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.
What a fantastic thing! I would have never thought that the subject of dismantling public education would ever be seriously broached in this country. And yet here I am drinking my coffee and seeing that it IS a serious possibility, at least in certain enlightened areas.
I've always thought that schools are nothing more than a service, and the private sector under competitive pressures could do a far better job than the stifled miasmic monolithic state system. Imagine the innovation that would take place if ALL schools were private and paid for directly by the parents.
We're not there by any means, even with this legislation. But it is a start. Credit to Nevada!
I wonder if any of you who think vouchers are a good idea are teachers? I'm guessing you're not. Charters and vouchers are exactly why I quit working as a teacher: the pay at private schools is abysmal and charters go through teachers like I go through cheap underwear. By applying business models like "the customer is always right", we will see the death of the career-teacher, and your kids will only be taught by newbies who will be thrown in the trash in a few years. And don't be fooled if your child's teacher is older: there's lots of insta-teacher programs for people with degrees in other fields.
I don't know how good schools can be when all the teachers are inexperienced. We want our doctors, lawyers, and mechanics to have years of experience, but for some reason not the person we trust with our children. Strange.
Glad I quit teaching when did. All I can do is shake my head at the short-sightedness of all this.
There is no reason on Earth why educating children should be limited to a public funding model. I would like to see complete privatization. Teacher salaries would be directly related to performance. There would be no seniority and no tenure. You perform, or you are out. Like every other job.
Perhaps teacher salaries would rise under a private system where all the tax money now confiscated for this purpose were available to the private sector to pay for education.
I wouldn't trust most private schools (especially the religious ones) to provide a fair, unbiased education to my children. They have shown time and time again to have a strong stance against science and push conservative political values.
Do you have evidence for this accusation? I attended a public high school, but our local Catholic high school's students consistently outperformed our students in all subject matter, even though we had substantially more money to educate our students than the Catholic school had. We even had brand new science labs, while theirs were decades old. We had teachers with BS degrees in the sciences, while they had teachers with graduate degrees, including PhDs teaching them. Something tells me those PhDs didn't have a strong stance against science.
Why did the Catholic schools have teachers with graduate degrees in the sciences and we did not? Teachers' unions would require the public schools to pay a PhD teacher substantially higher than a teacher with just a BS, but those PhD teachers needed jobs too, so they obviously took lower paying jobs at the Catholic schools.
As for Catholic schools pushing conservative political values, there's both truth and non-truth to that statement. Catholic schools encourage prayer and teach the Catholic values in their religion classes (from what I understand), but the parents sending their children to these schools know what to expect from the school's mission and realize that parts of Catholic faith will be taught. Considering that I live in one of the largest east coast cities and know that many of my local Catholic schools are rich with economic and racial diversity, it's pretty safe to say that many liberal parents know their kids will receive a stronger education at our local Catholic schools than our abysmal public schools. If they learn a few values on the way, such as treating others the way we wish to be treated, then that's a good thing. With the number of non-Catholics attending these schools, I'm not under the impression that they're heavily indoctrinating these kids. There's just not much of an affordable option for parents not wanting to send their kids to our failing local public schools.
Lastly, I attended a Catholic college, even though I was an atheist and never once felt that I was being indoctrinated. I had to study the Catholic church, but that's all it was: learning about its history. I also took a course in world religions and never felt as though I was being indoctrinated. Catholicism was there on campus if you were interested, and they offered numerous community service projects, since Catholics do so much for the poor. If anything, I learned just how much they do to serve the less fortunate. (By the way, my Catholic college's science department was recognized for being outstanding - we consistently sent numerous students each year to medical school, despite what a small school we were.)
So, just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that children should be taught conservative values in Catholic schools, what do you suggest for a curriculum (both public and private) that's becoming more and more liberal from elementary through college, regardless as to whether or not that's what parents or students want? Do you believe that only liberal theory should be taught in public schools or do you believe that political ideology should be left out of all institutions, unless they're political science courses?
