it?

Tenure means can't be fired 'without cause' - refusing to work is a pretty good example of cause.

I'm pretty sure there are no examples in the US of teachers who refuse to work, but cannot be fired for tenure reasons.

At least not public teachers - I have a colleague who works at a private Christian school in Langley and is frustrated pretty much daily by a coworker who is underperforming, shows up late, &c. Despite this, dismissal is unlikely in the forseeable future. It's the owner's daughter.

[redhotrebel]

Tenure means can't be fired 'without cause' - refusing to work is a pretty good example of cause.

I'm pretty sure there are no examples in the US of teachers who refuse to work, but cannot be fired for tenure reasons.

"Tenure" was a poor choice of words on my behalf, I apologize, I will rephrase with "teachers unions" I cannot post the link to the "Huffington Post" but you can google "New York teachers rubber rooms". Here is just one fine example of teachers getting paid to do nothing. Full salaries thanks to your tax dollars:

"NEW YORK — Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" _ off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings..."

[themusicteacher]

"Tenure" was a poor choice of words on my behalf, I apologize, I will rephrase with "teachers unions" I cannot post the link to the "Huffington Post" but you can google "New York teachers rubber rooms". Here is just one fine example of teachers getting paid to do nothing. Full salaries thanks to your tax dollars:

"NEW YORK — Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" _ off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings..."

So, in this one example (albeit a famous one), you can't see any other issues that might be at play here other than "those lousy unions are costing us money"? It may be difficult to fire them but it isn't impossible. Why wasn't the screening process better? Why didn't they get fired within the first three years where they can be fired without cause? Isn't that an administration issue? Are some of the charges false? If they can't get hearings, does that not mean the upper administration isn't doing their job employing someone to run the hearings?

Of course it's the unions, trying, in good faith, to protect the rights of all employees from being fired for giving Johnny an 'F' on the test he didn't study for or telling a principal that they wouldn't work late unpaid or telling the school board that, yes, evolution is in fact true no matter what their religious organization has to say about it are the sole reason for failing schools.

[Dancing David]

Ah, I see you are on a different subject all together. Thanks for the information.

No, the subject is why change to charter schools, they are not an improvement. I did not change the subject at all.

they cherry pick their students and they receive more funding per pupil.

[Dancing David]

I think the fundamental principle is choice. Why can a person choose what college to attend but a school aged child must attend a school within a "district". Freedom to choose the best school for your child improves the quality of education. It seems that the argument for or against is trying to keep children as a separate topic than money and that is naive. In the educational system a child is a dollar sign.

What the Fred, there is no student as dollar sign, there is no *********** profit motive in most public schools. I know my students by name, the fact that you see them as dollar signs shows that your head is full of imagination

This is ignorant political spin on your part. Most teachers do not work for that high a salary despite the lies told by the anti-education folks. they run with very low overhead and administrative cost compared to corporations.

If corporations can run schools for the same money as public education, why aren’t they?

Why has the for profit school model ran away after giving it a try.

There are a lot of variables even with the free market alternatives to public education. Transportation for example. Even if a parent has a choice they may still be deprived of adequate choices because of mere distance to a better school.

The fact remains still that our current public education system is a failure in most of our country.

How do you control in your assessment for poverty, how do you control for per capita funding?
Show that poverty in not related to failing students, show that lack of per capita funding is not responsible for under performing schools.

Then please show us how the vast majority of students are failing. Lets see, No Child Left behind, what did it do? It set an arbitrary standard, and guess what, you can’t just say ‘All students will achieve above average’, yeah an 85% pass rate on a test that most people with jobs, even middle class individuals could not pass at 85%

We have teachers refusing to teach because they have tenure and can't be fired,

Another lie, yes they CAN! All contracts have provisions for evaluation, remediation and termination.

If incompetent teachers aren’t fired then they should fire the principal, the assistant superintendent and the superintendent.

we have over-crowded classrooms with books that are outdated. We have violence and intimidation and all the other social-economic reasons children are being stunted in their education.

No data no evidence, so the solution to old text books it to take money from public schools, because then they can buy new text books?

Do you have any children, where, and when ? My son goes to a mixed school, his whole life he has been in schools with a high proportion of low SES students.

He does fine because he has two college educated parents, and we can afford to take the time to help him.

So in your assessment, how do you control for poverty, per capita funding and what measure of success do you use.


Is public education better than nothing? of course it is. Are there better options? Can we logically conclude that choice, be it in the car you buy, the grocery store you go to or the school you send your children to is better than not having a choice? I think so.

Choice to what , use your tax money, to do whatever you want? Well tell you what I opt of of the god damned US miltary, I want my portion of contribution to it cut to 1%.

It ain't going to happen.

[Dancing David]

In my case the most viable alternative was do it ourselves, I literally had to revise my whole life to home school my youngest son. That has included going back to school for me.

You bet it would be wonderful if my son could get the education he deserves, we tried to seek enrichment through the public system he was in, but what was available was not hopeful.

The reality for me is our system is in such bad shape, I was a teachers aide I couldn't live with myself knowing what I knew and pretending it was other then. For us my husband has a great job so we took the pay cut.

I like being an aide, I get to teach children who don't have educated role models how to read, do math and use computers.


My middle son stayed in public school(for football)we are aware of the many problems, in other words we do not pretend or hope for the best. We know the best is gonna come from us what we do or do not do. So we subsidize his academics. Meaning I have to learn the subjects he doesn't have the basics for and teach him in a way that he can apply the data so he can pass, generally I have the summer to accomplish this. I have been doing this for a long time, so far we have been successful, but it it is a lot of work for me and I cannot do too much else.

I hope the the system gets better, but do I think it will , well lets just say it won't be this year, if anything it is getting worse.

And what about changing the funding streams, so that all schools receive the same funding per capita? I think that would help a lot. And if the federal government, instead of wasting money on corporate welfare, paying farmers who don't even step in the soil of their fields and tax cuts for the wealthy kicked up its share and especially to secondary and post secondary education?

What about real after school programs? Our schools district is lucky to have volunteers come run a 'homework club', .

There are lots of things we can do to improve our education, but they will require funding.

[redhotrebel]

David- I seem to have struck a nerve and that was not my intention. I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I was trying to be concise and thus failed at effectively stating that I am not a proponent of charter schools per se, nor do I hold any strong feelings towards public schools. I personally did not attend more than 5 years of what most would call "normal education". "Home-schooled" would even be a stretch of the imagination. I don't have children nor am I an educator, so I don't have any particular emotion towards the subject.

To further clarify, I fail to see thus far a valid argument that choice in schools is a bad move for our educational system. I will restate my quandary as to why as a society it is common to have choices in higher education, but for k-12 children are subjected to "districts"?

Funding and costs seem to be the greatest issue, hence my (albeit crude) comparison of children to dollars. I by no means want to insinuate that educators are intentionally slacking or malicious. If we use higher education as an indicator for what lower education can be then we have a starting point on how to improve. Will we all be able to go to a University? No, some of us will have to work hard and go to community college. But the choice of which one we attend within our means is ours. So I ask again, what harm can come from giving parents the same choices adults have in where they are educated? If your school is better, that child will go to your school (along with the funding for that child).

I'm not sure where you were going with your 1% tax thing exactly, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I just genuinely don't follow your logic there. The basic premise of charter schools is that a child holds the funding ("check" so to speak) and the school that they go to receives those funds. The "tax" cost would not change, it would just be a choice for parents on where to send their children.

There is, however, IMO one valid argument against charter schools and giving parents that choice and that is public schools have some set of standards in most states. And if left solely in the hands of whimsy without some form of oversight or regulation there is a high propensity for backlash. One example is "creation science". Right now, as the educational system stands, people need to spend high amounts of money to send their children to private Christian schools. I don't think that this benefits a more rational society and with charter schools there is a likelihood that more people will send their kids to newly available schools that specifically deny rational thought.

So the argument can logically be deduced to: Who chooses where and how children are educated? Is it the job of the government to step in or do parents have the right to choose even if they could possibly choose poorly? The premise of charter schools is that parents will make the best decision for their children, whereas public education is dictated by the government telling you which school to send your k-12.

[sherizzle]

No, the subject is why change to charter schools, they are not an improvement. I did not change the subject at all.

they cherry pick their students and they receive more funding per pupil.

In my state they have to take any child, because it is public education. Some of the charters that receive their funding privately do have standards. Meaning one is expected to be able to write an essay and has to want to learn to be accepted.

The Charter I am involved with doesn't get extra funding, but is able to be cost effective because it doesn't have the overhead that a brick and mortar school does. Our lead teachers make about half of what a tenured teacher would. The lead teachers I know have chosen this, as it allows them to be home and hands on with their own children.

It has been a decent education for us so far. Our books are current and we have a full Science and Art and Music curriculum. We have the new Math program that was instituted last year as a result of a huge study done on how to make math easier to learn. We also do not just offer reading for literacy programs only, such as Open Court. We are one of the first public schools in our state to offer language in elementary and junior high school, my youngest has had a year of Spanish and 2 years of French so far. All the reading is Classic Literature. My son is reading the Iliad, he is in 7th grade. We do not teach to the standardized tests either. They use the Handwriting without Tears program so writing and cursive are painless, fun and easy and fast to learn. The kids are computer savvy very young as their school is virtual.

Charters are not gonna be for everyone, but for those that want a choice they have one.

[Prometheus]

...I fail to see thus far a valid argument that choice in schools is a bad move for our educational system. I will restate my quandary as to why as a society it is common to have choices in higher education, but for k-12 children are subjected to "districts"?

Choice needs to be informed, else it can do more harm than good. This is actually one reason why we have compulsory education in the first place--it is in the State's best interest to attempt to ensure that voters are informed enough to vote intelligently and in their own best interests. Children aren't given the same freedom of choice as adults for good reason.

The real problem is that it's arguably also in the State's best interest to be the agency responsible for making certain choices on behalf of children, and this often doesn't sit well with parents.


...If we use higher education as an indicator for what lower education can be then we have a starting point on how to improve. Will we all be able to go to a University? No, some of us will have to work hard and go to community college. But the choice of which one we attend within our means is ours.

Why? What evidence do you have that higher education serves the same purposes or faces the same challenges as primary or secondary education? You seem to be assuming the consequent.


So I ask again, what harm can come from giving parents the same choices adults have in where they are educated? If your school is better, that child will go to your school (along with the funding for that child).

The hidden false premise here is that parents are necessarily both capable of determining which school is better and willing to send their children there even if the better school is the one that does not adhere to the parents' own religious or political mindset.


