Do you support school choice?

rabbitcaebannog said:

I'll let people decide whether they want these mandates to continue or to re-examine many of them. My whole point is public education teachers/schools are being vilified by something they never had any control over. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of it. It is unfair to pick children based on openings in a school due to funds/staffing/room etc....and not apply it to public schools. That in itself is an uneven playing field and a set up to destroy public schools by slowly depleting their funds. What you are basically going to end up with is a stratified system. Posh schools for the rich, subpar schools for the middle class and crap schools for the throw aways and all of these schools will be publicly funded. The whole reason for this type of arrangement was suppose to be to bring up student outcomes. That hasn't happened yet in the US and it certainly hasn't happened in Chile who put such a voucher program into place years ago based on the theory parent choice will save the educational system and bring up student outcomes for all.

Click to expand...

First, the eventuality you describe as an outcome is already here. I agree that blaming teachers and individual schools is misguided, what should be vilified is the system which created the problem. Namely, the bureaucracy.

Abstract
In 1981, Chile introduced nationwide school choice by providing vouchers to any student wishing to
attend private school. As a result, more than 1000 private schools entered the market, and the private
enrollment rate increased by 20 percentage points, with greater impacts in larger, more urban, and wealthier
communities. We use this differential impact to measure the effects of unrestricted choice on educational
outcomes. Using panel data for about 150 municipalities, we find no evidence that choice improved average
educational outcomes as measured by test scores, repetition rates, and years of schooling. However, we find
evidence that the voucher program led to increased sorting, as the best public school students left for the
private sector. http://www.columbia.edu/~msu2101/HsiehUrquiola(2006).pdf

Bingo, increased sorting. That is all is led to....hardly surprising.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Argentina? I have, the only civilization that exists is within the large, urban, wealthier areas. Out in the country side, it's straight third world with inhabitants with markedly different expectations. It's not the same as the good ol' USA.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Um, this is contradictory. First you state that parents that lived in the district got first choice to choose before slots were filled up and outside parents got to choose to get their kids in the door. Then you say that that was giving people choice. Really? How so?

Click to expand...

Because it made more practical sense that way. The local kids who didn't want to travel to a distant school should not be forced to do that just because their school was so good others wanted to go there. For others, it was a first come, first served basis for the remaining openings in that school. Likewise teacher choice was on a first come, first served basis. It is the only way to do it.

mac said:

First, the eventuality you describe as an outcome is already here. I agree that blaming teachers and individual schools is misguided, what should be vilified is the system which created the problem. Namely, the bureaucracy.



Have you ever been to Argentina? I have, the only civilization that exists is within the large, urban, wealthier areas. Out in the country side, it's straight third world with inhabitants with markedly different expectations. It's not the same as the good ol' USA.

Click to expand...

I can agree when government sides with a corporate agenda the bureaucracy has grown. I suppose that is an entirely different subject. Also, what does Argentina have to do with Chile's voucher system?

AlbqOwl said:

Because it made more practical sense that way. The local kids who didn't want to travel to a distant school should not be forced to do that just because their school was so good others wanted to go there. For others, it was a first come, first served basis for the remaining openings in that school. Likewise teacher choice was on a first come, first served basis. It is the only way to do it.

Click to expand...

Okay, I agree but what does that have to do with what we have today? Are you saying it is worse today. If so, I agree. A lot of kids are being forced to be bused way outside the district because they shut the school down. That caused displacement not a fix.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Okay, I agree but what does that have to do with what we have today? Are you saying it is worse today. If so, I agree. A lot of kids are being forced to be bused way outside the district because they shut the school down. That caused displacement not a fix.

Click to expand...

If they get a better education elsewhere than they did in the closed school, then the kids benefit. There is no virtue in forcing children to attend a failing school even if it is just across the street from their house. At the same time, what parents would not keep their kids in a good local school where they were safe and getting a good education?

And yes, the public schools are much worse now than they were when parents and teachers and local school boards ran them. When I was in the public schools, the USA had the best education system in the world. Now it is waaaaaaaay down on the list. We must do better if we love our kids and want to do right by them. And taking education away from federal and national teachers' union control, and restoring school choice would be a very good first step to begin.

AlbqOwl said:

If they get a better education elsewhere than they did in the closed school, then the kids benefit. There is no virtue in forcing children to attend a failing school even if it is just across the street from their house. At the same time, what parents would not keep their kids in a good local school where they were safe and getting a good education?

