Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Nov 2017, 10:48 am

Danivon,
Thank you for a well written post. I disagree with the premise of yours. It is not the children who are the consumer when it comes to purchasing the education. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure a proper education. Therefore, the parent's should be the ones procuring what they think is best.

Parent's should desire that their children are the best prepared for the workplace. I know I desire that for my children, as I would assume you do as well. If a parent is grossly lacking in that area, it is a state's responsibility to remove the child and make it a ward of the State due to bad parenting. That would require a judge, however.

You say the poor schools have gotten better over time. Should the children in those schools have to wait, or should they have had the opportunity to find a better school? I think they should have a choice.

We differ at a fundamental level about whose responsibility it is. I say parents, and you say government. We must agree to disagree that I want choice in education, and you do not.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 02 Dec 2017, 11:25 am

bbauska wrote:I think handing money to a school that is the BEST choice for a student is exactly what needs to happen. If there are schools that are not succeeding (yes, any school - public, private or home) then they should not be funded,

Are you saying that unsuccessful schools should be funded? I would want the parents of students in that school to be able to take the money to another school and help the student succeed.

Is every student successful. Certainly not. Is every school successful? No, they are not.

Allowing a parent the choice, and the funds to better a student's specific need is better for the student.

Are you afraid that the public schools will not be able to perform as well as other options, and the students would be going to a better school? Why do you want the students to remain in an under-performing school if that is the situation?


I don't doubt you read my long post, but I don't think you understood it. I was talking about the downsides to solutions that tried to implement choice. You're back on "choice is good." OK. But how would it be implemented without screwing over bunches of people? Interested in hearing if you have any thoughts. It's not easy . . .
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Dec 2017, 12:27 pm

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:I think handing money to a school that is the BEST choice for a student is exactly what needs to happen. If there are schools that are not succeeding (yes, any school - public, private or home) then they should not be funded,

Are you saying that unsuccessful schools should be funded? I would want the parents of students in that school to be able to take the money to another school and help the student succeed.

Is every student successful. Certainly not. Is every school successful? No, they are not.

Allowing a parent the choice, and the funds to better a student's specific need is better for the student.

Are you afraid that the public schools will not be able to perform as well as other options, and the students would be going to a better school? Why do you want the students to remain in an under-performing school if that is the situation?


I don't doubt you read my long post, but I don't think you understood it. I was talking about the downsides to solutions that tried to implement choice. You're back on "choice is good." OK. But how would it be implemented without screwing over bunches of people? Interested in hearing if you have any thoughts. It's not easy . . .


I have thought a great deal about this. I do not see how it is "Screwing over bunches of people" if you allow payment to be made to the school of the parent's choice. Yes, Public education will be on reduced funding, and that will be offset by the reduced amount of children attending that particular school.

I have no desire to see the public education system's demise. I do, however, have a desire to see the parents allowed some choice, and financial opportunity to do so.

Yes, this will have an effect upon the public education system, but I believe many people are fine with the system the way it is, and there would be negligible impact on education. After all, if the system is so great, everyone would want to go to it! If public education needs all of the money to be effective, why does the government allow other forms of education. Much easier to "Cookie cutter" all the children into the state model.

If I didn't understand your post I apologize. I am sure you want the best for children as I do.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Dec 2017, 2:28 pm

The whole choice theory rests on a fundamental false premise of likening schools to business. The idea is that if you give parents choice they will choose better schools, those schools will be rewarded and the poor performing ones will go out of business.

But that is not how schools work. The reality that a school's students and parents have a huge effect on a school's performance. A school's performance is going to be affected if it has a lot of poor students, gang problems, students with a lack of English proficiency, parents who cannot contribute financially or in time to the school.

A school in an upper-middle class suburb is not in the same situation as one in the inner-city. The parents have a better ability to demand that their kids are taught well, excellent teachers hired, facilities kept up. Students are more prepared. There is less crime. Teachers want to teach in a safe school with able students so principals have their choice of the best teachers. So what happens in an area like Southern California? You get the worst, least experienced teachers in schools who have students who have the most impediments to learning--parents with low-levels of education, students who come from poor households, students with lack of English proficiency, there are gang problems, etc.