I'm not sure where you were going with your 1% tax thing exactly, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I just genuinely don't follow your logic there. The basic premise of charter schools is that a child holds the funding ("check" so to speak) and the school that they go to receives those funds. The "tax" cost would not change, it would just be a choice for parents on where to send their children.

Why should taxpayers have any more right to choose to de-fund public schools than they do to de-fund the military? It's not an issue of the tax cost changing, it's about changing how those tax dollars are spent.



There is, however, IMO one valid argument against charter schools and giving parents that choice and that is public schools have some set of standards in most states. And if left solely in the hands of whimsy without some form of oversight or regulation there is a high propensity for backlash. One example is "creation science". Right now, as the educational system stands, people need to spend high amounts of money to send their children to private Christian schools. I don't think that this benefits a more rational society and with charter schools there is a likelihood that more people will send their kids to newly available schools that specifically deny rational thought.

So the argument can logically be deduced to: Who chooses where and how children are educated? Is it the job of the government to step in or do parents have the right to choose even if they could possibly choose poorly? The premise of charter schools is that parents will make the best decision for their children, whereas public education is dictated by the government telling you which school to send your k-12.

That's true, but there's a bit more to it than that. An underlying assumption in the argument for "choice" is generally that parents have the right to decide on behalf of their children, and probably most people would agree that this is mostly the case. Yet we do have reasonable precedent for the idea that this is not always true. The state does reserve the right to limit or remove parental rights when it can be shown to be in a child's best interest to do so. An argument can be made that by advocating on behalf of children regardless of their parents wishes, the State is actually promoting free choice--by giving kids the wherewithal to choose whether to part with their parents' beliefs when they grow up.

Then there's the whole lack of evidence that charter schools actually perform any better (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html?emc=eta1) thing...

[sherizzle]

David- I seem to have struck a nerve and that was not my intention. I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I was trying to be concise and thus failed at effectively stating that I am not a proponent of charter schools per se, nor do I hold any strong feelings towards public schools. I personally did not attend more than 5 years of what most would call "normal education". "Home-schooled" would even be a stretch of the imagination. I don't have children nor am I an educator, so I don't have any particular emotion towards the subject.

To further clarify, I fail to see thus far a valid argument that choice in schools is a bad move for our educational system. I will restate my quandary as to why as a society it is common to have choices in higher education, but for k-12 children are subjected to "districts"?

Funding and costs seem to be the greatest issue, hence my (albeit crude) comparison of children to dollars. I by no means want to insinuate that educators are intentionally slacking or malicious. If we use higher education as an indicator for what lower education can be then we have a starting point on how to improve. Will we all be able to go to a University? No, some of us will have to work hard and go to community college. But the choice of which one we attend within our means is ours. So I ask again, what harm can come from giving parents the same choices adults have in where they are educated? If your school is better, that child will go to your school (along with the funding for that child).

I'm not sure where you were going with your 1% tax thing exactly, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I just genuinely don't follow your logic there. The basic premise of charter schools is that a child holds the funding ("check" so to speak) and the school that they go to receives those funds. The "tax" cost would not change, it would just be a choice for parents on where to send their children.

There is, however, IMO one valid argument against charter schools and giving parents that choice and that is public schools have some set of standards in most states. And if left solely in the hands of whimsy without some form of oversight or regulation there is a high propensity for backlash. One example is "creation science". Right now, as the educational system stands, people need to spend high amounts of money to send their children to private Christian schools. I don't think that this benefits a more rational society and with charter schools there is a likelihood that more people will send their kids to newly available schools that specifically deny rational thought.

So the argument can logically be deduced to: Who chooses where and how children are educated? Is it the job of the government to step in or do parents have the right to choose even if they could possibly choose poorly? The premise of charter schools is that parents will make the best decision for their children, whereas public education is dictated by the government telling you which school to send your k-12.

This is a valid concern, in California we had groups that were doing just this, deciding quite arbitrarily that Creation Science was as valid as Science; therefore, should be taught as an 'alternative.' So California banned home schooling, that was not the catalyst that created the ban though. What happened was a home schooler found a loophole in a so called 'church' that registered as a school etc etc. and turns out 2 young girls were being molested by this man( their father.) So CPS took this to court and now in CA one cannot just choose to "home school" unless they are using a state mandated curriculum and have a certified teacher on board and are a actual school.

[Dancing David]

David- I seem to have struck a nerve and that was not my intention.

I am sorry, I got too strong, I will try to screen more carefully what I post.

I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I was trying to be concise and thus failed at effectively stating that I am not a proponent of charter schools per se, nor do I hold any strong feelings towards public schools. I personally did not attend more than 5 years of what most would call "normal education". "Home-schooled" would even be a stretch of the imagination. I don't have children nor am I an educator, so I don't have any particular emotion towards the subject.

To further clarify, I fail to see thus far a valid argument that choice in schools is a bad move for our educational system.

My issue is that choice is code word for 'vouchers to go to private school.'

I will restate my quandary as to why as a society it is common to have choices in higher education, but for k-12 children are subjected to "districts"?

Because of the way funding is mandated by states and transportation issues. Public education is a government mandate.
If people want to go to private schools that is fine, but not with tax money.

In my district we have school of choice for grade schools, you get to say what your top three choices are, then your local school gets priority. But there are popular schools that get filled fast.


Funding and costs seem to be the greatest issue, hence my (albeit crude) comparison of children to dollars.

The problem is that public education is underfunded, it is always getting cut and runs on the minimum that people will allow, then most states have an archaic system where local property taxes add to the state amount. So you have wealthy school districts that have 4x what poor schools districts have.

So in the collar counties around Chicago, school districts get 4x as much as down state rural school districts.

I by no means want to insinuate that educators are intentionally slacking or malicious. If we use higher education as an indicator for what lower education can be then we have a starting point on how to improve.

Have you looked at the cost of higher education recently, private schools charge a lot per student.
Public education is very efficient compared to a corporation.

Will we all be able to go to a University? No, some of us will have to work hard and go to community college. But the choice of which one we attend within our means is ours. So I ask again, what harm can come from giving parents the same choices adults have in where they are educated? If your school is better, that child will go to your school (along with the funding for that child).

Not with public money it won't.

A poor district will loose money to a wealthy district or private schools that makes no sense, they are already underfunded.



I'm not sure where you were going with your 1% tax thing exactly, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I just genuinely don't follow your logic there. The basic premise of charter schools is that a child holds the funding ("check" so to speak) and the school that they go to receives those funds. The "tax" cost would not change, it would just be a choice for parents on where to send their children.

Charter schools have benefits that public schools do not
-they screen and refuse students
-they receive extra funding

So how are they better than public education?



There is, however, IMO one valid argument against charter schools and giving parents that choice and that is public schools have some set of standards in most states.

That is not my issue, my issue is that charter schools can refuse children, they can cherry pick their students, then WOW they get better results. they don't usually take special education, they don't take slow students they don't take behavior problems.

That is why they succeed.

And if left solely in the hands of whimsy without some form of oversight or regulation there is a high propensity for backlash.

Charter school still have to meet state standards in Illinois.

One example is "creation science". Right now, as the educational system stands, people need to spend high amounts of money to send their children to private Christian schools. I don't think that this benefits a more rational society and with charter schools there is a likelihood that more people will send their kids to newly available schools that specifically deny rational thought.

That is why I oppose vouchers and the code 'school choice', they want to use public money for private schools. Public schools that discriminate against all students attending. They have entrance exams to screen under performing students, they dismiss under performing students.



So the argument can logically be deduced to: Who chooses where and how children are educated?

The state and local government with federal input on Title One and Title Nine. Just as the local government generates the revenue it decides how to spend it.

Is it the job of the government to step in or do parents have the right to choose even if they could possibly choose poorly?

And why is government choosing poorly? The issues are lack of funding and the effects of poverty. Why don’t people get to choose what sewer line they hook to?

You still have not shown that public education is failing or where it is failing.

The premise of charter schools is that parents will make the best decision for their children, whereas public education is dictated by the government telling you which school to send your k-12.

The premise of vouchers is that school districts that are under funded will lose more money.

[Dancing David]

In my state they have to take any child, because it is public education. Some of the charters that receive their funding privately do have standards. Meaning one is expected to be able to write an essay and has to want to learn to be accepted.

The Charter I am involved with doesn't get extra funding, but is able to be cost effective because it doesn't have the overhead that a brick and mortar school does. Our lead teachers make about half of what a tenured teacher would. The lead teachers I know have chosen this, as it allows them to be home and hands on with their own children.

It has been a decent education for us so far. Our books are current and we have a full Science and Art and Music curriculum. We have the new Math program that was instituted last year as a result of a huge study done on how to make math easier to learn. We also do not just offer reading for literacy programs only, such as Open Court. We are one of the first public schools in our state to offer language in elementary and junior high school, my youngest has had a year of Spanish and 2 years of French so far. All the reading is Classic Literature. My son is reading the Iliad, he is in 7th grade. We do not teach to the standardized tests either. They use the Handwriting without Tears program so writing and cursive are painless, fun and easy and fast to learn. The kids are computer savvy very young as their school is virtual.

Charters are not gonna be for everyone, but for those that want a choice they have one.

Wow ,cool. More later.

[Dancing David]

In my state they have to take any child, because it is public education. Some of the charters that receive their funding privately do have standards. Meaning one is expected to be able to write an essay and has to want to learn to be accepted.

Accepting all students is one of my biggest complaints, because your state is rare. Most charters chools can set alll sorts of bars, like no behavior disorders, no slow learners.

Bravo to your state!

The Charter I am involved with doesn't get extra funding, but is able to be cost effective because it doesn't have the overhead that a brick and mortar school does. Our lead teachers make about half of what a tenured teacher would.

Is that because of tenure or time at work?
I ask because here the issue is that you get small step increases every year, so a 25 year employee makes about 2x what a new teachers does. :)

Tenure is not a guarantee against firing, it is a guarantee against a lay off, in Illinois you can receive an RIF (Reduction in Force) notice regardless of your tenure status. They go by seniority and certification as well.

Many a tenured teacher has been RIFed in bad years.

The lead teachers I know have chosen this, as it allows them to be home and hands on with their own children.

Cool, that is great.



It has been a decent education for us so far. Our books are current and we have a full Science and Art and Music curriculum. We have the new Math program that was instituted last year as a result of a huge study done on how to make math easier to learn.

We use Everyday Math, it works , most of the time.

We also do not just offer reading for literacy programs only, such as Open Court.

We have reading and reading support, language arts is separate.

We are one of the first public schools in our state to offer language in elementary and junior high school, my youngest has had a year of Spanish and 2 years of French so far.

Now see that is where we get in trouble, we would have to have an extra class period to do that, and the board would have to agree to it.

