Public Schools

Great Debates
81

You’re assuming every private school will be the same, educating kids with an eye to shipping them off to the Ivy League. I believe, with more competition and choices, boutique schools will crop up…those parents who want to send their kids to Harvard, others that will send their kids to state universities, those that know their kids will want to learn a trade. There will be secular and religious schools, those with more of an emphasis on science vs arts vs sports.

IMHO, I think private does much better than public in all areas except law enforcement. I’m glad my kids are in private school, and, no, we’re not rich. We’ve made certain choices and sacrifices to get our kids a good education. Right now poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to a failing school or move to another district. What choice is that?

82

[QUOTE=ivylass]
Right now poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to a failing school or move to another district. What choice is that?
[/QUOTE]

So to fix it, you take away the public schools and then claim you’ve given them more choices?

Let’s be perfectly clear, here. The “market” isn’t philanthropic, so if people don’t have money, the market doesn’t cater to them. If people don’t have money, they cannot buy things. That includes education. Giving them a choice of a million schools they can’t afford is no choice at all.

83

I’d also like to add that those people who don’t see any problem with skimming off the brightest kids from the classrooms have never been a teacher. To say “I fail to see how removing smart children changes the teacher quality of the rest of the kids.”, as Forumbot does, shows a fundamental ignorance of the educational process as it actually takes place in the classroom. Every sparkplug you remove from an engine makes the engine run rougher. Eventually it stops running at all.

(The irony of the above is rather stinging right now, since I am known on our campus as being one of the strongest and loudest advocates for GATE and AP and magnet programs.)
As for the teacher training program…my experience was much like those previously noted, except in Social Studies. We did have to take a 1 unit class in “Alcohol and Drug Abuse,” which they refused to let me challenge on the basis of “life experience.” :smiley:

84

If they live in poor neighborhoods, then their local public schools are very likely to be awful already. How does it screw smart, disadvantaged kids to give them a shot at going to a better school? You might could make an argument that it would screw the dumb, disadvantaged kids (who wouldn’t be accepted into a orivate school, hypothetically), but I’m far from convinced of that.

:confused: Of course that gives them more choices. Currently, poor kids essentially have one and only one choice: the local public school. Give them the tax money that would otherwise be spent on their public education, however, and they can theoretically choose between dozens (perhaps hundreds) of schools.

Right . . . hence the vouchers.

85

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Let’s be perfectly clear, here. The “market” isn’t philanthropic, so if people don’t have money, the market doesn’t cater to them. If people don’t have money, they cannot buy things. That includes education. Giving them a choice of a million schools they can’t afford is no choice at all.
[/QUOTE]

That’s where the safety net I mentioned above comes in…similar to food stamps and WIC. Of course, you have to couple that with a reduction in property taxes, which do go to public education.

86

I don’t understand the question. The voucher money comes from taxes, same as education funding does now. Parents who send their children to private school (which I did for several years) would spend less on education, but the same on taxes.

In any event, there is relatively little correlation between the amount you spend per pupil and educational achievement.

Not in my opinion.

Failing schools fail all their students. Pulling out the ones who could be successful in a better setting benefits the ones who move, but the ones who are failing will still fail. Certainly the failures are no better off, but the rest are. So you are going from a lose-lose to a win-lose. An improvement, if nothing else.

Student achievement seems to depend on a certain critical mass of parents who are paying attention to how well their children are doing. I, for one, would have no philosophical problem with a system where there were a certain number of public schools who had to accept anyone, and all the other schools had a varying mix of entrant or performance criteria. Sure, all the kids who are failing now would tend to concentrate in the public schools of last resort. But they are there now, and the other crabs in their bucket who are being dragged down by the behavior problems and those who need drilling on skills that are three grade levels below the average would benefit. As I mentioned earlier, some successes and some failures are better than a much larger number of failures and a smaller one of successes.

Bottom line is that I care nothing whatever about the wefare of public schools, and respond with indifference to complaints about how they might have to close under a voucher system. The only relevant factor in these discussions, to me, is what is in the best interests of the students - nothing else. And I object to holding average students hostage to their less-than-average peers, so as not to lose funding.

Edited to add:

Yes I have, and I am afraid I still don’t see the problem.

Regards,
Shodan

87

[QUOTE=ivylass]
That’s where the safety net I mentioned above comes in…similar to food stamps and WIC.
[/QUOTE]

Well, people have to eat, so making them jump through hoops to get food can work.

Making them jump through the same hoops to send their kids to school probably won’t follow the same pattern.

But let’s say it does. Will the school stamps cover the cost of a local school? Will that local school then pretty much only have these poor kids in it? What would be the likely quality of such a school? Would that school have any competition for those school stamp dollars?

There are currently for-profit private services that you simply can’t get in the inner city (at least in some cities). Why would a school be different than, say, a supermarket? People can receive food stamps and still not be able to shop in the places they need to buy healthy foods for their families. The market leaves some areas without service all the time. Why would the market suddenly cover such areas in abundance? Because if there’s only one school, you have exactly the same situation you have now, only without any possible oversight and without penalty for not sending your kids. (Unless you are talking about adding a penalty for not sending your kids, which sounds a hell of a lot like the sort of nanny-state that so many conservatives whine about.)

If you know how to fix poor schools now, but don’t do it, why would the market change that? And if you don’t know how to fix poor schools now, why would the market change that?

88

[QUOTE=silenus]
I’d also like to add that those people who don’t see any problem with skimming off the brightest kids from the classrooms have never been a teacher. To say “I fail to see how removing smart children changes the teacher quality of the rest of the kids.”, as Forumbot does, shows a fundamental ignorance of the educational process as it actually takes place in the classroom. Every sparkplug you remove from an engine makes the engine run rougher. Eventually it stops running at all.

(The irony of the above is rather stinging right now, since I am known on our campus as being one of the strongest and loudest advocates for GATE and AP and magnet programs.)

[/QUOTE]
Could you please explain it for me, then? I really don’t see how it would change much, except possibly making the classes smaller, which is widely seen as a good thing. When I worked in a first-grade classroom, the bright kids were wonderful children, but got very little attention from me or the teacher, since they could manage pretty much on their own. The slower kids needed far more attention and got it–and it was kind of at the expense of the brighter kids, who just did without the extra attention. (My job was partly to handle some of the lower instruction so that the teacher got more time with the rest of the class, but of course she spent most of that time with the middle children…)

Why are the bright kids “sparkplugs” and the not-bright kids a problem with the engine? Why can’t the rest of the kids be sparkplugs? I don’t understand that image at all.

So what exactly would be the difference between a class of 20 kids all over the spectrum and 16 kids with no bright ones? Wouldn’t the teacher be able to spend more time teaching the ones who need it? The teachers might miss the bright kids, but what benefit would the kids themselves get out of it, seeing that they are currently often left to do their work on their own?

My own daughter is reasonably bright (not a genius or anything, just pretty bright), and while I’m sure most teachers would enjoy having her as a pupil, I’m not sure what she would get out of it that’s better than what we’re doing now. So why should I put her in public school, where, according to all my experience, she will be left to float along and given little attention?

I don’t blame teachers for this state of affairs; after all, the bright kids mostly do fine and the slower ones need the attention far more, and there’s only so much any one teacher can do. But I don’t see why I should put my child in it if I don’t have to.

So, please explain, because I’d really like to know what you mean. :slight_smile:

89

Unless their voucher covers the entire cost of going to a better school, then they still can’t afford the better school. If the private school costs 7K and the voucher is for 5K, that still leaves a big gap. Some parents will scrimp and save to make up that gap. Many won’t try, and for others, no matter how hard they try, they won’t be able to make up the difference. It just seems like another strike against bright kids who happen to have sorry parents.

90

Pertaining to the argument that the easy-learning kids get ignored, and the average kids need more attention. Would a Montessori approach work? Grouping children based on their abilities within a certain age range, it seems like the higher-scoring children of a normal classrom would end up being in the younger age range of their age grouping, while those with special needs might end up being in the higher age range of their group.

It looks like both win: The easy-learner gets mentored and challenged, the average/below average also gets mentored and becomes a mentor to younger kids, fostering independence and leadership.

