• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump picks charter school advocate Betty Devoss[W:286:799]*************

rabbitcaebannog said:
Until there are other solutions, the schools right now are left to pick up the problem. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but is the reality.
Click to expand...

If something is part of the problem then it is unlikely to be part of the solution. It is harder to adopt a pound puppy than to get government funding to "help" raise a child. Problems caused in the home cannot be fixed in the classroom. Morons begetting morons needs more than 35 hours per week, 9 months out of the year, to fix. Every school hour spent parenting is one less school hour spent on the primary mission of further educating.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Perhaps you are the one that doesn't know what he is talking about since in MA teachers get much more say over curriculum than many other states including those that have no teacher's unions at all. So, teacher unions are not the problem you make them out to be.
Click to expand...
More say, in one state? Blow me down!
Also, I didn't limit that to just unions, but also the public bureaucracy, see above.
(I also , before you posted, edited that first line to be more accurate and less personal, I get passionate about this issue for some reason)

The problem is not all children in all states and/or schools get what they need due to money being taken away from schools as punishment for servicing poor schools. That is a problem everywhere btw.
Click to expand...
Sure, sure. The money is taken by the bureaucracy, because the bueracracy can't properly run the education system

So we should not continue to let the public bureaucracy run the schools? You may be agreeing with me yet ;)
 
Jack Hays said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Sure. Many charters and private schools are taking away money from public schools to try and "fix" problem they say is because of a host school and not looking at the real problem which is that most of these schools are high poverty schools that have a high concentration of students with problems that root directly from poverty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If something is part of the problem then it is unlikely to be part of the solution. It is harder to adopt a pound puppy than to get government funding to "help" raise a child. Problems caused in the home cannot be fixed in the classroom. Morons begetting morons needs more than 35 hours per week, 9 months out of the year, to fix. Every school hour spent parenting is one less school hour spent on the primary mission of further educating.
Click to expand...

If the school doesn't pick up some of these problems due to society not doing anything, then we will have a prison to pipeline problems that will just explode.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Sure. Many charters and private schools are taking away money from public schools to try and "fix" problem they say is because of a host school and not looking at the real problem which is that most of these schools are high poverty schools that have a high concentration of students with problems that root directly from poverty.
Click to expand...

OK. So it was just hyperbole to claim schools were being "punished." The money for charters does not come from specific schools but from the school district as a whole.
 
Mach said:
More say, in one state? Blow me down!
Also, I didn't limit that to just unions, but also the public bureaucracy, see above.
(I also , before you posted, edited that first line to be more accurate and less personal, I get passionate about this issue for some reason)


Sure, sure. The money is taken by the bureaucracy, because the bueracracy can't properly run the education system

So we should not continue to let the public bureaucracy run the schools? You may be agreeing with me yet ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, I applaud you for editing that line. I too am passionate about the issue so I get it what you are saying. Also, if you could explain what you mean by the "public bureaucracy" maybe I can better understand. If what you mean is more autonomy to teachers and local areas, I will agree with you because we are taking much of that power away from teachers and the local communities/parents. It is being handed to other entities.
 
Jack Hays said:
OK. So it was just hyperbole to claim schools were being "punished." The money for charters does not come from specific schools but from the school district as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is coming from school districts what exactly is your point? The schools in those districts that will hurt the most are those with the largest amount of poorer students.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes, it is coming from school districts what exactly is your point? The schools in those districts that will hurt the most are those with the largest amount of poorer students.
Click to expand...

Your words:

not all children in all states and/or schools get what they need due to money being taken away from schools as punishment for servicing poor students


​That is not the same thing.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That is not how the system is set up though. The system is set up where the money is taken away from the neediest and given to those that are less needy, and a few needy but cream of the crops from their group may make it in, but may not stay depending on the charter's rules. Let's say a very poor and hard working student is picked and then starts to fall behind (could be due to cognition problems that the school is not set up to support. Could be due to the students suffering from such a terrible home situation he falls behind on homework or test scores etc...) he will be kicked back into a system that is becoming a dumping ground for the neediest for whatever reason. That is really not a good model. It was already done in Chile and the results make the system more stratified.
Click to expand...

The biggest factor that determines school success is motivation. If a student is motivated to stay in a superior school, then the chances are that they will be able to do so. A hard working student isn't likely to fall behind in the first place.

Sure, children of poverty have a strike against them from the outset. The current system places children of poverty in the same school, where they have a second strike against them in attending a school with low standards.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
If the school doesn't pick up some of these problems due to society not doing anything, then we will have a prison to pipeline problems that will just explode.
Click to expand...