All the reading is Classic Literature. My son is reading the Iliad, he is in 7th grade.

that is cool, there is such a gap in reading levels, the slow student usually read at about at 2nd - 3rd grade level in 7th grade.
My son has read some classics in seventh grade, I do not recall which one.

We do not teach to the standardized tests either.

we have to, or we go on warning and then take over. Two more years.
They use the Handwriting without Tears program so writing and cursive are painless, fun and easy and fast to learn. The kids are computer savvy very young as their school is virtual.

Sweet, or district has only two computers per class, with a few with 3 or 4, they don't like to buy new machines either. Five years ago we had a board member who thought elementary did not need computers


Charters are not gonna be for everyone, but for those that want a choice they have one.

That is fine, it is just the political push to say that they are better than public education that I object to.

[Beth]

The real problem is that it's arguably also in the State's best interest to be the agency responsible for making certain choices on behalf of children, and this often doesn't sit well with parents. ...
An underlying assumption in the argument for "choice" is generally that parents have the right to decide on behalf of their children, and probably most people would agree that this is mostly the case. Yet we do have reasonable precedent for the idea that this is not always true. The state does reserve the right to limit or remove parental rights when it can be shown to be in a child's best interest to do so.
A decision made in the State's best interest is not necessarily going to result in the same decision made in the child's best interest. My understanding is that the State must have a compelling reason to insist on their choice. That it is in the State's best interest is not sufficient justification. As you note, parental rights are limited or rescinded altogether when they are not acting in the child's best interest.


So the argument can logically be deduced to: Who chooses where and how children are educated? Is it the job of the government to step in or do parents have the right to choose even if they could possibly choose poorly? The premise of charter schools is that parents will make the best decision for their children, whereas public education is dictated by the government telling you which school to send your k-12.

In general, I agree with this premise. While not all parents will make the best decision for their child, on average I think that parents will do better than a beaurocratic system.

Incidently, there is an interesting article on this in Huffpo today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-rhee/public-funding-for-privat_b_859991.html

I also think a good case can be made that choice programs provide an impetus for the public schools to improve.

[pgwenthold]

I think the fundamental principle is choice. Why can a person choose what college to attend but a school aged child must attend a school within a "district".

Because they pay tuition to go to college, even to a "public" university (although note that they do get reduced tuition if they attend a college within a certain "district" i.e. state), but go to secondary school for free.

Seriously, the answer to your question is so bloody obvious that you should be embarrassed for asking it.

[Prometheus]

A decision made in the State's best interest is not necessarily going to result in the same decision made in the child's best interest.

True, but irrelevant. The state has an interest in attempting to ensure a certain minimum level of education be accessible to all children. Limited available funding means this will often result in some children not being offered the best possible education. That said, the rationing of available education resources could certainly be made a lot more fair than it currently is.

My understanding is that the State must have a compelling reason to insist on their choice. That it is in the State's best interest is not sufficient justification. As you note, parental rights are limited or rescinded altogether when they are not acting in the child's best interest.

Parents retain the right to choose where to send their kids to school. They just don't have the right to expect the state to pay for it if they choose not to send them to the public school which the state provides for them. This is an entirely reasonable compromise given the economic and political realities on the ground.

In general, I agree with this premise. While not all parents will make the best decision for their child, on average I think that parents will do better than a beaurocratic system.

I hear this assertion alot. I've never seen anyone attempt to back it up with evidence, though.

Incidently, there is an interesting article on this in Huffpo today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-rhee/public-funding-for-privat_b_859991.html

I also think a good case can be made that choice programs provide an impetus for the public schools to improve.

I agree with much of that article. I'm actually in favour of building an education system that includes a healthy mix appropriately regulated public, charter and private schools, and a far more ambitious teacher training/recruiting system than currently exists. But vouchers and charter schools by themselves will not fix anything. They just move scarce resources around in a way that benefits a few lucky students at the expense of many others. It's not that I don't want them implemented at all, but that I don't want them implemented prematurely or in the absence of other necessary reforms.

[AlBell]

Show that poverty in not related to failing students,
Seems obvious it is. Now what?



show that lack of per capita funding is not responsible for under performing schools.

Have you looked at DC funding? $24,000 per child. Think more money will fix their system? Or any other system where poverty is the problem?

[redhotrebel]

Because they pay tuition to go to college, even to a "public" university (although note that they do get reduced tuition if they attend a college within a certain "district" i.e. state), but go to secondary school for free.

Seriously, the answer to your question is so bloody obvious that you should be embarrassed for asking it.

I'm not embarrassed despite your insinuation that I should be nor did you answer my question in any legitimate form. I regret to inform you that I don't feel "pwned" by some flippant statement. I am merely stating that both are paid for either directly by the person to a specific institution of their choice (college) or indirectly via taxes to a predesignated school in a district (k-12).

[Dancing David]

Seems obvious it is. Now what?



Have you looked at DC funding? $24,000 per child. Think more money will fix their system? Or any other system where poverty is the problem?

It depends on how it is spent, if it is spent to provide the supports then it might well, but since my distrcit seems to think the superintendant shout get paid $250,000/year, I think that money could be better spent.

Lack of aides is a real problem, lack os support for students who are behind is a problem. But in general the issue is how the money is spent. Some districts can't afford new teaching materials, that is a problem. If there is no money of it is not spent well, then no money is not a panacea.

Most of the issues that schools have to deal with are not part of the school enivironment, but they can be dealt with there, extended hours and after school programs that are academic would be helpful.

[pgwenthold]

I am merely stating that both are paid for either directly by the person to a specific institution of their choice (college) or indirectly via taxes to a predesignated school in a district (k-12).

Of course, the second is wrong.

Our taxes that are used to support schools are not paid on the basis of how many children we have attending, of if we have any attending at all.

Hence, they are nothing like tuition. It is publically supported education. The taxes I pay do not pay for my children's education. I know this because I don't have any children in school. I am paying for everyone else's kids to attend school. When my kids go to school, everyone else will be paying for them (almost - I will be contributing to them as well, but no more than I am for any other kids in school).

I have stated many times, if you want a voucher, you can have one, but only for the amount that you contribute to your own child's education. So if there are 1000 children in your school district, and you pay $1000 in taxes to support the school district, then sure, you can have a $1 voucher. Because that is all you are contributing FOR YOUR CHILD. Don't you dare suggest that you are going to take the dollar that I provided for your child and use that to send them somewhere else.

If your child leaves the school district, then I want my money back. As will everyone else who has been supporting his/her education.

That's what publically supported education is about, and that's why voucher programs are wrong. It's not your money to use as you want.

[redhotrebel]

I see your point now and I don't disagree.

[sherizzle]

Accepting all students is one of my biggest complaints, because your state is rare. Most charters chools can set alll sorts of bars, like no behavior disorders, no slow learners.

Bravo to your state!

Is that because of tenure or time at work?
I ask because here the issue is that you get small step increases every year, so a 25 year employee makes about 2x what a new teachers does. :)

Tenure is not a guarantee against firing, it is a guarantee against a lay off, in Illinois you can receive an RIF (Reduction in Force) notice regardless of your tenure status. They go by seniority and certification as well.

Many a tenured teacher has been RIFed in bad years.

Cool, that is great.

We use Everyday Math, it works , most of the time.

We have reading and reading support, language arts is separate.

Now see that is where we get in trouble, we would have to have an extra class period to do that, and the board would have to agree to it.

that is cool, there is such a gap in reading levels, the slow student usually read at about at 2nd - 3rd grade level in 7th grade.
My son has read some classics in seventh grade, I do not recall which one.

we have to, or we go on warning and then take over. Two more years.

Sweet, or district has only two computers per class, with a few with 3 or 4, they don't like to buy new machines either. Five years ago we had a board member who thought elementary did not need computers


That is fine, it is just the political push to say that they are better than public education that I object to.

Everyday math, would not be my first choice, in CA, they use a version of this in some schools. My observation/experience is it is hard to understand for kids. I use the K-12 version similar to Saxon Math for my son and the kids I tutor.


I agree 100 percent with you on this.


"It is just the political push to say that they are better than public education that I object to."

That they compare the public system with the Charter system is absurd. IMO the idea is to privatize education, and IMO I think it is underhanded and unfair the way this is playing out. Of course I could be wrong..this is just my thoughts on the matter.


IMO, The missing key in a successful education now a days again IMO is parental involvement and it's a process that starts from birth and continues regardless if the kid is in a charter or a public setting. The fork in the road is this; the ball is in the parents court now. Education isn't magic, it can't produce miracles without a collaborative effort on the part of the child, the parent, the teachers, and the system. It works if we work as a team, a parent has to commit to their kids education too and pick up where the formal setting leaves off.

A charter is a wonderful opportunity for a family that can commit full time and is willing to do what ever it takes, but this can be accomplished in a public setting too. If a kid and a parent want to take advantage of what is offered any teacher would be honored to do everything they could to help the family.

I have a child on the honor role who has a 11th grade intellect for a 7th grader because of teachers and hard work not only on his part but ours too. It has never mattered that we are taking the route of a Charter.

I do agree with having a choice, but choice is no guarantee of being better without the effort and hard work etc etc. It is an opportunity. Of course this is not to say education can't improve or be cost effective though.


Just my two cents...:D

[sherizzle]

It depends on how it is spent, if it is spent to provide the supports then it might well, but since my distrcit seems to think the superintendant shout get paid $250,000/year, I think that money could be better spent.

Lack of aides is a real problem, lack os support for students who are behind is a problem. But in general the issue is how the money is spent. Some districts can't afford new teaching materials, that is a problem. If there is no money of it is not spent well, then no money is not a panacea.

Most of the issues that schools have to deal with are not part of the school enivironment, but they can be dealt with there, extended hours and after school programs that are academic would be helpful.

Wow, we get $7571.00 per child in comparison to $9,963 what most other states get per child.

So $24,000 per kid in DC is jaw dropping in potential. .


http://www.cft.org/index.php/component/content/article/326-california-slips-a-notch-in-per-pupil-expenditures.html

I could put my kid in Rolling Hills Prep Academy in San Pedro, CA. The best we have to offer for a mere $25,000 a year.

[Beth]

Of course, the second is wrong.

Our taxes that are used to support schools....

That's what publically supported education is about, and that's why voucher programs are wrong. It's not your money to use as you want.

I agree with you that that is the way publically supported education for K-12 works in the US. However, vouchers are not wrong simply because they aren't the way things are done currently. Need-based vouchers would be quite comparible to Pell grants used to support college education. Those grants can be used at any qualified institution. I don't see any reason why K-12 vouchers couldn't be handled similarly.

At any rate, as a taxpayer, I am not terribly concerned about supporting schools. I want my tax dollars to support education for children. Whether that education takes place in public schools or private doesn't matter to me, as long as the child gets a good education.