And yes, the public schools are much worse now than they were when parents and teachers and local school boards ran them. When I was in the public schools, the USA had the best education system in the world. Now it is waaaaaaaay down on the list. We must do better if we love our kids and want to do right by them. And taking education away from federal and national teachers' union control, and restoring school choice would be a very good first step to begin.

Click to expand...

Who said the schools were failing? Here's what happened under Rahm:

“Critics accused the board of using false and misleading claims to justify the closures. They say 46,000 students, not 30,000, will be affected. The board claims public schools had lost 145,000 students. In reality, enrollment had declined by 75,000, and 47,000 of those students had gone to charter schools, making the real figure 28,000. Most of Chicago’s student losses occurred 30-40 years ago at the height of deindustrialization. The school district claimed what it said was a $1 billion deficit made closures necessary, but in fact, since students don’t disappear and other schools will require more funding, there will be no cost savings from the closures.” Rahm Emanuel’s Reform of the Chicago Public Schools | JONATHAN TURLEY

rabbitcaebannog said:

I can agree when government sides with a corporate agenda the bureaucracy has grown. I suppose that is an entirely different subject. Also, what does Argentina have to do with Chile's voucher system?

Click to expand...

Nothing, I meant to say Chile.

rabbitcaebannog said:

I can agree when government sides with a corporate agenda the bureaucracy has grown. I suppose that is an entirely different subject. Also, what does Argentina have to do with Chile's voucher system?

Click to expand...

It's not the corporate agenda that causes govt to screw up. It's the inherent growth of bureaucracy itself.

mac said:

Nothing, I meant to say Chile.

Click to expand...

The gap between Chile's richest ten percent and its poorest ten percent is wider than any other country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Hmm, could it be due to the market economy under the Chicago boys in the 70s when they took over the economy? Maybe we should pay attention. We're not too far behind.

mac said:

It's not the corporate agenda that causes govt to screw up. It's the inherent growth of bureaucracy itself.

Click to expand...

Corporate reform in education goes way back in history with their policies that are very much bureaucracy in nature.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Who said the schools were failing? Here's what happened under Rahm:

“Critics accused the board of using false and misleading claims to justify the closures. They say 46,000 students, not 30,000, will be affected. The board claims public schools had lost 145,000 students. In reality, enrollment had declined by 75,000, and 47,000 of those students had gone to charter schools, making the real figure 28,000. Most of Chicago’s student losses occurred 30-40 years ago at the height of deindustrialization. The school district claimed what it said was a $1 billion deficit made closures necessary, but in fact, since students don’t disappear and other schools will require more funding, there will be no cost savings from the closures.” Rahm Emanuel’s Reform of the Chicago Public Schools | JONATHAN TURLEY

Click to expand...

If you want no choice to take your child out of a substandard, dangerous school with a ****ty learning environment, go for Rahm's plan. I haven't been discussing costs. I' have been discussing Americans having liberty to do what is in their child's best interest. I don't want the government to order my children and grandchildren to go to a bad school. I want the choice to get the best education available for my child. You do it your way. Let me do it my way.

Looks like someone is in favor of keeping New York's poorer population good and less educated.

Poor children are improving their station in life!?! We can't be having that!!!.

MoSurveyor said:

I was one of those type of "bad" kids but my grades never suffered. Being bored and unchallenged did cause behavioral problems but not academic problems. The answer was to transfer me to an AT (Advanced Teaching) class, which was held in another school in the same district. That whole school wasn't AT, just a few classes, one for each grade from 4-7. There were several such schools scattered around the district. Most districts follow the same route today, providing advanced classes for advanced students. Even our inner-city schools have this program and a whole high-school (out of 10? I think) devoted to it.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you were one of those who maintained your grades despite the lack of challenge. But there are many who won't bother to do the work because of it. We end up leaving these kids behind by forcing them to remain in a school based purely where they happen to live. And this is but one potential problem that can be overcome with school choice.

For starters, each large subdivision - where those "large number of families" will live - is required to provide space for an elementary school and sometimes to help build one. The middle schools and high schools in my district were over-crowded for over a decade before we got the money to build a new high-school/middle school complex, and we threw in an elementary school, too, because it was cost-effective. That doesn't mean I want kids from outside the district adding to or creating an over-crowding situation.

