Just wanted to add my voice to the Satan Admiration Club. Does that mean I’m a Satanist? 
VileOrb: Don’t be sorry! That was a great post, and you gave me some food for thought. I like the ideas you propose d in the last paragraph. I have reservations to some of the teaching unions going for it, but I also think that by making use of interns (regular business do this all the time!) and by giving teachers the extra money they deserve (and would demand for more time demands), it would be worth trying - even locally in some test areas.
Oh, and thanks to all of you for the kind words… It means a lot that maybe something I dig up or think up might be helpful in a thread and even beyond it for some folks!
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 4 hours, 3 minutes and 0 seconds.
8006 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,000.84.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 10 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
Oh what a pretty little propaganda package. Did Al Gore write that? I hope it was sarcasm.
Satan, your strategic use of the words fuck and bullshit really inspires me to listen to your message. And then you debate ME instead of the issue. It really assentuates everything you say… I see it so clearly now. But if you are willing to shut off the recording, which has not proven anything but that you are dead set against a program that might affect two of the largest contributors to your Party, the NEA and teacher’s unions, I’m finished. I have already said and supported the value of the voucher program to those open minded enough to see beyond your ‘fucking bullshit’ responses.
I hope for the genuinely open minded readers though, these debates do inspire you to learn alot more about the subjects. I know I have researched this subject more than I ever would have without this debate, I encourage you to look into your own State, since that is the level at which these policies will take affect. But always get both sides or Party neutral information before jumping to a conclusion based on propaganda. I trust the Democratic garbage even more than the Republican garbage because it gives me a new perspective.
One new argument made above was that no new funds would be introduced to the schools because they would all be tied up in vouchers. I didn’t go into the other spending because I considered it a separate issue from the voucher debate. However, without it the image is being given that no assistance is going to be given on the federal level to the public school system. That is simply wrong. Go to http://www.georgewbush.com, if interested and read all about the billions of dollars pledged to help the public education system BEFORE a single voucher is administered.
Also, as has constantly been overlooked by opponents… the federal voucher program will be administered at the state level, it isn’t a new national standards test, it allows States to test as they do currently. As has been stated on Gore’s own advertising page, the voucher program will only help 5% of all children. Those are the 5% that are intended to be helped by this program.
For those who are still open to the arguments for school vouchers, the Democrats who argue against it are getting all pissy because some Republicans are threatening to do good things for the poor, which might actually make them think twice about the traditional poor and minority vote for the Democratic Party, the Party that constantly takes them for granted. It is also based on protection of the NEA and teachers unions, two of the greatest contributors to the Democratic Party. Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you that GW’s attitude towards free market drugs is based on the Drug Company support of his Party. It absolutely is and that is why he will never do the ‘right’ thing with drug cost controls, just like the Democrats will never do the ‘right’ thing when it comes to education.
Don’t believe the ‘recording’ childish maneuvers that claim the sky will fall if student vouchers are used. And don’t believe the public funding for religion hype. It is done with tens of thousands of dollars per student right now for college education and Gore is proposing a $10,000 tax break for college tuition, which would be just as good at a religious college as at any public one. Public colleges have not been hurt at all by federal funding that is used at private colleges. If anything, they have gotten stronger and better and more competitive.
I can see the way a voucher program will work. Sure, there will be some details to iron out, just as there are in any plan or program. Like saying hiring 100,000 new teachers is the solution, there have to be details, who will get the teachers and on what basis? But I digress.
Let’s say there are 50 public schools in a particular metropolitan area. The State already has a passing/failing measurement in place in most States. Parents are not pulling their children out based on this information. They know how poorly their students are doing. It is public record and reported in the newspapers annually.
Out of the 50 schools, let’s assume that 10% of the schools, or five public schools are failing. Each state will receive millions of dollars in federal funding for teacher training, recruiting, loan forgiveness and from a $500 million reward fund for performance. If the State appropriately allocates their federal funds into the failing schools first, they will have three years to get the grades up.
Meanwhile, some business minded individuals and some private schools will start to consider the voucher program and it’s potential impact. They will build and prepare as wise entrepreneurs always prepare for potential opportunities.
If, after three years of investment of time, additional money and energy on the State level does not correct the situation, the federal government offers a $1,500 voucher, to be matched 2:1 by the State. Figures vary from State to State, and district to district, but someone has thrown out the number of $8,000 per student per year under the public education system so I will use that figure since it doesn’t seem to enrage the opposition. So, of the $8,000.00 per student, the public education system keeps $3,500 with no student, more money to enhance teaching for the remaining students.
Being at a failing school is nothing new for these students and parents. They aren’t going to suddenly panic because they have a voucher to exercise now. Schools will not be abandoned over night. How do I know this? It is human nature to support one’s community, and with the above prospect of smaller class sizes and more money per student in the public school, many will stay and listen to the administration which will tell them the exact same thing, that things will get better.
Some parents will praise the Lord or the government and take advantage of this opportunity to transfer their child to another public school, or a private school. Obviously, any school will have limitations on the number of students they can teach. However, with an additional $4,500 per student and the fixed costs already covered, the incremental revenue can further expand the size of the school, the student-teacher ratio and the quality of school supplies.
Meanwhile, the school they left behind will benefit from more money for less students and the teacher/student ratio will improve. Within a couple of years, all schools should be passing. Those that aren’t may be abandoned entirely, the property to be picked up by a popular private or public school and repopulated. In the end, the voucher will serve it’s purpose and the system will right itself.
That is how the voucher system will work. I have read the opposition and simply disagree with their scenarios of how the program will not work. Even Al Gore thinks this program will only affect the worst-off 5% of the nation, inadvertantly agreeing that it will not destroy the public school system.
The only argument of any substance was whether the private schools will provide a better education than the public ones that are failing to teach children to read by grade 4. We must put our faith in the decisions and research of parents to decide upon the appropriate school and it’s merits, as this is the entire point of the program.
Perfectly put, JAG. Thanks for saying so completely, and yet concisely. Any fears by the anti-voucher crowd can (and will) be solvable by simple measures, yet their arguments make it sound so apocolyptic. Like many arguments in the forums, they are afraid of the freedoms that will be granted by the program.
**
yawn
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 14 hours, 3 minutes and 37 seconds.
8023 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,002.93.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 35 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
I am going to keep this really simple, I’ll also try to use one syllable words where possible.
-
If you remove funding from schools, that money is gone, since funding is based on the total number of students, LESS STUDENTS = LESS MONEY. (BTW, JAG, I’ve explained this before, it’s not 8000ps-4500v; its total funding less vouchers!
-
If you make testing the end all be all of school performance, teacher will be inclined to teach the test. (see the articles I quoted yesterday)
-
If vouchers don’t really cover the cost of a private education, there is no profit potential to open new schools. This is basic **ECONOMICS 101 **!
-
If students form a bad school, suddenly go to a better school, then you’ve effectively made that school a poorer performing school. This is COMMON SENSE!
All your meaningless maybes and evasions don’t change these FACTS.
Yes, that’s the idea behind competition, and the perfect incentive to improve
You think parents won’t notice if their children are not reading by the time they are in 4th grade? If a school does not perform, it is the parents responsibility to find a school that does. And, how can a “test” be taught unless the instructor has a copy of the test?
Yeah, IF. IF there’s no profit potential, then Johnny goes to the public school (nothing to worry about). IF there IS profit potential, a school will be built. What’s so hard about that?
Yeah, God forbid the “better” schools actually teach them anything. Sheesh.
Dammit man! Don’t cloud the issue with facts!
So, correct me if I am wrong, you are assuming that the remaining $3,500 would go across the board to all public school students? I don’t think so, the State will fund all schools as it does now by their budgets. I.E. school A budgets $9,000 per student, school B budgets $7,000 per student. It isn’t a universal cost per student or there would be no disparity in the money currently available for good teachers and supplies.
There is a difference between ‘teaching the test’ and teaching to the test. All teachers should teach to the test, in other words, teaching the material that they will be testing on. Otherwise they are teaching the wrong things upon which the students will be graded. I agree, teaching the test, i.e. encouraging students to remember that the answer to question 1. is C, is wrong. It is cheating and must be punished, as I assume that teacher who was caught will be. That is a pretty easy solution, there are rules currently against handing out the test to students before the test aren’t there?
But they do. I have done the math and presented it.