[Prometheus]

I agree with you that that is the way publically supported education for K-12 works in the US. However, vouchers are not wrong simply because they aren't the way things are done currently. Need-based vouchers would be quite comparible to Pell grants used to support college education. Those grants can be used at any qualified institution. I don't see any reason why K-12 vouchers couldn't be handled similarly.

At any rate, as a taxpayer, I am not terribly concerned about supporting schools. I want my tax dollars to support education for children. Whether that education takes place in public schools or private doesn't matter to me, as long as the child gets a good education.

As a taxpayer, you are required to support public schools because an educated electorate is prerequisite to a functioning democracy, and public schools are a necessary component of ensuring an educated electorate. If you wish to support education for children beyond this civic duty, you are welcome to contribute to any of the many thousands of scholarship funds in existence, as well as fundraisers for specific schools--or you can volunteer your time and talent.

[Dancing David]

I agree with you that that is the way publically supported education for K-12 works in the US. However, vouchers are not wrong simply because they aren't the way things are done currently. Need-based vouchers would be quite comparible to Pell grants used to support college education. Those grants can be used at any qualified institution. I don't see any reason why K-12 vouchers couldn't be handled similarly.

At any rate, as a taxpayer, I am not terribly concerned about supporting schools. I want my tax dollars to support education for children. Whether that education takes place in public schools or private doesn't matter to me, as long as the child gets a good education.

But that is the problem:
-private schools discriminate on the basis of academic preformance
-many private school expel under performing students

The current model of vouchers takes money from the public schools system so peopl can send their kids to schools that discriminate and some teach creation scince.

If a parent wants to use their own money to do so that is fine, but not public money.

[Beth]

As a taxpayer, you are required to support public schools because an educated electorate is prerequisite to a functioning democracy, and public schools are a necessary component of ensuring an educated electorate.

I think it's arguable whether or not public schools are a necessary component. But even given the premise that it is, nothing in that statement precludes the use of vouchers. Places that have them usually have public schools as well.

But that is the problem:
-private schools discriminate on the basis of academic preformance
-many private school expel under performing students

The current model of vouchers takes money from the public schools system so people can send their kids to schools that discriminate and some teach creation scince.

If a parent wants to use their own money to do so that is fine, but not public money.

Yes, there are issues that would need to be resolved with regard to discrimination, curriculum standards, etc. but I don't see any of those as insurmountable or harder to resolve than the problems that plague our current system.

[Prometheus]

I think it's arguable whether or not public schools are a necessary component.

Well, if you have an argument to that effect, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I happen to think it is impossible to meet the U.S.' educational needs with a solely private system, and that even if it were possible, there are good Constitutional reasons why we should not do so.

But even given the premise that it is, nothing in that statement precludes the use of vouchers. Places that have them usually have public schools as well.

Yes, actually it does preclude the use of vouchers. As it was previously explained, any useful voucher will be worth far more than the average parents' tax contribution to public education. So using a voucher necessarily takes, not just ones' own, but other peoples' money out of the public schools and hands it to a school that--because it is allowed to discriminate against the neediest students--necessarily cannot provide the same social benefit as the public schools.

That is, of course, unless you pay for the vouchers by raising taxes, and not cutting other education funding; is that what you want?


Yes, there are issues that would need to be resolved with regard to discrimination, curriculum standards, etc. but I don't see any of those as insurmountable or harder to resolve than the problems that plague our current system.

They may well not be any harder to resolve than present difficulties, but so what? Given that we've got a badly insufficient--and in many places, outright broken--system now, don't you think it makes more sense to focus on fixing the problems with a system we know and understand? Why would you want to toss the current system out, replace it with an equally 'broken' but unknown one, and then try to fix those new problems?

[Dancing David]

Yes, there are issues that would need to be resolved with regard to discrimination, curriculum standards, etc. but I don't see any of those as insurmountable or harder to resolve than the problems that plague our current system.

I tell you what plagues our current educational system:
-poverty
-poverty
-poverty

I say that because it is the main contributor to students who struggle in school, this impacts the chaos level in their lives, it impacts the parent’s ability to help, etc...

, then

-the normal distribution of intelligence

~15% (13.6) of student are 'slow learners', they will have IQs that are 70-85, so they will always be catching up with their peers, but in most states they get no extra help.

-social skills and behavior


After that there is the whole culture/social structure in the US about denigration of education.

So while I agree a private based system could be generated, I really believe it would cost about the same or more. If we address the things we can that would help.

Funding equity.



:) :) :) :) :)

[Beth]

Well, if you have an argument to that effect, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I happen to think it is impossible to meet the U.S.' educational needs with a solely private system, and that even if it were possible, there are good Constitutional reasons why we should not do so. It's not a point I wish to dispute; I agree that given our current system it wouldn't be a good idea. However, I don't think there are any constitutional arguments against vouchers that would not also apply to Pell grants which are widely accepted as constitutional.


Yes, actually it does preclude the use of vouchers. As it was previously explained, any useful voucher will be worth far more than the average parents' tax contribution to public education. So, why does that preclude the use of vouchers? They have been set up and used in various locations. It doesn't seem to be an issue. We are funding the education of children. That goal doesn't require that we fund education only through government run schools. We don't do it that way for secondary education and our university system is top quality.

So using a voucher necessarily takes, not just ones' own, but other peoples' money out of the public schools and hands it to a school that--because it is allowed to discriminate against the neediest students--necessarily cannot provide the same social benefit as the public schools. What social benefit are you talking about? They have to provide an education to the children attending, what is the social benefit we are paying tax money to receive that won't be provided by those schools?

They may well not be any harder to resolve than present difficulties, but so what? Given that we've got a badly insufficient--and in many places, outright broken--system now, don't you think it makes more sense to focus on fixing the problems with a system we know and understand? Why would you want to toss the current system out, replace it with an equally 'broken' but unknown one, and then try to fix those new problems?

I don't think that a voucher system is equally broken, nor is an unknown system as examples of such systems exist both within the USA and elsewhere. A voucher system provides the advantage of allowing parents, who have both the best motivations to seek excellent education for their child and the best knowledge of the needs of their individual child, more control and decision making power over the education their child receives. It would allow a swift response to correct a bad situation. These are necessary aspects of a successful quality improvement program.

I tell you what plagues our current educational system:
-poverty
-poverty
-poverty
I agree. If we were to resolve the problem of poverty in America, I think our educational system would be vastly improved without making any other changes.

[Dancing David]

So how then would a switch to private schools change anything?

[Prometheus]

It's not a point I wish to dispute; I agree that given our current system it wouldn't be a good idea. However, I don't think there are any constitutional arguments against vouchers that would not also apply to Pell grants which are widely accepted as constitutional.

Pell grants are need-based and given to adults to pay for non-compulsory education, and they very rarely cover more than a fraction of a student's total education costs. If all you're talking about is giving vouchers only to poor, struggling students so that they can attend private schools they'd otherwise not be able to afford or be accepted to, then there's less of an issue from my perspective--provided the private schools are required to accept and appropriately support such students. I thought you wanted to offer vouchers across the board to any parents who wanted them. That would be break the bank, and cause a lot of other problems besides.

So, why does that preclude the use of vouchers? They have been set up and used in various locations. It doesn't seem to be an issue. We are funding the education of children. That goal doesn't require that we fund education only through government run schools. We don't do it that way for secondary education and our university system is top quality.

Again, I was arguing against an all private voucher-based system as a complete alternative to public schooling. I thought that's what you were suggesting. Otherwise, the only problem is with ensuring that funds are not removed from public schools in order to pay for the vouchers. This seems to be a problem for most people who support voucher systems, though.



What social benefit are you talking about? They have to provide an education to the children attending, what is the social benefit we are paying tax money to receive that won't be provided by those schools?

If those schools are required to teach a state-approved curriculum, meet state teacher-certification regulations and workplace rules, and accept and provide any necessary accommodations to all students, not discriminate on religious or other grounds, etc., then they would be providing the same benefit. But then why bother? The point is, private schools really only fill a useful niche in our education system if and only if they don't have to operate exactly like the public schools.


I don't think that a voucher system is equally broken, nor is an unknown system as examples of such systems exist both within the USA and elsewhere. A voucher system provides the advantage of allowing parents, who have both the best motivations to seek excellent education for their child and the best knowledge of the needs of their individual child, more control and decision making power over the education their child receives. It would allow a swift response to correct a bad situation. These are necessary aspects of a successful quality improvement program.

Same as above. As a niche supplement to the public school system, there are fewer problems--but when you start talking about providing choice to parents it seems like this is not what your after. Also, in a previous post I agreed that some sort of charter/private mix with choices for parents is a good idea--as part of a comprehensive overhaul. However, it won't work if you put the cart before the horse. The rest of the overhaul needs to happen first or else vouchers just make a bad system worse for all the students who don't get them, and we can't give them to everyone without a huge increase in costs, and even if we could give them to everyone, existing private schools would be unable to meet the subsequent demand.

I agree. If we were to resolve the problem of poverty in America, I think our educational system would be vastly improved without making any other changes.

Addressing poverty is absolutely vital, but it wouldn't fix all that's broken on its own. For instance, we also don't have anywhere near the necessary teacher-training capacity to maintain a fully competent, diverse, and appropriately distributed workforce of some 3 and a half million teachers. This is arguably even a bigger problem for public education than poverty, though it's hard to separate them completely.

[ponderingturtle]

"Tenure" was a poor choice of words on my behalf, I apologize, I will rephrase with "teachers unions" I cannot post the link to the "Huffington Post" but you can google "New York teachers rubber rooms". Here is just one fine example of teachers getting paid to do nothing. Full salaries thanks to your tax dollars:

So we need to be able to fire teachers for having too many years teaching and too much experience and so earn too much money. That seems like a less than laudable goal to me.

I know someone who has been a special ed teacher for something like 40 years in NYC, she might have ended up there because the district was closing her school and opening up 4 new ones in the same building in the name of smaller schools. As she is a highly experienced teacher none of the principles wanted her they wanted to hire new teachers who will cost their personal budgets less. So really the best thing for the district is to fire teachers like this right? See her job was not under threat because the district couldn't fire her, but no individual school wanted her and have to pay for her from their own budget.

The issue there is not the unions but the district being poorly organized and letting idiotic counterproductive bureaucratic decisions into it. IF they actually processed the complaints in an effective manner it wouldn't be an issue.

[redhotrebel]

So we need to be able to fire teachers for having too many years teaching and too much experience and so earn too much money. That seems like a less than laudable goal to me.

Strawman. Thanks for playing try again.

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman. Thanks for playing try again.