Click to expand...

This subdivision requirement may be a requirement where you are, but that is not the case throughout the country. That also doesn't account for any possible influx of families with children moving into areas where those who are without or are grown are moving out from. IOW, new families with children but no new physical housing. Overcrowding is another issue that can be solved or at least alleviated by school choice.

As for your two-students-switch-places scenario, I suspect those will be very few and far between. I'm not saying it won't happen but it's hardly a point for your case.

Click to expand...

How would we really know? I guess we could look at Indiana's stats and see how much it is happening. But when most of the country does not have school choice how would you measure the amount of switching that could go on?

By definition a "richer" school district gets more money - or you'd better define exactly what you mean by "richer". Our districts vote on the property tax rate for education, so that value will vary from district to district.

Click to expand...

I was responding to your post so I was going by the impression of a school district that has more wealth has more money going to that specific school. However it occurs to me we might need to ensure we're working from common definition to other terms as well. To me there are the school systems, usually county wide, occasional city wide for the larger cities. A district is the area of the school system from which the students of a specific school are assigned. Obviously two students the same high school district may be in different elementary school districts. What I don't understand is that if we're supposed to be providing a equal access to education to all students is how any given school is receiving more money at a county/city, state or federal level than others?

But I'll say it again, the problems we (all) have with inner-city schools isn't an educational problem or a money problem, it's a social problem. If you can't fix the social problems or at least alleviate the more glaring issues, then children in those areas will never get a good education regardless of what school they attend.

Click to expand...

Social problems are not something for any "Education department" to handle. I am not saying that this isn't an issue or something that doesn't need to be addressed. But it is an issue that won't be solved or exasperated by school choice.

MoSurveyor said:

I'm also curious how you feel about fed R&D for education. Just like any other institution, education needs investigation to make the system better. You can't count on industry/business to do the basic studies needed for advancement.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what our universities, federally funded or not, are doing?

I still believe the fed should publish an educational standard whether it's a requirement or not.

Click to expand...

I'll agree there, but it should be a bare basic minimum and purely academically related

MoSurveyor said:

There's a big difference between "special needs and learning disabled students" (in the non-PC vernacular, "handicapped" or "suffering from a specific disease or other physical condition") and students that have (psychological) behavioral problems and/or no home support to speak of. It's the latter problems I see as the major issue in our inner-city schools and it's a social issue that no school can resolve. Pretending that vouchers "will make things all better" for the majority, or even a large minority, of students is BS.

Click to expand...

What is that common saying that I hear from the left all the time? Oh yeah! "If it helps even just one child..." I don't think there is anyone here that is saying that a voucher program will solve all the issues that children have in the current systems. For that matter I don't think that anyone is saying that the voucher program itself is right for all systems. School choice can come in many different forms. But if we can at least lower the drop out rate and increase our education level then we have success. And really we don't need to be setting our goals to all kids attending college either. We just need well educated kids who can go out and support themselves and be part of society. We need blue collar as well as white collar.

mac said:

Transporting less students costs less money. Heating fewer rooms costs less money. Feeding fewer kids costs less money, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

Fair's fair. Many, if not most, school buildings heat/cool larger areas and not specific rooms. Therefore, simply having less students does not equate to a savings in heating/cooling as unused areas will still be heated/cooled as the occupied areas are heated/cooled. The same goes for maintenance cost. The whole building still needs to be maintained even if it is unoccupied and unused. There is no doubt that many cost would go down, but other costs will remain the same simply due to their nature.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Um, no not necessarily. Gas is a major costs when transporting children and buses still have to travel the same areas which costs the same in gas but with fewer dollars to cover the costs. You may only have 15 kids vs. 25 going to the same area. Also, heating costs stay the same whether you have 20 kids in a class or 30. Again, you just have less dollars to cover that costs.

Click to expand...

This made me think of something and I understand that would be specific to school systems that are similar to mine. 3 of the 4 high schools are physically close to each other. As far as busing goes, there is no reason that students can't have their choice between the three schools and still be bussed. Same could be done with groups of elementary schools, maybe even with overlapping groups.

AlbqOwl said:

If you want no choice to take your child out of a substandard, dangerous school with a ****ty learning environment, go for Rahm's plan. I haven't been discussing costs. I' have been discussing Americans having liberty to do what is in their child's best interest. I don't want the government to order my children and grandchildren to go to a bad school. I want the choice to get the best education available for my child. You do it your way. Let me do it my way.