20 to 25 kids @ $4,500… $90,000.00 - $112,500.00 per year (for 36 weeks) Insert salaries, benefits, rent, supplies, a five year loan on $100,000 worth of brand new equipment, furniture and textbooks. It works.
[quote]
4. If students form a bad school, suddenly go to a better school, then you’ve effectively made that school a poorer performing school. This is COMMON SENSE! [\quote]
How do you figure? Do you assume these children are incapable of learning? Do you suggest that their school is failing because of the ineptitude of the students? I can’t argue with common sense like that, I just hope the world at large does not agree, if I understood you correctly.
NOTE: MODs, please make a smilie, pulling their hair out!
JAG:
There’s a difference between teachers teaching the material they will be testing on, and teaching the material they will be tested on. Do you see the distinction? The content of the tests are standardized–the teacher has no discretion in the curriculum they set.
Yes! You put the second tested in italics! just kidding
I think I understand what you are saying…
Does that then imply teachers should have carte blanche on their choice of curriculum? If their curriculum isn’t getting students to a minimal skill level, then their curriculum is flawed. If there isn’t some outside input on curriculum we could have those dreaded religious and neo-nazi freaks teaching right inside the public schools.
stuffinb… sorry, I forgetted to check my post before sending it out there with it’s missing end quote. =(
I’m still not getting the cost effective stuff. Here in the Twin Cities you can rent light industrial space for as cheap as $4 a square foot (I’m sure its less in other parts of the country, and significantly more in, say San Francisco). You are getting a box, no ceiling, no carpet, no walls. I figure you can get by with a 40x40 space. You have to rent for all twelve months, even if you only use the space 8-9 months a year. So:
40x40= 1600 sq feet @ $4/sqft = $6400 a month * 12 months = $76,800.
You still need to heat the place, that isn’t included in light industrial rent (not a $4 a square foot). And we are only counting classrooms, we don’t have hallways or administrative offices. We don’t have a lunchroom. And we are teaching kids in a concrete box.
JAGs numbers are 25 students at $4500 = $112,500 - rent ($76,800), leaves $35,700 to pay salaries, benefits, insurance, equipment and supplies, heat, lights.
JAG, how have you proved cost effectivness again? I’m missing it.
Real estate is quoted on a per square foot basis per year, not per month… 1600 sq feet @ $4/sq ft = $6,400 per year.
Check it out with any realtor.
More likely, a school would lease office space at around $10/sq ft up to 2000 square feet, carpeted with a vanilla shell and plumbing at $20,000 per year including utilities.
JAG, this is the Boolean fallacy, or the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is obviously reasonable ground between “no control over their curriculum” and “carte blanche with regard to their curriculum.” To put it more simply, there’s a word you should learn that comes between “all” and “none.” It’s called “some.” Please don’t make me call you on a fallacy again; I hate being anal like that.
What do you think of the review excerpt I quoted, which involved a teacher’s course materials being literally taken away from her in favor of externally applied “test-prep” books until the administration of the standardized test three months later? Surely you can see that a teacher should have some control over their curriculum.
The exact term I used… some
I can’t help being anal, but I hate it too.
The first was a rhetorical question, I knew you didn’t feel that way, just as I am reasonably sure you don’t feel that supporters of the voucher program support a national curriculum. Perhaps I should have [rhetoric] [/rhetoric] around it.
I haven’t read the full antagonized-teacher story, but going on your abbreviation of the events, I don’t agree that is right. The teachers should be given the levity to provide their curriculum, provided that it teaches to the minimum educational goals for that class. By this I mean standards that have been set on Xth grade reading levels and mathematical levels. There is no reason why that levity could not continue. If the results of the curriculum are counterproductive towards the minimal educational goals of that grade; then the curriculum would need to be reviewed and altered to meet those educational goals. I don’t see that as unreasonable. I also don’t see why that would not/could not be the case with a voucher system.
Mine are in Catholic schools, but I’m not just after the money. I think accountablity is key. If the public schools want public funding, let them earn it like the private schools earn their tuitions.