If we are going to have (all?) schools play parents then it should be done outside (before and after) normal K-12 instruction as a seperate function, as is done for kids with functional parents who may then opt out of these nanny state (state nanny?) programs.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Okay, I applaud you for editing that line. I too am passionate about the issue so I get it what you are saying. Also, if you could explain what you mean by the "public bureaucracy" maybe I can better understand. If what you mean is more autonomy to teachers and local areas, I will agree with you because we are taking much of that power away from teachers and the local communities/parents. It is being handed to other entities.
Click to expand...
School boards to start with.
How/why do they run the majority of school districts? It's madness. They don't know more than my local educator about how to educate. They have countless other motives/interests than the teacher and school I choose to educate my child. It's political, that should enough to damn them IMO right there. Politics is a tool of last resort IMO. They have no urgency to make big reforms today, and certainly not regular reforms as needed for continuous quality improvement. And note that continuous quality improvement necessarily means continuous process evaluation...in every system in the industry...

In general, the more layers of federal, state, local governance you have in the way, the more difficult the end goal is and always will be.
Teachers union is just another layer of control along with that. Sometimes they ally, sometimes they oppose, but at the end of the day, the size of that power base dwarfs beyond compare, the tiny figure of the parent, the teacher, and the student...sitting down at the end of that enormous chain of administration, politics, and bureaucracy.

And it should be exactly reversed. The teacher and student should be at the top of that list, with they parent below them, and the necessarily evils that help administer it, should serve them...
And the only way to get teachers that high up is to also remove things like LIFO, tenure, public pension, etc. and expose them more to market forces and evaluation. And when that part gets stated, the blast doors come down and they go to war to protect those things, at the cost of everything else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The biggest factor that determines school success is motivation. If a student is motivated to stay in a superior school, then the chances are that they will be able to do so. A hard working student isn't likely to fall behind in the first place.

Sure, children of poverty have a strike against them from the outset. The current system places children of poverty in the same school, where they have a second strike against them in attending a school with low standards.
Click to expand...

Motivation is key, but I am also getting the sense you also understand there is a nuance at work here. Many poor families, for instance, those that I work with, can be quite motivated to succeed. The problem is when life intervenes, and it's quite likely it does. We have parents that are chronically ill, some die, kids get thrown into one extreme internal or external situation after another.

I've seen kids with more "grit" than most of the population, but for one reason or another, find themselves on the easy track to failure or dropping out. Then, on the side, professionals can fail these kids too by getting angry at the kid or the parent without knowing (or caring) what is going on for that family. I've seen that happen, and sadly, we've lost parents. Then, naturally, the kids aren't doing well because they lost their family members and natural supports. Any number of social maladies can intervene after that, including behavioral issues and, if that kid is labeled just right, placed in institutional facilities--on the quick path to incarceration if not a life-long resident of a non-criminal facility.

Just consider what it's like when you are the kid of a single parent and that parent first is chronically Ill, and then later, dies. The kid takes on a lot more responsibilities to help that parent and that household, putting their studies behind. Then the parent dies.

Others I know, they themselves are chronically ill, almost in the hospital every week.

I like where the personal responsibility and good parenting argument goes, but I think too often it is seen through the perspective of families that don't have to deal with strictly economic issues, chronic illness and dependency, mental illness, or other outside forces.

This reliance on the market, "good parenting," or grit needs a lot more cultural competency.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Your words:

not all children in all states and/or schools get what they need due to money being taken away from schools as punishment for servicing poor students


​That is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Then let me fix that for clarification: Not all children in all states and/or schools get what they need due to money being taken away from the school district, or a school if not in a district, as punishment for servicing poor students.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The biggest factor that determines school success is motivation. If a student is motivated to stay in a superior school, then the chances are that they will be able to do so. A hard working student isn't likely to fall behind in the first place.

Sure, children of poverty have a strike against them from the outset. The current system places children of poverty in the same school, where they have a second strike against them in attending a school with low standards.
Click to expand...

I was with you up to the part that stated 'low standards'. Do you have proof that the majority of the schools containing a high concentration of poor students have poor standards?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Then let me fix that for clarification: Not all children in all states and/or schools get what they need due to money being taken away from the school district, or a school if not in a district, as punishment for servicing poor students.
Click to expand...

No school is punished for serving poor students. School districts whose performance is poor can expect to see funds diverted to new approaches. There are too many examples of good performance by poor students for poverty to be a credible excuse. Moreover, poor parents are often the most ardent advocates for charters or even vouchers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If we are going to have (all?) schools play parents then it should be done outside (before and after) normal K-12 instruction as a seperate function, as is done for kids with functional parents who may then opt out of these nanny state (state nanny?) programs.
Click to expand...