So how would school choice change that problem? Integration was tried in the 1979s where minority students were bused into white schools...but then whites fled the system. If you give minority students choice obviously they would rather go to the good schools in the suburbs...but you would see the same thing happening (e.g., Detroit)

What you want to do is maximize the educational achievement of students by making sure that good teachers and administrators are more evenly distributed and not going to the most well-off students. If you allowed parents to opt out of paying taxes into the public system, presumably they would opt for schools that again opt for the best students. Like health insurers...schools will choose the best students and leave the rest to be educated by...someone. Poor students will have schools that have even less money to educate them.

Parents will of course want to do what is best for their particular situation. Education is best handled by State which is best able to allocate resources more equitably to maximize educational achievement across society. The best we can do is to do much as we can to make sure that administrative and teaching talent is more equitably distributed and not concentrated on students who least need it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Dec 2017, 2:47 pm

Let me tell you what doesn’t work: what we do now.

Teachers in low-income areas have their lives threatened and their belongings stolen. Parents don’t give a rip what their kids do.

How much money will fix that?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Dec 2017, 3:37 pm

As Fate says, the current system is not working. Please tell me if I am wrong, but it appears you are suggesting the students not be allowed to move, and just suffer with the location/quality/gangs/least experienced teachers. Personally, I don't think that is right.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Dec 2017, 5:59 pm

What I am saying is school choice where parents opt out of the public school system will not work and will exacerbate the problem. The NewYork City model seems ok to me, with students having choice within a public school system. If you could take care of the transportation issue and allow students to go to any school in the system based on merit and inclination...that would be great. I don't think that's feasible in LA--we're too spread out--but maybe we could try it. I like the idea that where you live does not dictate the quality of the school you attend.

But private choice and taking money out of public schools to fund that...no way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Dec 2017, 6:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:What I am saying is school choice where parents opt out of the public school system will not work and will exacerbate the problem. The NewYork City model seems ok to me, with students having choice within a public school system. If you could take care of the transportation issue and allow students to go to any school in the system based on merit and inclination...that would be great. I don't think that's feasible in LA--we're too spread out--but maybe we could try it. I like the idea that where you live does not dictate the quality of the school you attend.

But private choice and taking money out of public schools to fund that...no way.


I have a couple of questions:

1. What if it’s not just where you live that determines how good/bad schools are?

2. Why not try to fix the bad schools rather than punish everyone by forcing them into public schools?

3. How much additional money, per pupil, should we spend on failing schools to ensure they succeed?

4. What if that money doesn’t fix the problem?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Dec 2017, 8:10 pm

Here is what I think:

(1) The socio-economic/cultural milieu of the neighborhood that's the school draws its students from and composition of the student body has a major impact on the performance of the school, and
(2) Teachers and administrators would rather work at schools that have students that present fewer challenges, so schools in wealthier neighborhoods get their choice of the best and most experienced teachers and administrative personnel, making schools in troubled neighborhoods having an even more difficult time.

Schools are not businesses dealing with a fungible product. You can spend as much money as you want it is still going to be difficult educating students who come from difficult circumstances. From a societal standpoint you would like to make sure that talented students from poor neighborhood can have a chance to go to the best schools. And I think you would to make sure that schools in impoverished neighborhoods did not saddled with the worst teachers. I think that is the best that can be done.

In answer to your questions:

(1) Well, that is an empirical question but I think where a person lives is a pretty significant factor.
(2) Again, students with major educational challenges result in poor performing schools which is then worsened by good teachers migrating away from those schools. The question as to whether a school is good or not depends on an analysis of the student body and the surrounding socio-economic milieu. Schools cannot fix societal problems. The best we can do is make sure poor students are given a fair chance. We can't expect that they will do as well as students with professional parents will do.
(3) I am not sure money is the issue; making sure that poor students get equal access to good teachers and administrators is more important.
(4) See answer to three. I think that heavier investments early in life have the best hope of making a difference. There is a study out there that black parents in average use a lot fewer words with their kids than other parents do. In general, I suspect that how a parent raises their child early in life has a huge impact on their later educational achievement. If a child gets into school and they are well behind in verbal fluency...it is probably almost an insurmountable obstacle at that point. We need to start really early with these kids to make a difference.

As far as choice fixing the problem, It's not like a good school can just accommodate more students because it is good. I mean, schools are meant to have a certain number of students so the business model is simply not applicable to schools. I like the New York City model but I think it might have limited applicability.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Dec 2017, 6:10 am

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Thank you for a well written post. I disagree with the premise of yours. It is not the children who are the consumer when it comes to purchasing the education. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure a proper education. Therefore, the parent's should be the ones procuring what they think is best.