You want to remove the structures in place to prevent that. In a situation of budget crunch why not get rid of the costly teachers and replace them with much cheaper teachers.

[redhotrebel]

You want to remove the structures in place to prevent that. In a situation of budget crunch why not get rid of the costly teachers and replace them with much cheaper teachers.

Seriously? You're going to try and bait me into arguing your strawman argument with a slippery slope fallacy? I'm not playing this game.

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously? You're going to try and bait me into arguing your strawman argument with a slippery slope fallacy? I'm not playing this game.

What slippery slope? Remove this these protections and this will happen. It is a great method to cut budgets with out cutting programs or increasing class size.

[Beth]

Pell grants are need-based and given to adults to pay for non-compulsory education, and they very rarely cover more than a fraction of a student's total education costs. If all you're talking about is giving vouchers only to poor, struggling students so that they can attend private schools they'd otherwise not be able to afford or be accepted to, then there's less of an issue from my perspective--provided the private schools are required to accept and appropriately support such students. I thought you wanted to offer vouchers across the board to any parents who wanted them. That would be break the bank, and cause a lot of other problems besides. I prefer needs-based vouchers.
Again, I was arguing against an all private voucher-based system as a complete alternative to public schooling. I thought that's what you were suggesting. Otherwise, the only problem is with ensuring that funds are not removed from public schools in order to pay for the vouchers. This seems to be a problem for most people who support voucher systems, though.
I don't think an all-private system is something that could be done without a transitionary period and personally, I would prefer to see a mixed system, something more akin to our secondary educational system where some schools are private but students are eligible to receive government assistence for tuition while other schools are supported by both direct governmental support for the school and funding per student. Vouchers would be equivalent to the per student funding each child is entitled to.

If those schools are required to teach a state-approved curriculum, meet state teacher-certification regulations and workplace rules, and accept and provide any necessary accommodations to all students, not discriminate on religious or other grounds, etc., then they would be providing the same benefit. But then why bother? The point is, private schools really only fill a useful niche in our education system if and only if they don't have to operate exactly like the public schools. I don't think they need to operate just like public schools, nor do they need to confine themselves to a state-approved curriculum or state certified teachers. It's reasonable to require that they meet certain standards with regard to educational outcomes and to allow them to be selective in regards to the students they accept. For example, there might be schools set up specifically for ADHD kids, or learning disabled kids, or really smart kids, etc. I also don't have a problem with the per student funding available for some kids being larger to accomodate the additional resources required to educate them appropriately.

[Meadmaker]

For people with interest in a voucher system, I think Sweden's is a great model. Here's an editorial that describes it briefly:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/23/swedens-school-voucher-system-is-a-model-for-america/

[Beth]

For people with interest in a voucher system, I think Sweden's is a great model. Here's an editorial that describes it briefly:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/23/swedens-school-voucher-system-is-a-model-for-america/

Quite interesting. Thanks. I particularly like the close of the article:


As a former Swedish State Secretary of Schools, involved in developing the reform in the 1990s, I often get comments from American friends: “You’re supposed to be the socialists, not us,” they say and ask, “How is it that Sweden, with its egalitarian tradition, has one of the most radical systems for market-driven choice in the world?”

Maybe that is the answer. With our egalitarian tradition, we can’t accept that the right to choose the best school for your child should be reserved just for those who have the means to pay for it.

[Dancing David]

"Tenure" was a poor choice of words on my behalf, I apologize, I will rephrase with "teachers unions" I cannot post the link to the "Huffington Post" but you can google "New York teachers rubber rooms". Here is just one fine example of teachers getting paid to do nothing. Full salaries thanks to your tax dollars:

"NEW YORK — Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" _ off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings..."

I know, but just as with coprorations the exceptions are not the mean, my contract sure allows them to fire me, and the teachers contract sure allows them to fire teachers, especially for misconduct.

Now the question is why are they not moving through the discipline faster? They can occur quickly under many contracts. Unless of course administration turned a blind eye to misconduct.

[redhotrebel]

Now the question is why are they not moving through the discipline faster? They can occur quickly under many contracts. Unless of course administration turned a blind eye to misconduct.

I agree- Also after rereading the statement I made, I realize even if we moved to a voucher system - there is no guarantee that that would not continue since it is a union issue not a public school specific issue. So it was a terribad argument on my part :)

[IchabodPlain]

they cherry pick their students...

So?

If a kid believes they aren't receiving the best education possible, wants to change schools and is accepted to a private school, why should "cherry-picking" make the slightest bit of difference?

[Dancing David]

So?

If a kid believes they aren't receiving the best education possible, wants to change schools and is accepted to a private school, why should "cherry-picking" make the slightest bit of difference?

The issues is relavnat if you are saying 'private schools preform better than public' on academic tasks.

[Dancing David]

I agree- Also after rereading the statement I made, I realize even if we moved to a voucher system - there is no guarantee that that would not continue since it is a union issue not a public school specific issue. So it was a terribad argument on my part :)

I don't know private school unions? Unlikely. :) (For K-12)

[redhotrebel]

I don't know private school unions? Unlikely. :) (For K-12)

Not private- but some charter schools do have their own teachers unions. (New Orleans for example although they may have set it up improperly and it is/was being contested... I can't find follow up as to how that went atm)

[Dancing David]

Interesting , many private schools and charters are not. However each state sets its rules for charters.

[Prometheus]

So?

If a kid believes they aren't receiving the best education possible, wants to change schools and is accepted to a private school, why should "cherry-picking" make the slightest bit of difference?

Cherry-picking students is one of several ways in which private schools are able to appear to provide more effective education than they actually do. If you're going to spend your hard-earned money on a school, don't you want an accurate assessment of whether or not they are actually performing as advertised?

[IchabodPlain]

The issues is relavnat if you are saying 'private schools preform better than public' on academic tasks.

While claiming something like that seems overly-simplistic, it seems there are some pretty simple metrics to find out if a given private school performs better than their public counterparts. For instance: Track an individual students standardized test scores over a period of time.

[IchabodPlain]

Cherry-picking students is one of several ways in which private schools are able to appear to provide more effective education than they actually do.

As I said in my previous post, there should be ways to find out if a given private school performs better than it's public counterpart.

If you're going to spend your hard-earned money on a school, don't you want an accurate assessment of whether or not they are actually performing as advertised?

Of course, who would argue otherwise? "I don't want an accurate assessment of whether or not this private school preforms better than my old public school. Here private school, take some thousands off my hands."

[Prometheus]

As I said in my previous post, there should be ways to find out if a given private school performs better than it's public counterpart....

'Should' being the key word. But if we're going to open up education--which is critically important to national security in a variety of ways--to the market, then we should be careful to build in appropriate consumer protections. Do you trust the general public to be well-informed and skeptical enough to make the best choices? Frankly, I don't. If not well regulated, private schools will compete not just by improving performance, but by misleading advertising--heck, it already happens now--and much of the public will fall for it.

[Prometheus]

While claiming something like that seems overly-simplistic, it seems there are some pretty simple metrics to find out if a given private school performs better than their public counterparts. For instance: Track an individual students standardized test scores over a period of time.

It's really not that easy. Standardized test scores often don't mean what people think, and relying on them too heavily tends to skew policy and produce unintended consequences. For instance, when No Child Left Behind was implemented in my state, we saw a big jump in the number of students leaving school before graduation and seeking GED's instead. It turns out that school counselors have been helping to boost their schools' pass rates by advising low-performing students to drop out early, since they are likely to fail the tests required for graduation. Counselors virtually never inform these kids that the GED exams are actually more difficult to pass than the regular state exams (in fact the GED program is legally required to keep its tests difficult enough that 20% of graduating seniors--who've already passed the regular exams--cannot pass them).

[IchabodPlain]

But if we're going to open up education--which is critically important to national security in a variety of ways--to the market, then we should be careful to build in appropriate consumer protections.

Agreed, and again, I don't see who could argue otherwise. Waving the national security flag doesn't persuade me - the market already provides food, shelter, arms, and a variety of other goods/services which any rational person would call critical to national security. That there should be consumer protections is a given. The degree to which they slide from being appropriate to onerous is a reasonable grounds for discussion.

Do you trust the general public to be well-informed and skeptical enough to make the best choices? Frankly, I don't. If not well regulated, private schools will compete not just by improving performance, but by misleading advertising--heck, it already happens now--and much of the public will fall for it.

Then you and I have different philosophical views about people. I think people, in general, will do what is in their best interest. Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes "well regulated".

It's really not that easy. Standardized test scores often don't mean what people think, and relying on them too heavily tends to skew policy and produce unintended consequences. For instance, when No Child Left Behind was implemented in my state, we saw a big jump in the number of students leaving school before graduation and seeking GED's instead. It turns out that school counselors have been helping to boost their schools' pass rates by advising low-performing students to drop out early, since they are likely to fail the tests required for graduation. Counselors virtually never inform these kids that the GED exams are actually more difficult to pass than the regular state exams (in fact the GED program is legally required to keep its tests difficult enough that 20% of graduating seniors--who've already passed the regular exams--cannot pass them).

That isn't the fault of standardized tests - that is a lazy school system which in the past could pass kids who should've been held back. That they use chicanery to boost their test scores is not evidence that standardized tests are inappropriate or "relied on too heavily", but rather evidence that the school was not doing their job(s) in the past. As an anecdote, I have a nephew who was encouraged to do exactly that. After years of being passed along without learning the necessary materials, he wound up in high school struggling to do arithmetic, much less algebra (pre-algebra, really). He also had trouble reading, nevermind comprehension. Blaming a test, when there has been nearly a decade of passing the buck which has led to the situation is a far too simple explanation. If anything, it wold seem that applying more stringent consequences for the student for failing standardized tests would prevent schools from passing students who have not yet learned the necessary skills to advance.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't see why district consolidation necessarily involves huge schools. There are advantages to smaller, more local schools. Of course you can't give the principals of each of a dozen schools with a few hundred students six-figure salaries; but that's not a show-stopper. Are the economics of scale for a 5,000-student school so great that they're irresistable? Why do we have huge schools?

[Dancing David]

While claiming something like that seems overly-simplistic, it seems there are some pretty simple metrics to find out if a given private school performs better than their public counterparts. For instance: Track an individual students standardized test scores over a period of time.

It was not my claim, but still a common excause for teh voucer diversion programs.

I know our local private institutions will bounce you for failing too often.

[Dancing David]

Around here the issue is low tax base per student for low population areas, so rural schools districts have to consoidate to survive. The overhead on a school with less than 100 students makes it expensive.

[Prometheus]

Then you and I have different philosophical views about people. I think people, in general, will do what is in their best interest. Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes "well regulated".