Click to expand...

I was showing you that schools didn't necessarily close because they were failing but because someone decided to close them. That is not choice. That is eliminating public schools just because an official can eliminate them. I believe that is the real motive rather it's called choice or not.

cpwill said:

Looks like someone is in favor of keeping New York's poorer population good and less educated.

Poor children are improving their station in life!?! We can't be having that!!!.

Click to expand...

Oh, that is a rather sad story. It 's also deceptive. He wants charters to pay toward rent. Public schools have that costs as part of their per pupil spending. Charters are usually much lower cost because they are usually funded by outside private money. NY shares a building with public schools so they don't have to raise costs from the outside. They just allow the public schools to take the whole costs in per pupil spending. Those costs should be split so public schools too can have more money to purchase better things towards learning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. No freebies off the back of children in public schools!

rabbitcaebannog said:

Poor performing schools take the lion share of money? Not in my area. Wealthy schools are funded nearly double of poorer schools, but they also perform MUCH better. The big question is why?

Click to expand...

mac said:

I think you're mistaken.

Click to expand...

NO not necessarily. Do not mistake what happens in your school system with what happens in hers. One of the issues most school choice advocates have is that fact that the government tries to make one size fit all approach and that's just not reality. So realistically her school system could have the wealthier schools getting more funding while in your school system the poorer schools are getting the more funding.

MoSurveyor said:

There's obviously a need to teach "little a$$holes" whether there's a "market" for it or not. That's the difference, though, isn't it? Teaching kids who don't want to learn is much more expensive than teaching kids that are willing to learn. Vouchers don't solve that problem, they just make it worse.

Click to expand...

Why is it necessarily more expensive to teach "little arseholes"? While I agree that different teaching methods would be require, why are you assuming that those wouldbe more expensive methods?

mac said:

We're not giving private schools public money. We're giving people public money for the purpose of education. Where they spend it (as long as it's on education) is their business. And yes, that is constitutional, SCOTUS has already ruled so.

Click to expand...

This should include the ability to home school, as long as the parent can show that the child is indeed receiving an education.

AlbqOwl said:

Also when the kids enrolled from first grade through 12th, we could request the teacher we wanted--if we did not specify or the class had filled up, the kid would be assigned by the school--and the kids could request a different school and would be allowed to attend the preferred school if there was room there. The schools had to accept all those in their district who wanted to attend there before accepting out-of-district students.

Click to expand...

Power to you. We never had that ability in my schools, either when I attended or in the various schools my kids attended across the eastern seaboard.

rabbitcaebannog said:

I'll let people decide whether they want these mandates to continue or to re-examine many of them. My whole point is public education teachers/schools are being vilified by something they never had any control over. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of it.

Click to expand...

A lot of us recognize that a majority, even a super majority, of teachers are no where near to blame for issues in school. About the only time we do have issues is when you do find that bad teacher and then the union contract with the school system makes it near impossible to get rid of them. And in all honesty I do hear more about the ever increasing burdens schools are placed under. But there are still those schools that do not perform but are maintained anyway. In the end our education problems are mutli-faceted and the school choice solution is only a solution for some problems.

The whole reason for this type of arrangement was suppose to be to bring up student outcomes.

The whole problem with such an effort is that there are students/parents who do not support this effort. Yet we try to push such kids through at the expense of the ones that do support the effort.

maquiscat said:

A lot of us recognize that a majority, even a super majority, of teachers are no where near to blame for issues in school. About the only time we do have issues is when you do find that bad teacher and then the union contract with the school system makes it near impossible to get rid of them. And in all honesty I do hear more about the ever increasing burdens schools are placed under. But there are still those schools that do not perform but are maintained anyway. In the end our education problems are mutli-faceted and the school choice solution is only a solution for some problems.

The whole reason for this type of arrangement was suppose to be to bring up student outcomes.

The whole problem with such an effort is that there are students/parents who do not support this effort. Yet we try to push such kids through at the expense of the ones that do support the effort.

Click to expand...