Parent's should desire that their children are the best prepared for the workplace. I know I desire that for my children, as I would assume you do as well. If a parent is grossly lacking in that area, it is a state's responsibility to remove the child and make it a ward of the State due to bad parenting. That would require a judge, however.

You say the poor schools have gotten better over time. Should the children in those schools have to wait, or should they have had the opportunity to find a better school? I think they should have a choice.

We differ at a fundamental level about whose responsibility it is. I say parents, and you say government. We must agree to disagree that I want choice in education, and you do not.


Parents do not "consume" education. The people being educated, the children, do. Parents should indeed bear prime responsibility, but should, in my view, be making decisions based on the child's interests including their preferences. You seem to be framing it as a parental "right". I disagree. It is a child's right to a decent education, and a parent's responsibility to support it. In a modern liberal democracy we have also decided that it is the right of children to be able to be educated in publicly funded schools, parents' rights to choose to send children there free (but of course most parents are paying taxes), and the government is responsible for provision and regulation of education.

Another aspect is that schools should have some right to exclude children who are disruptive and cause disciplinary problems. And those children retain a right to education, which leads to a need to specialise in children with behavioural problems somehow.

So, your characterisation of my position is false. Again, you are assuming my view so you can argue against it or for it. That is called a "straw man".

Also, there is a lot more to education than just "preparing for the workplace". Before you even get to that, we want to prepare children for life. And that includes skills and knowledge across academic fields, so Maths and English, civics, history, basic economics, logic, geography. And beyond the utilitarian "prepare them for the workplace" is the opening up of all kinds of possibilities for what that work might be, including in artistic fields, or narrow scientific specialisms. A big part of preparation for the workplace is also the socialisation aspect, having to work alongside, or for, @#$!.

What I have seen here in the UK at some of the failing schools converted to academies the turnaround was pretty quick (and by the way it is interesting that your paragraph on this switched to the child's decision, not parents'). The early phase saw exam pass rates improve in academies faster than the average schools, and some doubled the pass rate of their predecessors.

You may say it is better to just move the kids to a "better" school, but that presumes several things :

1) that the other schools nearby are actually better in terms of outcomes
2) that the better performance is not simply due to the children already going there starting at a higher point and having better support outside the school
3) that the school has room to expand to accommodate more pupils
4) that scaling up won't affect quality or end up with greater costs
5) that moving kids from one school to another won't be disruptive to their education, particularly midway through a grade or during the period leading up to important exams
6) that the school is as convenient geographically for the kids to get to around the parents work schedule etc
7) that the kid is not as dumb as a rock and so not going to benefit much either way.

And I know that homeschooling is an alternative. I have reservations, but even if I didn't, it's not something all parents can actually do - especially if they need to have an income.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Dec 2017, 1:30 pm

Danivon,
Of course parents do not "consume" education. I said that. I said it is the parent's responsibility (which you agreed with, btw)

The reason I switched from parents to children is emotional aspect of my argument. Children deserve the best schools possible as determined by the parents; not the children, State, or religion. To take the decision away from a parent takes the primary responsibility away as well.

If taxes are collected for each schooling, and the school receives money per student, why are your arguing against a schooling option NOT receiving payment from the government for an attending student. My only understanding of your position is that you want public education receiving the monies, and the rest of the education options be damned! Am I correct on that?

As for your presumptions:
1) if the school is NOT better, then a parent should not choose it
2) the exterior support would be the same regardless of school, and the school is the variable in question.
3) if there is no room, then there is no room, and that school is not an option
4) the payment/student is standard. greater cost would have to be part of the choice a parent makes
5) parental choice, looking to what is best for child
6) no kidding eh? A school in Zimbabwe might not be the best option for a child in Sri Lanka?
7) If that kid is as "dumb as a rock", the parents have to make the choice for that child. Putting a child in position to fail is not a good parenting decision.

As for homeschooling, I agree. Not all parents can do that. We have assisted some parents in our homeschooling environment that are not able to meet the child's educational needs. That is not the child's fault. It is the parent's.

In summation, I believe the dollars should follow the student. I am fine with taxes being collected, and disbursed to the school as a base payment of $/student. I believe it is the parent who should make the choice, unless the rights of the parent are revoked via court proceedings.

As I am trying to not mis-characterize your position, let me know. Do you think that only the public schools receive money for education, when all students can be benefited by the monies for education that is collected? Why should not all students benefit from money that is allocated for a student's education?
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 19 Dec 2017, 4:02 pm

The US is #1 in spending #20 in results.

