Any up and coming school districts I should know about? (Cincinnati: coupons, neighborhood) - Ohio (OH) - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

kjbrill · 10-23-2011, 02:42 PM

Crew Chief... I am not waging war on special needs or gifted children. I am just saying requiring every school district to provide for them does not make sense. Consolidate these needs in centralized locations. Do you get paid in your job for a few special requirements? My estimate is NO, you work for a mainstream businesss and get paid accordingly. Place the special needs requirements in a special needs environment. Place the gifted child in a gifted child environment and require the parents to pay for it. Then we will see just how gifted they believe their child is.

Public education should be charged with providing the best education for the largest cross-section of children. This does not mean it must cover the whole spectrum.

Crew Chief · 10-23-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Crew Chief... I am not waging war on special needs or gifted children. I am just saying requiring every school district to provide for them does not make sense. Consolidate these needs in centralized locations. Do you get paid in your job for a few special requirements? My estimate is NO, you work for a mainstream businesss and get paid accordingly. Place the special needs requirements in a special needs environment. Place the gifted child in a gifted child environment and require the parents to pay for it. Then we will see just how gifted they believe their child is.

Public education should be charged with providing the best education for the largest cross-section of children. This does not mean it must cover the whole spectrum.

KjBrill, I'm with ya! But in today's reality, neither idea would fly. Special needs services are required by state law, so every district must provide services. And you've no doubt seen that special needs parents (understandably so) include how a district provides services in their decision to relocate to a specific district. The best ones get more kids. Now, within a given district, an effort is made to pool services at one school building, which helps with costs.

Make parents pay for Gifted services for their child(ren)??? Yeah, that'd go over about as well as a district saying: "We're ending all athletic programs to concentrate on academics"...

kjbrill · 10-26-2011, 11:37 AM

Crew Chief... Perhaps you haven't noticed how many districts are now charging an extra fee, and in some cases hefty, to participate in sports. If we can have vocational schools, why not special needs or gifted? The districts may be required to participate in the costs, but economy of scale should make a difference. Since over 80% of school budgets are salaries, we need to think of ways to reduce the number of people involved.

Wilson513 · 10-26-2011, 01:48 PM

School districts use things that directly affect parents to gin up support for their wasteful school levies. Every district is bloated with administrators and excessive salaries and benefits and redundant positions. So when they want to squeeze the voters they cancel bus service or sports.
I pray for the end of the monopoly of government schools. Every parent of a school child should be entitled to spend their state's contribution to educational costs exactly where that parent chooses. And, teachers should never, ever be granted "tenure" nor permitted to collectively bargain for anything. It is depressing that we have now another generation of disadvantaged children whose school systems have failed them. A few privileged children in districts like Mariemont, Indian hill Wyoming, etc. escape this fate, but that does nothing to overcome the almost universal unfairness of the educational system. What is needed is parental choice not more money.

kjbrill · 10-26-2011, 03:19 PM

Wow Wilson... You are right off the top. Can't say I disagree. The idea of a parent being able to spend the state's contribution to education anywhere they see fit I totally agree with. We need to break the cycle of underachieving kids compared to ever escalating costs. I am appalled when I see the data on CPS, one of the highest cost but less achieving districts in the region.

Wilson513 · 10-26-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Wow Wilson... You are right off the top. Can't say I disagree. The idea of a parent being able to spend the state's contribution to education anywhere they see fit I totally agree with. We need to break the cycle of underachieving kids compared to ever escalating costs. I am appalled when I see the data on CPS, one of the highest cost but less achieving districts in the region.

Stossel had an excellent expose' on this last week. Certainly, it is beyond argument that more money does not mean better education. And, the biggest obstacle to good education is tenure and collective bargaining. and, school administration is not without fault.

Matthew Hall · 10-26-2011, 09:33 PM

Up and coming is dead and gone these days. Holding on and slowly building is the best anyone can hope for. Even lakota and some other districts are having trouble getting used to the decline of suburban property values and tax income. Walnut Hills, SCPA,and some other CPS schools have waiting lists while some of the kentucky districts are doing better and better. Times are achangin' in schools like in everything else.

wrightflyer · 10-27-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilson513

School districts use things that directly affect parents to gin up support for their wasteful school levies. (1)Every district is bloated with administrators and excessive salaries and benefits and redundant positions. So when they want to squeeze the voters they cancel bus service or sports.
I pray for the end of the monopoly of government schools. (2)Every parent of a school child should be entitled to spend their state's contribution to educational costs exactly where that parent chooses. And, teachers should never, ever be granted "tenure" nor permitted to collectively bargain for anything. (3)It is depressing that we have now another generation of disadvantaged children whose school systems have failed them. A few privileged children in districts like Mariemont, Indian hill Wyoming, etc. escape this fate, but that does nothing to overcome the almost universal unfairness of the educational system. What is needed is parental choice not more money.

(1) So under this logic, we should lower everyone's salaries (public AND private) until no one is making anything and the economy just collapses?

(2) I do think this would be an interesting experiment and may work better than the current property tax/state funding pool method of paying for our K-12 education system. Still, not voting for levies will not change this aspect of funding. Politicians will not act until the education system across the state is in the gutter, and even then they may twiddle their thumbs. Do we really want to be the next Mississippi? Write your state rep and senator on top of voting down levies.

(3) Since our system has changed over the last generation of students, I don't think you can compare today's failure to yesteryear's. There will always be people, families, kids, who are left out of the advancement or changes to a system. Sorry but life is unfair to everyone, some more than others. Also, disadvantaged kids probably lack parental involvement, and any change to the education system will not change that. This would tie in directly with your last sentence, and I challenge you with why should we punish all the kids in a district by not giving them a chance (which costs $$$) just because a certain percentage have failed? Has that failure really been a complete lack of a good school? Or is it more on the home front?

wrightflyer · 10-27-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Crew Chief... Perhaps you haven't noticed how many districts are now charging an extra fee, and in some cases hefty, to participate in sports. If we can have vocational schools, why not special needs or gifted?

There is only one problem with this. Compulsory education requires we, as taxpayers (whether we have kids or don't have kids in the system), fund schooling. Period. Sports, and other activities, can get away with charging a fee because they are not part of that compulsory piece of education.

Think of it this way, if I never use my city's police/fire/EMS, why should I have to pay for it? I never use it. The same argument could be said for schools, roads, healthcare, etc. It would be impossible to pay for these things if they were not subsidized by tax dollars (or premiums in the case of health insurance).

wrightflyer · 10-27-2011, 02:49 PM

To the OP, if you really like the homes of Mt Lookout, Hyde Park, etc. I would seriously look into private schools if CPS does not fit your tastes. Yes, it may be more expensive than sending your son to a public school in Mariemont or Wyoming, but a compromise may be needed at some point. Wyoming, while home to some pre-WWII homes, is still mostly 1950's and later. Glendale, Princeton schools, may be a good fit. Personally, I have met some wonderful people who have attended Princeton. Either way, a compromise is probably in the future, be it on the housing front or with which schools you will choose.