When people know what is actually in their best interest, I agree. I find this is rarely the case. But I'm actually more concerned about the mismatch between the best interests of the various stakeholders in education. Parents, kids, the local community, potential employers, the State all have different albeit sometimes overlapping interests. Also short and long term interests can be at odds for any of them. Philosophically, I would agree that people ought to have freedom of choice in education, but when we need to maximize quality while minimizing cost, this is often logistically not possible.

That isn't the fault of standardized tests - that is a lazy school system which in the past could pass kids who should've been held back. That they use chicanery to boost their test scores is not evidence that standardized tests are inappropriate or "relied on too heavily", but rather evidence that the school was not doing their job(s) in the past. As an anecdote, I have a nephew who was encouraged to do exactly that. After years of being passed along without learning the necessary materials, he wound up in high school struggling to do arithmetic, much less algebra (pre-algebra, really). He also had trouble reading, nevermind comprehension. Blaming a test, when there has been nearly a decade of passing the buck which has led to the situation is a far too simple explanation. If anything, it wold seem that applying more stringent consequences for the student for failing standardized tests would prevent schools from passing students who have not yet learned the necessary skills to advance.

I'm not blaming the standardized tests. I'm blaming the policy makers who don't understand (or in some cases, don't care) what the tests actually measure. The problem I brought up is a complex one with plenty of blame to spread around for everyone involved, but the proximate cause absolutely is an improper reliance on standardized testing.

Regardless, my point is that chicanery like that is always possible, and it absolutely will happen any time you tie people's profits or livelihoods to the outcomes of a test.

A far more important issue, though, is that of actually constructing valid and reliable tests that really do measure what we think they're measuring, as well as how to determine what we should be measuring in the first place. For instance, my alma mater determined that scores on the GRE exam are not an accurate predictor of students' success in their Master's Degree programs, so they've stopped using it to make admissions decisions. Yet private test prep schools make millions helping students to achieve higher GRE scores, and students waste hundreds of hours studying material that arguably is of no real use to them. The same sort of waste occurs with all the NCLB testing, with schools now spending the majority of class time doing test-prep work instead of teaching kids skills that they'll actually need in the real world.

Please let me reiterate: I'm not against choice, and I'm not against standardized testing. Ideally, education should include a lot more of both. I'm against using either of these tools prematurely or in a slipshod manner, and I recognize that neither will solve any of our problems if we continue to ignore the real problems while allowing politics rather than science to drive policy. As a nation, we absolutely have the resources to build a first-rate education system. But it won't be cheap, and it won't conform completely to anyone's political ideology.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see why district consolidation necessarily involves huge schools. There are advantages to smaller, more local schools. Of course you can't give the principals of each of a dozen schools with a few hundred students six-figure salaries; but that's not a show-stopper. Are the economics of scale for a 5,000-student school so great that they're irresistable? Why do we have huge schools?

Well for one it permits more variety of courses than you can support with the smaller schools.

[IchabodPlain]

When people know what is actually in their best interest, I agree. I find this is rarely the case.

I disagree - People, generally, know what is their best interests. They may choose not to follow that for a variety of reasons (an obese man knows that eating his 3rd Twinkie isn't in his best interest, but does so anyway). I also don't like the idea of dictating to others what their best interests are. That kind of micromanaging leads to all sorts of problems.

But I'm actually more concerned about the mismatch between the best interests of the various stakeholders in education. Parents, kids, the local community, potential employers, the State all have different albeit sometimes overlapping interests. Also short and long term interests can be at odds for any of them.

The same could be said of unions, however, those are prevalent in the school system. I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but since you mention various stakeholders whose goals are not always aligned, I feel justified in bringing it up.

I think it's most important, at least in this stage, to not worry about motives. Generally speaking, we all want essentially the same thing - A good, well-rounded education for all students regardless of socio-economic or racial backgrounds which prepare students for future studies and the real world. That there are areas where things aren't perfectly aligned doesn't concern me (at least, not yet).

Philosophically, I would agree that people ought to have freedom of choice in education, but when we need to maximize quality while minimizing cost, this is often logistically not possible.

I find that to be a compromising position - people should have freedom of choice, but because of people, they can't.

I'm not blaming the standardized tests. I'm blaming the policy makers who don't understand (or in some cases, don't care) what the tests actually measure. The problem I brought up is a complex one with plenty of blame to spread around for everyone involved, but the proximate cause absolutely is an improper reliance on standardized testing.

This absolutely depends on the quality of the test. However, if a test teaches the rudimentary skills that all kids should have acquired regardless of the instructor, then that "improper reliance" isn't a concern.

For instance, a 5th grade test which stresses reading, writing, and arithmetic are skills which every 5th grade student should have down pat. There are no excuses for passing children into junior high without those skills. There is no amount of "the teacher doesn't want to teach to the test instead of expanding their minds" that excuses a kid from not knowing those basic skills.

Regardless, my point is that chicanery like that is always possible, and it absolutely will happen any time you tie people's profits or livelihoods to the outcomes of a test.

That people cheat to avoid the consequences of their poor performance is not an excuse for not testing what a kid has learned. I have never known a teacher/professor to not have some form of a test to demonstrate that you are learning the material deemed necessary for completing his or her class. Likewise, if states are to be given funds for education, shouldn't they have to demonstrate that their kids are learning the skills that any reasonable person would say is necessary, or even essential, to progress in school, as a person, and/or in the workplace?

A far more important issue, though, is that of actually constructing valid and reliable tests that really do measure what we think they're measuring, as well as how to determine what we should be measuring in the first place.

I've touched on this earlier in my post, but to reiterate, tests should be focused on the rudimentary skills which one should have acquired up to that point, regardless of school, state, and/or socio-economic backgrounds. This is because without the fundamentals, you will stand no chance of further progression in school, at home, etc.. That a kid leaving high-school can't do basic algebra is appalling.

For instance, my alma mater determined that scores on the GRE exam are not an accurate predictor of students' success in their Master's Degree programs, so they've stopped using it to make admissions decisions. Yet private test prep schools make millions helping students to achieve higher GRE scores, and students waste hundreds of hours studying material that arguably is of no real use to them. The same sort of waste occurs with all the NCLB testing, with schools now spending the majority of class time doing test-prep work instead of teaching kids skills that they'll actually need in the real world.

Points taken.

Please let me reiterate: I'm not against choice, and I'm not against standardized testing. Ideally, education should include a lot more of both. I'm against using either of these tools prematurely or in a slipshod manner, and I recognize that neither will solve any of our problems if we continue to ignore the real problems while allowing politics rather than science to drive policy. As a nation, we absolutely have the resources to build a first-rate education system. But it won't be cheap, and it won't conform completely to anyone's political ideology.

There will always be people who think the tools are being used prematurely or in a "slipshod manner" - all we can do is use the best methods available at the time, and let the chips fall. As far as cost, the US spends the 2nd most in the world (per student), and almost never scores as high as the amount we spend. I don't expect to love every aspect of education policy. I do, however, think that accountability is a real problem. Passing kids who should be failed, parents not instilling the value of education and spending time to improve their child's skills, kids for being lazy/distracted/whatever. Without a stick and a carrot, you can't align interests.

[Prometheus]

When people know what is actually in their best interest, I agree. I find this is rarely the case.

I disagree - People, generally, know what is their best interests. They may choose not to follow that for a variety of reasons (an obese man knows that eating his 3rd Twinkie isn't in his best interest, but does so anyway). I also don't like the idea of dictating to others what their best interests are. That kind of micromanaging leads to all sorts of problems.

I'm not sure it's worthwhile discussing this any further as a general issue, what I'm concerned about, specifically, are simply cases where the lay public is merely misinformed. For instance, lot's of people seem to believe that "small class size" is an important trait in a school. I don't think I've ever seen marketing materials for a private school that did not make a point of claiming that they had a smaller student:teacher ratio than prospects would find elsewhere. I've had lot's of conversations with parents who have made decisions for their children based on class size. However, there actually is no good research demonstrating a link between class size and positive student outcomes, except with very young children, and with inexperienced teachers (If you'd like to point out here, that large class size is too often used by the teacher unions as an excuse for poor performance, go ahead--I'll agree with you that they are in the wrong on this issue :) ). At any rate, it's my contention that most parents can be easily fooled into making bad choices based on poor understanding of current research.



But I'm actually more concerned about the mismatch between the best interests of the various stakeholders in education. Parents, kids, the local community, potential employers, the State all have different albeit sometimes overlapping interests. Also short and long term interests can be at odds for any of them.

The same could be said of unions, however, those are prevalent in the school system. I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but since you mention various stakeholders whose goals are not always aligned, I feel justified in bringing it up.

It's perfectly reasonable to bring the unions into the discussion here. There are all sorts of problems associated with them that should be aired out. For my part, I regard the teacher unions as a necessary evil--and one that could be much more effectively mitigated if people would stop using them as a political whipping boy.

I think it's most important, at least in this stage, to not worry about motives. Generally speaking, we all want essentially the same thing - A good, well-rounded education for all students regardless of socio-economic or racial backgrounds which prepare students for future studies and the real world. That there are areas where things aren't perfectly aligned doesn't concern me (at least, not yet).

The reason I am concerned, is because I think misaligned interests are one of the primary reasons we're not moving toward that common goal.

Philosophically, I would agree that people ought to have freedom of choice in education, but when we need to maximize quality while minimizing cost, this is often logistically not possible.

I find that to be a compromising position - people should have freedom of choice, but because of people, they can't.

Yes, it is a compromising position. I don't see any way around such compromise unless we can somehow put much, much, higher levels of funding on the table.

I'm not blaming the standardized tests. I'm blaming the policy makers who don't understand (or in some cases, don't care) what the tests actually measure. The problem I brought up is a complex one with plenty of blame to spread around for everyone involved, but the proximate cause absolutely is an improper reliance on standardized testing.

This absolutely depends on the quality of the test. However, if a test teaches the rudimentary skills that all kids should have acquired regardless of the instructor, then that "improper reliance" isn't a concern.

For instance, a 5th grade test which stresses reading, writing, and arithmetic are skills which every 5th grade student should have down pat. There are no excuses for passing children into junior high without those skills. There is no amount of "the teacher doesn't want to teach to the test instead of expanding their minds" that excuses a kid from not knowing those basic skills.

This really is a very complex issue, and honestly, there won't be any way to resolve it within the scope of a forum thread like this. Suffice it to say that it's quite easy, and in fact common, for ill-advised yet politically popular testing policies to actually ensure that fewer kids will effectively learn those basic skills which we both agree are so important. We need to create a culture of science within education, in which testing and data collection/analysis are treated with respect, and are used judiciously to genuinely further our understanding of how best to practice education, and without all the politics and finger-pointing. This won't be easy, and I believe it won't happen at all if we keep setting up high-stakes testing policies before we have a handle on the huge morass of uncontrolled variables that plays into the results we observe. It sucks, but this will probably take more than a generation to achieve, and lot's of kids will continue to receive a substandard education in the mean time, but we haven't even started moving in the right direction yet, so that's not really an counter-argument.