Publicly funded, privately provided education is the way to head with schooling. You could still have a number of county or city schools still under that model, as I'm sure there would be a number who would want that option. Also special education schools of some sort would need to be guaranteed by area.

We would do well to provide incentives for middle class marrieds to have children. Favorable education opportunities could provide an additional incentive. What you subsidize you get more of.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Dec 2017, 8:32 am

bbauska
Children deserve the best schools possible as determined by the parents; not the children, State, or religion. To take the decision away from a parent takes the primary responsibility away as well.

All very well and good, if parents have the ability, the tools and the information to make a good decision. Most, probably don't. And require expert assistance and an abundance of expert provided information ...
What about parents who think a good education shouldn't include being taught natural selection and evolution of the species .
Or who don't agree with being taught that that the primary cause of the American Civil War was slavery?Or who choose to ignore what experts believe is a sound curriculum or teaching methodology...
The one thing that a public education does, that an education controlled exclusively by parents may not, is the fundamental requirements to understand science. Well, any field where a parents peculiar views might handicap a child's education.
Children should never be considered as property, especially in education. Parents may not always have the best interests of a child in mind.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Dec 2017, 9:17 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Children deserve the best schools possible as determined by the parents; not the children, State, or religion. To take the decision away from a parent takes the primary responsibility away as well.

All very well and good, if parents have the ability, the tools and the information to make a good decision. Most, probably don't. And require expert assistance and an abundance of expert provided information ...


Huh. Weird. These same parents who don't have the ability to make a good decision about their child's education, which one assumes they would care deeply about, are fully capable of voting intelligently? Should they have tutors? Maybe even prompters in the voting booth?

/sarcasm

Your condescension knows no bounds.

What about parents who think a good education shouldn't include being taught natural selection and evolution of the species .


Snark much? Most parents I know think it's fine to be taught this. I do wonder though, how many jobs are dependent upon this knowledge? Is it 0.1% or is it less? Even doctors who don't accept evolution as truth can and do treat their patients with the best care and technology.

Or who don't agree with being taught that that the primary cause of the American Civil War was slavery?Or who choose to ignore what experts believe is a sound curriculum or teaching methodology...


As for the first part of your discordant paragraph, again, what jobs depend on that? And, even if they're not taught this, will they come to view slavery as "good?" Any evidence or any relevance to anything we're discussing--or anything in the real world?

As for the second, two days ago I had lunch with some parents whose children are in a school district that is implementing CORE (I think that's the way to spell it). Apparently, it's becoming fashionable to see it as a "sound" method of teaching. Here's the funny thing: it seems most of the teaching is done via computer and the "teachers" in the classroom are little more than facilitators.

A couple of things struck me about this: 1) I couldn't help think this might be a way of shielding teachers from the abuse they take from students (and parents); 2) it certainly requires less of teachers in terms of skill; 3) some of the bonding and mentoring that should take place in school will be lost. No computer can mentor a child.

The one thing that a public education does, that an education controlled exclusively by parents may not, is the fundamental requirements to understand science. Well, any field where a parents peculiar views might handicap a child's education.


That's just more elitist condescension. You do that well.

Children should never be considered as property, especially in education. Parents may not always have the best interests of a child in mind.


The irony, of course, is that what you propose is to make the child "property" of the State. How in the world do you think you can show the State cares more for a child's future than her parents?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Dec 2017, 9:25 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Children deserve the best schools possible as determined by the parents; not the children, State, or religion. To take the decision away from a parent takes the primary responsibility away as well.

All very well and good, if parents have the ability, the tools and the information to make a good decision. Most, probably don't. And require expert assistance and an abundance of expert provided information ...
What about parents who think a good education shouldn't include being taught natural selection and evolution of the species .
Or who don't agree with being taught that that the primary cause of the American Civil War was slavery?Or who choose to ignore what experts believe is a sound curriculum or teaching methodology...
The one thing that a public education does, that an education controlled exclusively by parents may not, is the fundamental requirements to understand science. Well, any field where a parents peculiar views might handicap a child's education.
Children should never be considered as property, especially in education. Parents may not always have the best interests of a child in mind.


I would have to agree with Fate. You are quite snarky. Perhaps a cup of coffee would help.

If a parent does not have the best interests of the child, then remove the parental rights via the court system. There is always that...

Your post drips with the only way anything goes well is if the government does it. Perhaps several instances of government failure would help you see the folly of your belief. (But why rehash that which you choose not to see)