To address the OP, I agree with school choice. Our local schools continue to fail, regardless as to how much money we throw at them. With a budget in the billions, they still continue to ask for more money to solve problems that can't be solved solely with money. Our local private schools continue to outperform our public schools with far less money, so maybe it's time our public school system looked at the private schools to see how schools should truly be run. One of our biggest issues is corruption within the administration. It's widely known and is regularly covered in the media, but nothing is ever done about it. Instead, they continue to waste and waste and waste, and the kids never see that money. So, yes, please give OUR money to kids who want to attend a better school and have a chance at succeeding.
There is no reason on Earth why educating children should be limited to a public funding model. I would like to see complete privatization. Teacher salaries would be directly related to performance. There would be no seniority and no tenure. You perform, or you are out. Like every other job.
Perhaps teacher salaries would rise under a private system where all the tax money now confiscated for this purpose were available to the private sector to pay for education.
Let's try it and see.
The whole problem is the definition of "perform." I hate my public school and want to put my child in private, but the reason is because the classes are overcrowded (lack of funding) and the curriculum is entirely test-prep and very stressful ("performance = test scores). So first the government ruins public education, then says maybe someone else can do better. I'd prefer the federal government take its nose out our business and let public schools get back to being rational, normal places again that serve children instead of politicians.
Oh yes, absolutely. Disruptive students are out the door. What would happen in a private system is that schools, or divisions within schools, would cater to the malcontents. Perhaps they might need more of a "military" model or mentality where expectations are more clearly and loudly expressed. There would be a better division of teaching talent, with normal kids getting the proper doses of gentle authoritarianism while trouble kids who need stronger attention could get that more efficiently.
Again, this is independent of funding. The mode of teaching and training is independent of where the money comes from. If parents had to pay for their kids education directly and out of their own pocket, they would be more circumspect about having the proper amount of kids for their resources. They would also be more demanding of how and what their kids are taught. That is what we want. Interested and engaged parents who choose their child's curriculum based on their own personal philosophy.
Of course, we also need a sea change in certain other concepts. Specifically rights. There is no right to an education, and no one has a right to demand that others pay for the education of children they choose to bring into the world. This would be revolutionary, as we now operate under an opposite presumption.
I would also predict a drastic decrease in random procreation in general. If you literally had to educate your kids, instead of dumping them in 18 years of glorified free babysitting with a little random learning thrown in, you might think twice or three times about having an accident.
The final product would be a generation of kids who, for the most part, were planned, provided for, guided, and educated with meticulous attention to detail by parents who were interested and engaged and had to PAY BIG MONEY to make it all happen. Can you imagine what kind of adults and society would result? Can you imagine how strong and vibrant a country we would become under such a system?
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 06-06-2015 at 08:14 AM..
Do you have evidence for this accusation? I attended a public high school, but our local Catholic high school's students consistently outperformed our students in all subject matter, even though we had substantially more money to educate our students than the Catholic school had. We even had brand new science labs, while theirs were decades old. We had teachers with BS degrees in the sciences, while they had teachers with graduate degrees, including PhDs teaching them. Something tells me those PhDs didn't have a strong stance against science.
Why did the Catholic schools have teachers with graduate degrees in the sciences and we did not? Teachers' unions would require the public schools to pay a PhD teacher substantially higher than a teacher with just a BS, but those PhD teachers needed jobs too, so they obviously took lower paying jobs at the Catholic schools.
As for Catholic schools pushing conservative political values, there's both truth and non-truth to that statement. Catholic schools encourage prayer and teach the Catholic values in their religion classes (from what I understand), but the parents sending their children to these schools know what to expect from the school's mission and realize that parts of Catholic faith will be taught. Considering that I live in one of the largest east coast cities and know that many of my local Catholic schools are rich with economic and racial diversity, it's pretty safe to say that many liberal parents know their kids will receive a stronger education at our local Catholic schools than our abysmal public schools. If they learn a few values on the way, such as treating others the way we wish to be treated, then that's a good thing. With the number of non-Catholics attending these schools, I'm not under the impression that they're heavily indoctrinating these kids. There's just not much of an affordable option for parents not wanting to send their kids to our failing local public schools.
Lastly, I attended a Catholic college, even though I was an atheist and never once felt that I was being indoctrinated. I had to study the Catholic church, but that's all it was: learning about its history. I also took a course in world religions and never felt as though I was being indoctrinated. Catholicism was there on campus if you were interested, and they offered numerous community service projects, since Catholics do so much for the poor. If anything, I learned just how much they do to serve the less fortunate. (By the way, my Catholic college's science department was recognized for being outstanding - we consistently sent numerous students each year to medical school, despite what a small school we were.)
So, just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that children should be taught conservative values in Catholic schools, what do you suggest for a curriculum (both public and private) that's becoming more and more liberal from elementary through college, regardless as to whether or not that's what parents or students want? Do you believe that only liberal theory should be taught in public schools or do you believe that political ideology should be left out of all institutions, unless they're political science courses?
To address the OP, I agree with school choice. Our local schools continue to fail, regardless as to how much money we throw at them. With a budget in the billions, they still continue to ask for more money to solve problems that can't be solved solely with money. Our local private schools continue to outperform our public schools with far less money, so maybe it's time our public school system looked at the private schools to see how schools should truly be run. One of our biggest issues is corruption within the administration. It's widely known and is regularly covered in the media, but nothing is ever done about it. Instead, they continue to waste and waste and waste, and the kids never see that money. So, yes, please give OUR money to kids who want to attend a better school and have a chance at succeeding.
You do realize that Catholic schools do not have to take all comers, right? And they can kick students out who don't conform to their rules, right? My daughter went to a high school where you could be kicked out if you would not dress out for PE. At her school, there was, maybe, one fight a year. Failing all your classes? You're out. Go to dean on discipline referral one too many times? You're out. Need much in the way of Special Ed? You don't get in. Your middle school core teachers don't give you a recommendation? You don't get in. Her school usually was the #2 school in the county school system of over 300,000 students.
Meanwhile, at the school I worked, don't dress out for PE? No biggie. Take the F and remain at the school. There were fights several times a week despite constant supervision by adults. I've seen it with as many as five a day. Each one had to be thoroughly investigated, which took hours. Discipline referrals? No biggie. It's a revolving door in the dean's office in a public school. We have to abide by district, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, it tied the hands of doing any real discipline. If a student did something horrific (brought a weapon, drugs, arson, etc) we could expel them and send them to alternative school for a couple of months, but then they would come back. If not to our school, then another public school in the same district. Failing all your classes? There's summer school or any number of other avenues so you can get your D and go on to the next grade. Special Ed? My school had students everywhere on the continuum from students who were confined to a wheel chair, in diapers, and had no control over their bodies, to significantly autistic, to Down's Syndrome, to children who were born from mothers who were addicted to drugs when they were pregnant with their children (those students, usually have significant behavior disorders). When you are determined to be special ed, a whole new set of laws cover you. It is almost impossible to discipline or expel a special ed student.
This was every day at my school.
How did your Catholic school handle these problems?
Our local Catholic high school is almost $14,000 a year, plus textbooks and fees. And that is with the Catholic church subsidizing it. That is one of the less expensive private schools.
Oh yes, absolutely. Disruptive students are out the door. What would happen in a private system is that schools, or divisions within schools, would cater to the malcontents. Perhaps they might need more of a "military" model or mentality where expectations are more clearly and loudly expressed. There would be a better division of teaching talent, with normal kids getting the proper doses of gentle authoritarianism while trouble kids who need stronger attention could get that more efficiently.
Again, this is independent of funding. The mode of teaching and training is independent of where the money comes from. If parents had to pay for their kids education directly and out of their own pocket, they would be more circumspect about having the proper amount of kids for their resources. They would also be more demanding of how and what their kids are taught. That is what we want. Interested and engaged parents who choose their child's curriculum based on their own personal philosophy.
Of course, we also need a sea change in certain other concepts. Specifically rights. There is no right to an education, and no one has a right to demand that others pay for the education of children they choose to bring into the world. This would be revolutionary, as we now operate under an opposite presumption.