Regardless, my point is that chicanery like that is always possible, and it absolutely will happen any time you tie people's profits or livelihoods to the outcomes of a test.

That people cheat to avoid the consequences of their poor performance is not an excuse for not testing what a kid has learned. I have never known a teacher/professor to not have some form of a test to demonstrate that you are learning the material deemed necessary for completing his or her class. Likewise, if states are to be given funds for education, shouldn't they have to demonstrate that their kids are learning the skills that any reasonable person would say is necessary, or even essential, to progress in school, as a person, and/or in the workplace?

Once again, I am not against testing--we need a lot more of it than we have. Comprehensive testing, and public reporting of the results, should absolutely be required in order to receive public funding. Transparency is very important. And there should absolutely be well-defined consequences tied to the results of that funding. We just disagree on what those consequences should be.

A far more important issue, though, is that of actually constructing valid and reliable tests that really do measure what we think they're measuring, as well as how to determine what we should be measuring in the first place.

I've touched on this earlier in my post, but to reiterate, tests should be focused on the rudimentary skills which one should have acquired up to that point, regardless of school, state, and/or socio-economic backgrounds. This is because without the fundamentals, you will stand no chance of further progression in school, at home, etc.. That a kid leaving high-school can't do basic algebra is appalling.

As far as the broad strokes are concerned, I agree with you. But when it comes down to the details of implementation, we're still going about it all wrong, and most of the proposals that seem to carry any political weight just don't even address the real problems. Tests should be criterion-referenced and formative. In contrast we keep getting tests that are norm-referenced (I have seen some hopeful exceptions here, though) and summative. And we continue to misapprehend the results and respond to them inappropriately. The formative/summative distinction is crucial, yet almost no one talks about it. I suspect because high quality formative assessments are a lot more expensive and require a great deal more expertise to build, administer and integrate into curricula.


Please let me reiterate: I'm not against choice, and I'm not against standardized testing. Ideally, education should include a lot more of both. I'm against using either of these tools prematurely or in a slipshod manner, and I recognize that neither will solve any of our problems if we continue to ignore the real problems while allowing politics rather than science to drive policy. As a nation, we absolutely have the resources to build a first-rate education system. But it won't be cheap, and it won't conform completely to anyone's political ideology.

There will always be people who think the tools are being used prematurely or in a "slipshod manner" - all we can do is use the best methods available at the time, and let the chips fall. As far as cost, the US spends the 2nd most in the world (per student), and almost never scores as high as the amount we spend. I don't expect to love every aspect of education policy. I do, however, think that accountability is a real problem. Passing kids who should be failed, parents not instilling the value of education and spending time to improve their child's skills, kids for being lazy/distracted/whatever. Without a stick and a carrot, you can't align interests.

Again, we're mostly in agreement here. My argument is mainly that the stick tends to be too big, and the carrot not big enough. Also, I believe that for the most part, comparisons between the U.S. and other countries tend to be red herrings. There are a lot of reasons (some of which I've discussed at length in earlier threads--if I can spare the time I might go back and try to find them) why such comparisons are not apt, though that's certainly not to say that we can't learn a lot from looking at the details of how other countries go about education.

However, in addition to the carrot and stick, we also need the political will, and public open-mindedness to make some major structural changes. One example: Children should not be placed in annual cohorts according to age. There's a good amount of research showing that relative age plays a very significant role in student performance, and that this get's amplified throughout a kid's school career by any meritocratic policies that are in place.

More concretely, kids born in the fall often perform markedly better academically than kids born in the summer. There's nothing astrological about this effect, it's just that U.S. schools usually have a hard cut-off date (Sept. 1 in all the locations I have experience with) for enrollment age. So a first-grader born on September 1 will actually be a full year older than a classmate born on August 31. In childhood, this age difference translates to a wide gap in social/cognitive development. The older child has had the benefit of an extra year of growth, and all other things being equal, this translates to higher performance. That kid will get tracked into more advanced classes, or will be a "teacher's pet" and will receive slightly (or in many school districts, significantly) better quality education and consequently will have more successes which will breed higher confidence etc., etc.... By the time these two kids are in high school, one will be a much better performer than the other, and the difference won't be due to anything that any individual teacher, or parent, is really responsible for. This one is actually a fairly easy problem to fix, but most people don't even know the problem exists. :(

[IchabodPlain]

I haven't the time currently to respond at length, but I did want to comment on this:

For instance, lot's of people seem to believe that "small class size" is an important trait in a school. I don't think I've ever seen marketing materials for a private school that did not make a point of claiming that they had a smaller student:teacher ratio than prospects would find elsewhere. I've had lot's of conversations with parents who have made decisions for their children based on class size. However, there actually is no good research demonstrating a link between class size and positive student outcomes, except with very young children, and with inexperienced teachers (If you'd like to point out here, that large class size is too often used by the teacher unions as an excuse for poor performance, go ahead--I'll agree with you that they are in the wrong on this issue :) ).

As an anecdote, the best classroom experience I've ever had from K-12 and throughout college was my 12th grade A.P. European History class which had 7 or 9 people in it. The teacher was very experienced and knowledgeable, and me and my wife still keep in touch with he and his family (we go to the Orlando MegaCon convention every year). Perhaps as evidence that anecdotes aren't a reliable form of evidence, I learned and retained more there than at any semester before or since. Because of the smaller class-size you were called on to answer more questions, had more opportunities to speak with the teacher 1-on-1, and generally had nowhere to hide. I had previously taken other classes with him, but that one was by far the best, and I do believe the smaller class-size had a lot to do with it.

Could you link me to some of the studies you're referring to which show no strong link? Not trying to make you do my work, I just want to see which specifically you were thinking of.

[Prometheus]

I haven't the time currently to respond at length, but I did want to comment on this:



As an anecdote, the best classroom experience I've ever had from K-12 and throughout college was my 12th grade A.P. European History class which had 7 or 9 people in it. The teacher was very experienced and knowledgeable, and me and my wife still keep in touch with he and his family (we go to the Orlando MegaCon convention every year). Perhaps as evidence that anecdotes aren't a reliable form of evidence, I learned and retained more there than at any semester before or since. Because of the smaller class-size you were called on to answer more questions, had more opportunities to speak with the teacher 1-on-1, and generally had nowhere to hide. I had previously taken other classes with him, but that one was by far the best, and I do believe the smaller class-size had a lot to do with it.

Could you link me to some of the studies you're referring to which show no strong link? Not trying to make you do my work, I just want to see which specifically you were thinking of.

Here's an interesting article (http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey8.pdf) which cites a lot of the relevant research (especially: Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement,” ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Urban Diversity Series No. 115, May 2003) in it's bibliography. Also, here. (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/NELS88/). There's also another meta-study I'm thinking of but can't remember the citation which showed some of the problems with a lot of the research that's often cited in favour of small class size. I'm sure I've linked to it here a few years ago, but the forum search tool is not my friend today.

Essentially the take away is that "teacher quality" (usually measured via some type of formula that takes into account the teachers' highest level of education, combined with years of classroom experience and hours of professional development training subsequent to that education--for instance, classroom experience obtained after getting an advanced degree matters more than the same amount of experience before getting the degree) matters far, far more than any of the other variables; good, well-trained/experienced teachers are able to perform well regardless of class size.

[Prometheus]

<snip> So a first-grader born on September 1 will actually be a full year older than a classmate born on August 31. <snip>

ETA: That should actually say "September 2". A child born on the first falls within the cut-off and would be the same relative age as one born on August 31. :o

[IchabodPlain]

I'm not sure it's worthwhile discussing this any further as a general issue, what I'm concerned about, specifically, are simply cases where the lay public is merely misinformed. For instance, lot's of people seem to believe that "small class size" is an important trait in a school. I don't think I've ever seen marketing materials for a private school that did not make a point of claiming that they had a smaller student:teacher ratio than prospects would find elsewhere. I've had lot's of conversations with parents who have made decisions for their children based on class size. However, there actually is no good research demonstrating a link between class size and positive student outcomes, except with very young children, and with inexperienced teachers (If you'd like to point out here, that large class size is too often used by the teacher unions as an excuse for poor performance, go ahead--I'll agree with you that they are in the wrong on this issue :) ). At any rate, it's my contention that most parents can be easily fooled into making bad choices based on poor understanding of current research.

The paper you subsequently linked to didn't have any information on class-size. I am interested in reading some of the ones you're referring to. Perhaps it's my definition of small class-size that is the problem - I don't consider more than a dozen or so students a "small" class-size.

Regardless, it's impractical for most schools to have so few students per class. I would agree that it's probably more important in elementary school than anywhere else.

It's perfectly reasonable to bring the unions into the discussion here. There are all sorts of problems associated with them that should be aired out. For my part, I regard the teacher unions as a necessary evil--and one that could be much more effectively mitigated if people would stop using them as a political whipping boy.

It's an issue with unions in general - unions have an explicit interest to favor their members, even to the detriment of the general populace. Necessary evil? I don't really see it in the school system, but perhaps in other fields.

The reason I am concerned, is because I think misaligned interests are one of the primary reasons we're not moving toward that common goal.

Yes and no - few teachers are callous enough to not give a damn about the kids they teach, and few parents don't want their kids to succeed academically. Even the politically chastised private/charter schools want kids to do well (unions too, for that matter). I would say it's more of an issue of inertia - we're on a path that isn't the best, but we've been on that route for a while now (and are comfortable in it) and few want to change for fear of ramifications. Better aligning interests can push changes ahead, but you'll have to fight inertia when singling out misaligned interests.

Yes, it is a compromising position. I don't see any way around such compromise unless we can somehow put much, much, higher levels of funding on the table.

I disagree. Your next-door neighbor should have the same decision-making capacity as yourself regarding their child's education. Standing in the way of people who can make good decisions for fear than a certain percentage won't make the one you think is best strikes me as maternalistic.

This really is a very complex issue, and honestly, there won't be any way to resolve it within the scope of a forum thread like this. Suffice it to say that it's quite easy, and in fact common, for ill-advised yet politically popular testing policies to actually ensure that fewer kids will effectively learn those basic skills which we both agree are so important.

Evidence?

We need to create a culture of science within education, in which testing and data collection/analysis are treated with respect, and are used judiciously to genuinely further our understanding of how best to practice education, and without all the politics and finger-pointing.