Not completely sure your stance. Do you want these students with dysfunctional parents removed from the students who have functional parents or just provide these additional services at a later or earlier time because at the end of the day these services still costs extra money. Just saying
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We seem to be talking past each other. You defined the problem as too many poor children. My point is that giving "safety net" (financial) aid to their poor parents does not mean that they will stress the importance of education, explain that obedience is expected, buy their kids books, read to them, help them do homework or even to feed the kids better - many use that financial aid to get designer shoes, get a new hairdo, buy some bling (or tattoos) and to "pimp out" their ride and then demand that the school feed and discipline (raise?) their kids better.
Click to expand...

But the additional teacher that help those students in classrooms can and often do stress the importance of education, sometimes the resource theacher may remove the student from the classroom where they help a smaller group and can stress these important things. They can help help them choose good books from the library and yes, they help make sure the child has some class time to get the homework where the student can ask questions and get help.
 
Mach said:
And it should be exactly reversed. The teacher and student should be at the top of that list, with they parent below them, and the necessarily evils that help administer it, should serve them...
And the only way to get teachers that high up is to also remove things like LIFO, tenure, public pension, etc. and expose them more to market forces and evaluation. And when that part gets stated, the blast doors come down and they go to war to protect those things, at the cost of everything else.
Click to expand...

First, trust me, I agree that school boards are not perfect but they are far better than the alternative of corporate CEOs or managers controlling things which is happening in many places. That kind of goes hand and hand with the "market based" theory.

As for the comment I highlighted, teachers are exposed to a massive loads of evaluations so that is not the problem. Those evaluation show us which students are behind. Now, as far as the topic of crappy teachers, most people know who they are and they are often protected from a thing called nepotism which exist in every system from public to private and union and nonunion work places. That has been my experience in just about any job I every held.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Not completely sure your stance. Do you want these students with dysfunctional parents removed from the students who have functional parents or just provide these additional services at a later or earlier time because at the end of the day these services still costs extra money. Just saying
Click to expand...

The bolded above is my suggestion if we are to reject the "poor house" concept as a better alternative. Kids with normal (functional?) parents have no need for a state nanny substitute parent - so why waste public time and money on them? All the kids go to their K-12 classes together and return to their functional or nanny state pseudo parents when not in K-12 classes.
 
Jack Hays said:
No school is punished for serving poor students. School districts whose performance is poor can expect to see funds diverted to new approaches. There are too many examples of good performance by poor students for poverty to be a credible excuse. Moreover, poor parents are often the most ardent advocates for charters or even vouchers.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are punished when they are shut down. Research has not shown that charters are better than public schools with the exception they have more options to dismiss 'certain' students and dump them back into the public schools system.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes, they are punished when they are shut down. Research has not shown that charters are better than public schools with the exception they have more options to dismiss 'certain' students and dump them back into the public schools system.
Click to expand...

I made no claim about charters, which present a range of outcomes -- good and bad. My point is that poor performance will generate a search for alternatives, and the victims of that poor performance are often the most ardent advocates of alternatives. Very American, IMHO.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The bolded above is my suggestion if we are to reject the "poor house" concept as a better alternative. Kids with normal (functional?) parents have no need for a state nanny substitute parent - so why waste public time and money on them? All the kids go to their K-12 classes together and return to their functional or nanny state pseudo parents when not in K-12 classes.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of what you mean by the 'poor house' concept before I reply.
 
minnie616 said:
But the additional teacher that help those students in classrooms can and often do stress the importance of education, sometimes the resource teacher may remove the student from the classroom where they help a smaller group and can stress these important things. They can help help them choose good books from the library and yes, they help make sure the child has some class time to get the homework where the student can ask questions and get help.
Click to expand...

If that "parenting" occurs in place of normal K-12 instruction then they still miss out on important class/social time.
 
Jack Hays said:
I made no claim about charters, which present a range of outcomes -- good and bad. My point is that poor performance will generate a search for alternatives, and the victims of that poor performance are often the most ardent advocates of alternatives. Very American, IMHO.
Click to expand...

First, according to the PISA, our country does a better job of educating the poor although we are being introduced to more and more poor as our country goes down the tubes due to our economic situations/system set up for the rich by the very rich. For us to copy a failed model like Chile is really not a good way to address poverty and the impact it has in this country and to education.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Give me an example of what you mean by the 'poor house' concept before I reply.
Click to expand...

The "poor house" is a sort of live in, work release, facility that educates "poor" parents and provides them with 24/7 childcare assistance as required. Poverty is a cycle that is not likely to be broken on a part-time basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom