Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If any of you saw the debate last night, I'd like to know what you thought about Romney's comments regarding ranking schools and allowing parents to decide where they would put their child. What bothered me about this was that by not saying he would help low achieving districts , it seems like he would ignore them; I may be thinking too much into it, but it's my honest opinion. What about you guys?
Did Romney mention how children would get to those schools? I guess he doesn't realize that it costs a ton of money and resources to bus kids to their local schools, and sending them wherever their parents choose would be completely cost and logistics prohibitive. Of course, if parents are supposed to drive their kids to another school, then that's a perfect Romney solution - only the parents with enough time and resources to drive their kids to a distant school every day will get to good schools, while all those without resources will remain in the neighborhood, thus creating a perfect way to segregate have and have nots within the public school system (as if we needed any help with that, anyway).
This is one big problem with vouchers. You cannot build enough new schools and make them good schools in a timely fashion. Many of the current charter schools are just as bad as any of the public schools. Many of the good suburban schools won't have space for more struggling students *and* they may not really help because one of the reasons those schools are good is the wealth and education of the parents of their students. It's a conundrum.
Imo, what is needed is to somehow help those schools that already exist to become better. We would have to hire more teachers and reduce the class sizes in those schools. We would have to get services to the parents and families including good health services and food. We would have to actually commit to finding the best placement for individual students so that kids with behavioral problems did not disrupt the learning of kids who want to learn. We would have to have reasonable discipline in place and not put this all on the backs of the teachers. We might have to have more than one teacher in each classroom - one to handle discipline problems and the other to teach the material.
If they are privately run, the school can reject or 86 the kid. I know someone whose kid was in Catholic school and didn't like the way something was being done. Her kid was a slacker who didn't do her homework, write reports, etc. The school listened and said the equivalent of, "Thank you. Have a nice day. We hope you find a school for XYZ." They had a waiting list to get in. That's what competition does. Your kid doesn't want to do the work or doesn't toe the line - Bye. The school doesn't need your money when another kid is willing to do the work and is coming with their voucher for your good teachers and programs. And that non-slacker kid deserves a good learning environment no matter where they live, who they are or how much money their parents make. And you know what? Good teachers deserve receptive students, too.
If I was President, every kid would have to pass the same tests that immigrants trying to become citizens have to pass before they could graduate high school. Welfare and food stamps would only go to high school graduates. You want to quit school, no adult freebies for you. You can still go back and get a GED. You would also have to pass a class in personal finances in order to graduate. And those remedial college classes for incoming freshmen? The high schools that let those kids graduate would have to take them back on their (the school's) own dime until the colleges deemed they were ready for college. Maybe that would put an end to grade inflation just to push them out the door.
I could see charter schools strictly for kids with different levels of learning disabilities and teachers dedicated to teaching them along with kids that have to play catch up due to some long illness, can't speak English.
I could also see very good schools dedicated to kids who don't want to go to college but want to learn a trade. Maybe schools partnering with business these kids could get apprenticeships and internships to give them a taste of work ethic. Nothing wrong with turning out good electricians, plumbers, computer/TV repair people, etc. I know I'm more likely to need them than, for example, a gender studies major.
I also would consult college professors and instructors and business people for input on how to improve the high schools. They have to deal with what's coming out of them so they should know what's lacking/needs improvement.
Disciplinary problems would probably all be in the same classes in the same schools of last resort. I think in the old days they were called Reform Schools. Maybe their mentors could come from the prison system.
Why would you put your kid in a school in a low achieving district if you had a choice? The purpose of school choice is to make schools competitive so they will be better and attract students. The ones that refuse to compete will die out. The kid becomes a winner by being in a good school. Good teachers become winners and get paid more because the competitive schools will be competing to hire them. Have you ever seen the documentary "Waiting for Superman" made in 2010?
"Waiting for Superman" was a hit piece on teacher's unions based mostly on the fantasy of the folks that backed it (the ones that want to see a private takeover of public education).
The competition model of school choice only works if you have motivated and well-informed parents who want their kids in the best school possible. Unfortunately a huge chunk of parents are either uninvolved in their child's education or have personal motivations for choosing schools including geography, teaching philosophies, etc. In other words, parents may choose an inferior school because it's closer to where they live, or because it teaches Creationism instead of Evolution, or for a whole host of other reasons that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the school. Will this type of "choice" lift educational outcomes nationally?
Also, the competition model seems to imply the largest and most important factor in a child's educational development is the teacher/school. However you could have a hypothetical school with the best teachers, best curriculum, and best educational practices but because it has the most challenging students (those with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, language differences, little home support, extremely poor, etc.) the school as a whole ends up having extremely mediocre test scores. This school would likely be labeled a "failure" and be closed as a result under the competitive model. Would that make any sense?
Oftentimes student test scores are not a great way of gauging how well a teacher is doing her job or school is serving its purpose. The "product" of a school takes years to come fruition. It's never instantaneous, and certainly not measurable by a few hours of testing. It's really nothing like the type of product you'll find in most other competitive markets. As such, competition does not work anywhere near as well in education as it does in many other realms of society. It's not the panacea that Romney and others seem to think it is.
If they are privately run, the school can reject or 86 the kid. I know someone whose kid was in Catholic school and didn't like the way something was being done. Her kid was a slacker who didn't do her homework, write reports, etc. The school listened and said the equivalent of, "Thank you. Have a nice day. We hope you find a school for XYZ." They had a waiting list to get in. That's what competition does. Your kid doesn't want to do the work or doesn't toe the line - Bye. The school doesn't need your money when another kid is willing to do the work and is coming with their voucher for your good teachers and programs. And that non-slacker kid deserves a good learning environment no matter where they live, who they are or how much money their parents make. And you know what? Good teachers deserve receptive students, too.
If I was President, every kid would have to pass the same tests that immigrants trying to become citizens have to pass before they could graduate high school. Welfare and food stamps would only go to high school graduates. You want to quit school, no adult freebies for you. You can still go back and get a GED. You would also have to pass a class in personal finances in order to graduate. And those remedial college classes for incoming freshmen? The high schools that let those kids graduate would have to take them back on their (the school's) own dime until the colleges deemed they were ready for college. Maybe that would put an end to grade inflation just to push them out the door.
I could see charter schools strictly for kids with different levels of learning disabilities and teachers dedicated to teaching them along with kids that have to play catch up due to some long illness, can't speak English.
I could also see very good schools dedicated to kids who don't want to go to college but want to learn a trade. Maybe schools partnering with business these kids could get apprenticeships and internships to give them a taste of work ethic. Nothing wrong with turning out good electricians, plumbers, computer/TV repair people, etc. I know I'm more likely to need them than, for example, a gender studies major.
I also would consult college professors and instructors and business people for input on how to improve the high schools. They have to deal with what's coming out of them so they should know what's lacking/needs improvement.
Disciplinary problems would probably all be in the same classes in the same schools of last resort. I think in the old days they were called Reform Schools. Maybe their mentors could come from the prison system.
So in other words we'd still have a large number of schools full of challenging and unmotivated students, schools that in a competitive, accountability-based system would be deemed "failures"? At least you're being honest about the reality of the situation. I think that a lot of folks that support the competition model would find that unacceptable, though.
On the flip side, you're also proposing honors schools, vocational ed schools, and other selective schools for average and above average students. I think that idea makes a lot of sense, however I do not think it's necessary to completely overhaul the system to do it. We just need to create more magnet schools of a wider variety and this could be done either intra-district (see Walnut Hills in Cincinnati) or inter-district (see Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia). Giving students educational options, especially for secondary students, is definitely a good thing. Some will end up deciding to stay in comprehensive neighborhood schools, and that option should exist, too. In fact these could be strengthened significantly if they were simply given the same ability to "86" the most difficult 10-15% of students that charter schools and parochial schools have.
I don't think Romney gives a fig about low ranking schools. I think he would like there to be two Americas - one for the wealthy, people of his ilk. And another to work at service industry jobs.
You know, waiters at Country Clubs, housekeepers, gardeners an lawn maintenance people, sales associates in Tiffany - that sort of thing.
It's another spin on "No Child Left Behind" - a way to penalize poorer school districts and poor kids. Don't fall for it.
I wish Romney, if elected, pulled the plug on Dept. of Ed. and turned everything back over to the states. Give them some money for big ticket items but get it back to the local level. Every new President comes out with "new and exciting education fixes" and we get worse each year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