Won't happen. There will be politics, there will be finger-pointing, there will be skeptics/doubters who will always look at the empty half. Hell, you could devise a system which is 99% effective, and still have news stories and interest groups bemoaning the other 1%. It's apart of life.:)

That said, I would absolutely get behind it - but I can easily see a situation where the latter makes a mess of the former.

This won't be easy, and I believe it won't happen at all if we keep setting up high-stakes testing policies before we have a handle on the huge morass of uncontrolled variables that plays into the results we observe. It sucks, but this will probably take more than a generation to achieve, and lot's of kids will continue to receive a substandard education in the mean time, but we haven't even started moving in the right direction yet, so that's not really an counter-argument.

I don't see the wisdom in "it [losing a generation of students to substandard education] sucks." In fact, I see it as an argument in favor of school choice - basically, "We don't yet have our **** together yet, so feel free to peruse your other options until we do." It's also the acceptance of our own ignorance. This option may be the best for your child, or it may not - you're competent enough to know what's best in your own situation.

Once again, I am not against testing--we need a lot more of it than we have. Comprehensive testing, and public reporting of the results, should absolutely be required in order to receive public funding. Transparency is very important. And there should absolutely be well-defined consequences tied to the results of that funding. We just disagree on what those consequences should be.

What sort of consequences do you think are appropriate for schools who consistently score below-average?

As far as the broad strokes are concerned, I agree with you. But when it comes down to the details of implementation, we're still going about it all wrong, and most of the proposals that seem to carry any political weight just don't even address the real problems. Tests should be criterion-referenced and formative. In contrast we keep getting tests that are norm-referenced (I have seen some hopeful exceptions here, though) and summative. And we continue to misapprehend the results and respond to them inappropriately. The formative/summative distinction is crucial, yet almost no one talks about it. I suspect because high quality formative assessments are a lot more expensive and require a great deal more expertise to build, administer and integrate into curricula.

I would think formative tests would be more critical in terms of placement - ensuring a homogeneous group of students who can be taught together because they are all roughly at the same reading/math/whatever level. Summative tests have their problems (specifically with kids who have trouble retaining information), but are ultimately the judge of what skills a child will take with them to the next year.

Coincidentally, I think smaller class-size would enable more formative assessments as the teacher would be more able to evaluate 12-18 per class than 25-35.

Also, I believe that for the most part, comparisons between the U.S. and other countries tend to be red herrings. There are a lot of reasons (some of which I've discussed at length in earlier threads--if I can spare the time I might go back and try to find them) why such comparisons are not apt, though that's certainly not to say that we can't learn a lot from looking at the details of how other countries go about education.

Evidence?

However, in addition to the carrot and stick, we also need the political will, and public open-mindedness to make some major structural changes. One example: Children should not be placed in annual cohorts according to age. There's a good amount of research showing that relative age plays a very significant role in student performance, and that this get's amplified throughout a kid's school career by any meritocratic policies that are in place.

More concretely, kids born in the fall often perform markedly better academically than kids born in the summer. There's nothing astrological about this effect, it's just that U.S. schools usually have a hard cut-off date (Sept. 1 in all the locations I have experience with) for enrollment age. So a first-grader born on September 1 will actually be a full year older than a classmate born on August 31. In childhood, this age difference translates to a wide gap in social/cognitive development. The older child has had the benefit of an extra year of growth, and all other things being equal, this translates to higher performance. That kid will get tracked into more advanced classes, or will be a "teacher's pet" and will receive slightly (or in many school districts, significantly) better quality education and consequently will have more successes which will breed higher confidence etc., etc.... By the time these two kids are in high school, one will be a much better performer than the other, and the difference won't be due to anything that any individual teacher, or parent, is really responsible for. This one is actually a fairly easy problem to fix, but most people don't even know the problem exists. :(

As a kid born just outside of the cut-off date (Sept. 6) - I am in full agreement.:) However, wouldn't this translate into another test, whereby a potential student must demonstrate that he/she is of the relative age considered for that particular grade?

[Prometheus]

The paper you subsequently linked to didn't have any information on class-size. I am interested in reading some of the ones you're referring to. Perhaps it's my definition of small class-size that is the problem - I don't consider more than a dozen or so students a "small" class-size.

I'm not sure which link of mine you refer to here; perhaps I linked something unintended, or perhaps it was one of several studies I've read which showed that teacher quality was the only significant predictor of positive student outcomes, in which case class size would have been one of the controlled variables.

Regardless, it's impractical for most schools to have so few students per class. I would agree that it's probably more important in elementary school than anywhere else.

Yes, this is another reason why focussing too much attention on class size is a waste of time.



It's an issue with unions in general - unions have an explicit interest to favor their members, even to the detriment of the general populace. Necessary evil? I don't really see it in the school system, but perhaps in other fields.

Teachers are laborers, and, as a group, they deserve all of the job security and workplace safety/fairness that workers in any other industry are entitled to. If anything, unions are even more necessary within education because of several factors which place teachers even more at risk of being treated unfairly than workers in other fields.


Yes and no - few teachers are callous enough to not give a damn about the kids they teach, and few parents don't want their kids to succeed academically. Even the politically chastised private/charter schools want kids to do well (unions too, for that matter). I would say it's more of an issue of inertia - we're on a path that isn't the best, but we've been on that route for a while now (and are comfortable in it) and few want to change for fear of ramifications. Better aligning interests can push changes ahead, but you'll have to fight inertia when singling out misaligned interests.

I agree.



I disagree. Your next-door neighbor should have the same decision-making capacity as yourself regarding their child's education. Standing in the way of people who can make good decisions for fear than a certain percentage won't make the one you think is best strikes me as maternalistic.

Perhaps you misunderstand my position here. The reason compromise is necessary is not because some are more capable of making good decisions than others (though this is true), it's because we don't have anywhere near the necessary resources devoted to education to even provide enough good choices to all the people who can make good decisions--let alone everyone else. Jumping into choice now has the primary effect of just moving scarce resources around--robbing the poor and giving to the rich, as it were (I mean this metaphorically; 'rich' and 'poor' might refer to relative education/social status/economic status/decision-making ability/etc.).



Evidence? Not immediately to hand. If I remember which paper I was referring to I'll post a link. :o



Won't happen. There will be politics, there will be finger-pointing, there will be skeptics/doubters who will always look at the empty half. Hell, you could devise a system which is 99% effective, and still have news stories and interest groups bemoaning the other 1%. It's apart of life.:)

That said, I would absolutely get behind it - but I can easily see a situation where the latter makes a mess of the former.

I guess I could have worded that better. I don't really disagree with you. When I said "without all" I did not mean to imply "without any"--just that the amount of politics needs to be significantly reduced. This will be difficult, but I am hopeful.



I don't see the wisdom in "it [losing a generation of students to substandard education] sucks." In fact, I see it as an argument in favor of school choice - basically, "We don't yet have our **** together yet, so feel free to peruse your other options until we do." It's also the acceptance of our own ignorance. This option may be the best for your child, or it may not - you're competent enough to know what's best in your own situation.

There are several problems with your position here. One is a false dichotomy; given that the status quo is unacceptable, immediate school choice is only one of many ways in which it might be altered. Another problem is that we'll still end up with a generation of kids who get a substandard education even if we do immediately introduce school choice across the board--it will just be different kids. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, there are strong reasons why such change might actually bring a much slower rate of progress toward improving access to quality education for greater numbers of kids than other possible reforms.



What sort of consequences do you think are appropriate for schools who consistently score below-average?

Stringent oversight, mandatory professional development (including possibly bringing in teams of 'master teachers' who can lead by example), receivership, improved facilities, added resources. Most importantly, comprehensive needs analysis by an independant agency tasked with finding out exactly what the problems really are in each individual case.

Wholesale firing of entire teaching staffs or simply closing whole schools, as has happened recently, is ludicrous.



I would think formative tests would be more critical in terms of placement - ensuring a homogeneous group of students who can be taught together because they are all roughly at the same reading/math/whatever level. Summative tests have their problems (specifically with kids who have trouble retaining information), but are ultimately the judge of what skills a child will take with them to the next year.

Huh? Formative means tests that are designed to participate as part of the teaching process; for example, self-paced computer-adaptive mastery quizzes where students get nearly the same questions over and over again until they master a given topic. Summative refers to tests that summarize learners' gains in particular areas. Placement tests are more appropriately summative than formative in nature. Both approaches are necessary, but we have more need for formative testing since the lion's share of available assessment dollars has already been devoted to almost exclusively summative testing with some adverse consequences (which I believe would be mitigated with a more balanced approach).

Coincidentally, I think smaller class-size would enable more formative assessments as the teacher would be more able to evaluate 12-18 per class than 25-35.

Not at all. Since good formative tests are frequently self-administered, and they can easily be implemented via computer, they're not only just as easy to utilize in larger classes, but they can actually be a very effective classroom management tool which can enable well-trained teachers to handle larger class sizes than they otherwise might.



Evidence?

IIRC I discussed this a few years ago in a thread who's OP worried about the U.S.'s comparitively mediocre performance on the PISA tests administered by OECD. I can't remember the thread title though.



As a kid born just outside of the cut-off date (Sept. 6) - I am in full agreement.:) However, wouldn't this translate into another test, whereby a potential student must demonstrate that he/she is of the relative age considered for that particular grade?

No, not necessarily. In larger schools, kids can be placed in cohorts of children born in the same month or quarter. In schools of any size, curricula can be set up so that kids are sometimes in class with slightly older students and sometimes with slichtly younger ones. Tracking can be handled much more carefully so that relatively older students are not automatically given meritocratic advantages over their slightly younger peers. One really good approach is that used in Korean universities (I'm not sure whether they do the same during earlier schooling, but it would be good): Upon starting at a 4 year school, freshman are all assigned a 3rd year student who becomes the younger student's "senior". The older student mentors the younger for two years, at which time the "senior" graduates and his/her "junior" becomes a "senior" to some newly arriving freshman--a sort of cross-generational buddy system.

[nota]

Vouchers are a way of pulling public money out of public schools and funneling it into private schools. What a wonderful way of trying to fix public education- make sure all the cash is sucked out.

IT IS FAR WORSE
if there really were quality private schools
BUT THERE ARE NOT
what there are is RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS
AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS ARE NOT PRIVATE
THEY ARE PART OF THE RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION
AND THAT IS VERY VERY MUCH SOMETHING TAX MONEY SHOULD NEVER SUPPORT

VOUCHERS ARE CODE
THEY ARE CODE FOR
THE RIGHTWING CHRISTIANS STEALING TAX MONEY

[Dancing David]

Nota:
While I understand the sentiment there are secular private schools and religious private schools that are very good.

Now the whole voucher program is a joke.