91

[QUOTE=silenus]
I’d also like to add that those people who don’t see any problem with skimming off the brightest kids from the classrooms have never been a teacher.
[/QUOTE]

But how is skimming off the brightest kids into a different school any different than skimming off the brightest kids into an honors class?

Maybe my high school was strange, but 99% of the students that could hack it in honors classes took honors classes. All of the regular classes were composed entirely of the troublemakers or the kids who may have been bright but didn’t really “care” to go that extra mile.

Obviously, other schools may vary.

92

[QUOTE=burundi]
Unless their voucher covers the entire cost of going to a better school, then they still can’t afford the better school. If the private school costs 7K and the voucher is for 5K, that still leaves a big gap. Some parents will scrimp and save to make up that gap. Many won’t try, and for others, no matter how hard they try, they won’t be able to make up the difference. It just seems like another strike against bright kids who happen to have sorry parents.
[/QUOTE]

I believe the private school tuition fees would drop once there’s more competition. What may cost $7000 now may cost $5000 or even $3500 if there’s three more schools in the area competing for the privilege of teaching your child.

93

You still haven’t addressed jsgodess’ question about what happens when nobody wants to open a school in a particular area.
In the town where I teach, there is no grocery store. The last one, a Foodland, closed 5 years or so ago. Here’s an opportunity. Yet the market isn’t filling it. The people are poor, there’s a lot of crime, so the market has determined that it isn’t profitable to have a grocery store there. Competition doesn’t seem to have magically made one appear. What makes you think that anybody would want to open a private-for-profit school in such an area? One supposes that they would have to offer their teachers substantially higher salaries (i.e. combat pay) than other schools in order to attract them. Since teacher salaries are usually the biggest part of a school’s budget, how is this going to lead to a school that the locals are going to be able to fund adequately, even with vouchers?
BTW, the public school in which I work does pay as much, or more, than surrounding schools and we still have trouble attracting and retaining teachers.

94

[QUOTE=ivylass]
You’re assuming every private school will be the same, educating kids with an eye to shipping them off to the Ivy League. I believe, with more competition and choices, boutique schools will crop up…those parents who want to send their kids to Harvard, others that will send their kids to state universities, those that know their kids will want to learn a trade. There will be secular and religious schools, those with more of an emphasis on science vs arts vs sports.

IMHO, I think private does much better than public in all areas except law enforcement. I’m glad my kids are in private school, and, no, we’re not rich. We’ve made certain choices and sacrifices to get our kids a good education. Right now poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to a failing school or move to another district. What choice is that?
[/QUOTE]

A lot of states have school choice - if your school is failing, you can move them to a different school. With the NCLB legislation in Minnesota, they even have to pay transportation to get your kids there. Now, caveat is the “good” school has to have room - but what you discover is that there are good schools with room - and parents still don’t switch schools.

(Our good school is actually failing under NCLB - because while our middle class kids do wonderfully on standardized tests, our “free and reduced lunch” students have not shown improvement - the school has two distinct populations - they sit in the same classes - they have the same teachers - but there is a binomial distribution in test scores - somehow, it isn’t the school).

95

[QUOTE=ivylass]
I believe the private school tuition fees would drop once there’s more competition. What may cost $7000 now may cost $5000 or even $3500 if there’s three more schools in the area competing for the privilege of teaching your child.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming that there would be competition–which I doubt–if one of the schools is good and the others suck, the good school is in demand and can raise prices, leaving the poor students to the bad schools again.

96

[QUOTE=Scumpup]
You still haven’t addressed jsgodess’ question about what happens when nobody wants to open a school in a particular area.
[/QUOTE]
Bussing? I know that would end up eating into profits, but the alternative would seem to be security. Also, (not that I think it could work) but maybe set default territories the way cable companies have, except student in the area could still have the choice not to go to the school in their territory.

97

One issue that’s missing from this debate is magnet programs. Perhaps they’re not ubiquitous but in my area, every high school and quite a few middle schools are magnet schools. And with parents given a choice of many schools (instead of the previous strategy of zoning certain areas to attend certain schools) the schools are much more competitive.

You’ve got the criminal justice program, the medical program, the arts center (which just spent a pretty penny on renovation- bigger theatre, more art studios, new technology and new buildings that all students benefit from), 2 different technology programs, plus the International Baccalaureate school (which I attended) for the general smarties. Plus, if you want to count the Vocational Education center at another school, you’ve got a program for kids who may or may not want to go to college, that can still learn valuable skills in high school. And in all of these schools, you have the honors and AP classes for kids that may not have made it into the magnet programs (some of which are quite hard to get into).

I doubt that private schools will have the money (unless they’re ridiculously expensive) or the demand for an art and drama program comparable to the Pinellas County Center for the Arts. As someone else brought up, although I agree that private schools (generally speaking) do a better job of educating children than public schools (mostly because of parental involvement and being able to throw out disruptive students) a lot of private schools lack variety in their curriculum. I had art once a week, computer class once a week, and no foreign language classes (although the local Catholic high school had Spanish, I believe). Now, that may change if there’s a mass exodus from the public schools, but I see one very huge problem with this-

How will they be able to accomodate the influx of students? Most of the private schools in my area are small, maybe 500 students for some of the larger ones. I think most of the public schools are 1000-2000 students each. Even if only 20% of public school students opt for vouchers, that’s still a huge number of students trying to get into the private schools. If they get turned away because there’s no room, you’re back at square one. If the private schools accept them anyway, then you’ve got overcrowded classes or students learning in portables in the parking lot. I think a voucher program would be a nightmare for at least the first 5 or 10 years as students are stuck waiting for openings in the private schools (all the while learning nothing in their failing school) or as the private schools class sizes swell to the level of those in public schools, making teaching that much harder.

I just think it’s a bit premature to totally give up on th public school system.

98

[QUOTE=miamouse]
Bussing? I know that would end up eating into profits, but the alternative would seem to be security. Also, (not that I think it could work) but maybe set default territories the way cable companies have, except student in the area could still have the choice not to go to the school in their territory.
[/QUOTE]

Does Kroger bus people from the inner city to the suburbs to shop at their stores?

Why would you think that a private school would do so? What’s in it for them that isn’t in it for other for-profit enterprises like, say, a supermarket or a mall?

99

[QUOTE=ivylass]
I believe the private school tuition fees would drop once there’s more competition. What may cost $7000 now may cost $5000 or even $3500 if there’s three more schools in the area competing for the privilege of teaching your child.
[/QUOTE]

Competition should bring down prices. Subsidies (which are what vouchers are) almost always increase prices. I’m not very good at economics, but I think you’ll have a break even proposition in the end - but a lot of people getting into the business not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the government is going to give them money to “educate” your children. If there is really that much waste in the public school system, there is that much potential for profit in a subsidized private school system. Also, in the interest of making sure private schools qualify for vouchers (to prevent people taking vouchers and warehousing children, then moving to Bolivia before they get indicited) there is going to have to be an expensive government watchdog organization.

100

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
But how is skimming off the brightest kids into a different school any different than skimming off the brightest kids into an honors class?

Maybe my high school was strange, but 99% of the students that could hack it in honors classes took honors classes. All of the regular classes were composed entirely of the troublemakers or the kids who may have been bright but didn’t really “care” to go that extra mile.

Obviously, other schools may vary.
[/QUOTE]

Your perceptions of the regular classes is flawed, I think. Probably because you were in the honors classes. The makeup of a school is a spectrum, ranging from the “stay out of their way and try not to interfere with their education” kids down to the “make the reservation at the crack house for them” kids. If you skim off the top 10% for AP/Honors, you still have a huge number of good, smart kids out there. Distributed across the curriculum, they provide the “spark” for class discussions, they model desired behavior, they give the school its “soul.” The top kids get special attention, the bottom kids get more attention, and things putter along. But if you skim off the top 50% of the student body to private schools and special programs, what you are left with is problems. Without a “good” group of sufficient size to moderate their behavior, no amount of teacher interaction and attention is going to fully reach the remaining students. Without the feedback and support of those missing students, more and more good teachers will leave the profession. You condemn society to extremes, the educational haves and have-nots, with little of no middle ground. Is that really what you want our educational system to become? I don’t.