I think the issue of why moving students from a poor school to a good one was addressed in my previous post. These students would be ill prepared for the curriculum of a good school and would probably need a lot of remedial work, which the good school would be unprepared to give. These students, assuming they came from a socio-economically handicapped culture, will not have parents with the money or the skills to tutor them. There is a chance that this would work with 1st graders or kindergarden, because there would not be as much remedial work to worry about, but imagine a 9th grader who can’t read and can barely add going to 10th grade at a high quality private school where a 10th grader is expected to be in their second year of algebra and the english class had 8 novels that will be tested on. This sounds like a believable scenario to me. Even if the student’s skill are at a higher level, if they are not high enough to provide a foundation for the new curriculum, the student will fail.
It looks to me like this could possibly help a few students, but 5% sounds EXTREMELY high to me. 1% sounds high. I think that around 10 students in Baltimore city would probably benefit immensely. I think that around 1000 students would be pressured by their parents to go to the tougher schools, they would do poorly, and the racism card would be played a lot. The students currently in the good schools would be the ones to suffer the most.
I’m not worried about the testing or the cost. I just think that the plan won’t work because you can’t move students into a higher quality school and expect them to perform better without some remedial work first. This remedial work will cost as much if not more than any regular schooling. We need it regardless of whether we go to vouchers or not. No one has proposed a plan for this.
Explain how competition will make the schools magically improve, if they aren’t able to already. Please give definite, concrete examples.
To JAG:
I don’t think you understand what teaching to the test means. It doesn’t mean that the teacher gives out the actual test. It means that the teacher teaches the specific subjects on the test to the exclusion of other subjects that are equally important. After all, you can’t test everything on a 3 hour test.
Also, they teach techniques to score higher which have nothing to do with the subject. For example, the SAT’s have a skewed scoring system. IIRC, you get one point for each correct answer and 1/4 off for each wrong one, so if you can eliminate 1 or 2 possible answers, odds are random guessing will come out ahead over the whole of the test.
Then, they spend valuable class time taking practice exams. I grew up in New York where Regents tests are given statewide, not to everyone, but close enough to what we’re talking about. You can get a book full of old tests and basically cliff notes of the subject in any bookstore in the state. Same for the SAT’s. For the weeks before the test, no new material is taught, just review and test practice. This does nothing to help kids really learn.
If some schools are passing the tests now and still teaching the other subjects, which I assume to include, gym class, arts, wood shop, then it can still be done at schools that are not passing the exam. In fact, isn’t it a requirement that you have xx hours of art, xx hours of gym, xx hours of electives? This would not change due to a student voucher program.
I really don’t see why teaching test taking skills is a bad idea. Quite on the contrary it is an excellent idea. Even without standardized tests, there has to be a testing system A-B-C-D-F. Taking tests is a big part of schooling, getting into a college, passing college, then professional licensing, then job interviewing. Test-taking skills are essential and should be taught.
I am pretty sure you agreed that teachers will not teach practice exams year round. Practice exams reaffirm the information previously taught while directing it towards the pending exam. An additional benefit is that they hopefully result in relaxation with the examination, as tests tend to stress most people, children included. I also had practice exams in public school, it was a good idea, it gave us a preview of what was coming so that it was easier to deal with on test day. It also can be an effective tool during the school year for the school to gauge the students’ preparedness for the year-end exam and concentrate on areas where the students are lacking.
To the extent of taking a practice test every day for three weeks, I agree, that does not benefit the students. Since it is up to the States to test and evaluate the schools, it will also be up to the States to protect against improper conduct at individual schools. Your school in New York did these things without any pass/fail consequences. My school in Maryland did not. There currently are and will continue to be differences in teaching methods, curriculums, and minimum standards from State to State and from school to school.
Today, if someone were in a school that did nothing but teaching practice exams and testing methods to better the school, disreguarding the students, the students and parents can pay for a private school, move to another school district, or take parental action against the curriculum. I believe you will find most teachers would be opposed to the above method, as well as most parents. With a voucher program, a fourth alternative is available for the poor.
I think it gives teachers too little credit to assume that they would line up to teach nothing but the examination all year. There may be some that will sink to such levels, but I have to believe that most teachers do what they do out of something a bit deeper than a paycheck.
Just for giggles alert****
The local radio stations are reporting that the most recent polls (God I hate polls) predict that California Prop. 38, the school voucher initiative, will be soundly defeated. Let’s hope this is true.