Truth be told, that is the issue in a nutshell. Ed reform people want to use the 'we can improve outcomes' when in reality, this hasn't been done because there is a reason that not all kids can perform the same on a test. I do believe we should educate all students whether they have good or bad parents and that we need to stop punishing public schools who try to do this on a daily basis. I always believed those working in the most needy schools should be praised. Also, should be paid more. Those are some tough working conditions. I chose not to do it anymore but God bless those that do. I think it's a travesty they are getting scapegoated.

rabbitcaebannog said:

I was showing you that schools didn't necessarily close because they were failing but because someone decided to close them. That is not choice. That is eliminating public schools just because an official can eliminate them. I believe that is the real motive rather it's called choice or not.

Click to expand...

But the topic is school choice. Failing schools that can't get it together to educate the kids should close and school choice is a way to help that happen. Why schools would be closed otherwise is a different subject.

AlbqOwl said:

But the topic is school choice. Failing schools that can't get it together to educate the kids should close and school choice is a way to help that happen. Why schools would be closed otherwise is a different subject.

Click to expand...

Tell me why is the school failing? Based on what exactly?

rabbitcaebannog said:

Tell me why is the school failing? Based on what exactly?

Click to expand...

A school that is not educating children is failing. When a school fails to educate children sufficiently that most can't pass proficiency tests that children in other countries pass easily, that school is failing. When the school is using social promotions to push uneducated kids along for somebody else to worry about, that school is failing. When a school is failing to graduate and give deserved diplomas to a high percentage of students, that school is failing. When a school is staffed by teachers who depend on protected tenure to keep their jobs and resist any evaluation process to determine that they are actually doing their jobs, it is likely that the school will be failing. When a school is not maintaining sufficient discipline, both of student population and staff, to achieve a learning environment, that school is likely to be failing.

AlbqOwl said:

A school that is not educating children is failing. When a school fails to educate children sufficiently that most can't pass proficiency tests that children in other countries pass easily, that school is failing. When the school is using social promotions to push uneducated kids along for somebody else to worry about, that school is failing. When a school is failing to graduate and give deserved diplomas to a high percentage of students, that school is failing. When a school is staffed by teachers who depend on protected tenure to keep their jobs and resist any evaluation process to determine that they are actually doing their jobs, it is likely that the school will be failing. When a school is not maintaining sufficient discipline, both of student population and staff, to achieve a learning environment, that school is likely to be failing.

Click to expand...

So, basically you're saying that inner city schools, where there are large pools of disadvantage kids, are more likely to be failing? Have those test scores gone up to show better student outcome when moved to another type school? Also, false about the union bashing stuff. If it was a true statement, places like my state would be poorly performing while places like NC, SC, Texas and Geogia would have the highest testing scores in the nation plus be able to compete internationally but they can't and it has nothing to do with unions.

rabbitcaebannog said:

So, basically you're saying that inner city schools, where there are large pools of disadvantage kids, are more likely to be failing? Have those test scores gone up to show better student outcome when moved to another type school? Also, false about the union bashing stuff. If it was a true statement, places like my state would be poorly performing while places like NC, SC, Texas and Geogia would have the highest testing scores in the nation plus be able to compete internationally but they can't and it has nothing to do with unions.

Click to expand...

No basically I was describing what constitutes a failing school as you asked me to do. Want a different answer? Ask somebody who will give you the answer you want.

AlbqOwl said:

No basically I was describing what constitutes a failing school as you asked me to do. Want a different answer? Ask somebody who will give you the answer you want.

Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing that most of these schools are where high numbers of disadvantage are educated?

rabbitcaebannog said:

Are you disagreeing that most of these schools are where high numbers of disadvantage are educated?

Click to expand...

Nope. But that is irrelevent to the thread topic. The whole purpose of school choice is to allow parents, rich or poor, disadvantaged or privileged, to take their kid out of a failing school and see that he/she is educated. And if the money follows the child instead of being allocated among the schools, a failing school might improve its performace to attract those dollars. Those who do not or cannot should close.

AlbqOwl said:

Nope. But that is irrelevent to the thread topic. The whole purpose of school choice is to allow parents, rich or poor, disadvantaged or privileged, to take their kid out of a failing school and see that he/she is educated. And if the money follows the child instead of being allocated among the schools, a failing school might improve its performace to attract those dollars. Those who do not or cannot should close.

Click to expand...

You really can't use the word "failing" without defining which schools fall under this category. That is why I asked you if you felt that these were mostly schools where there are large pools of disadvanted kids. Obviously, you said no so I'm going to ask you to give me some examples. TIA