I would also predict a drastic decrease in random procreation in general. If you literally had to educate your kids, instead of dumping them in 18 years of glorified free babysitting with a little random learning thrown in, you might think twice or three times about having an accident.
The final product would be a generation of kids who, for the most part, were planned, provided for, guided, and educated with meticulous attention to detail by parents who were interested and engaged and had to PAY BIG MONEY to make it all happen. Can you imagine what kind of adults and society would result? Can you imagine how strong and vibrant a country we would become under such a system?
No. I can't imagine. In my experience, typically the students who do well today come from parents who are already interested and engaged. Schools that are "performing well" are in areas made up of this type of family. If the students who need a more militarian type of approach come from dysfunctional families, what make a you think they are going to choose to pay for the child's education? They still won't care. What about families who can't afford it?
I wonder if any of you who think vouchers are a good idea are teachers? I'm guessing you're not. Charters and vouchers are exactly why I quit working as a teacher: the pay at private schools is abysmal and charters go through teachers like I go through cheap underwear. By applying business models like "the customer is always right", we will see the death of the career-teacher, and your kids will only be taught by newbies who will be thrown in the trash in a few years. And don't be fooled if your child's teacher is older: there's lots of insta-teacher programs for people with degrees in other fields.
I don't know how good schools can be when all the teachers are inexperienced. We want our doctors, lawyers, and mechanics to have years of experience, but for some reason not the person we trust with our children. Strange.
Glad I quit teaching when did. All I can do is shake my head at the short-sightedness of all this.
Most likely not. You are correct on private and charter schools. The pay sucks and charters just rotate through new teachers. I was the 5th chemistry teacher in 10 years at the charter where I taught. It was typical to turn over 1/3 of the staff every year there. A teacher doesn't even have time to develop a good curriculum before they are on to the next teacher. After they let me go (for standing my ground on lab safety of all things) I heard that the next teacher didn't make it through the year.
Charter schools are for profit here in Michigan so they over crowd classrooms to get as many heads in as possible. Then they start expelling kids after the first head count day. My classes started the year with 36 students and I'd be down to around 28 per class by Christmas with the school keeping 75% of the money associated with the students who left. Where are those students going to go when there is no longer a public school option? Where will the students no one wants go? To schools that are now decimated by lack of funding? The students who require the most help will be the only ones left in the public schools and there won't be money to help them.
Unfortunately this move will drag down private schools too. What makes private schools great is that it's parents that care enough to pay for their child's education that use them. When everyone can use them they will be no better than the former public schools. In fact they'll be worse because you can't get quality people if you won't pay a quality wage. That's not an issue teaching a demographic where parents are affluent enough to pay their child's way but it will be when everyone can afford a private school.
Even worse is what this will do to the public school system. It will decimate it. There will be no public education choice because there won't be funding to keep the schools open. You will no longer have neighborhood schools where kids go to school together from kindergarten through graduation. On the bright side LOTS of for profit charters will open but parents won't have half the choice they think they will because they'll be lucky to find a school that has openings. It will be the schools choosing the students they will take not the parents choosing the school their children go to. Then parents will have to figure out things like transportation to and from school as most charters don't run local busses. Around here there are pick up/drop off points at malls for the kids with the kids whose parents cannot meet the bus in the afternoon left wandering the mall parking lot because in response to this problem the malls no longer allow unescorted minors into the building. They had too many kids roaming around during the afternoons.
This is not going to be as rosy as people who know nothing about education think it will be. It sounds great to have choices but choices only exist as long as there's a seat in the classroom you want your child in. Many parents will find themselves having to settle for far less than they wanted AND having do deal with transportation. I do think we need choices in education but I think this is the wrong approach. I think it will encourage home schooling by people who shouldn't home school too. Right now home schooling is pretty much limited to a demographic whose kids do very well no matter where you plant them. Middle class families with both parents in the home who can afford to have one parent stay home and homeschool. What happens to the quality of home schooling when parents who don't care and don't have a clue start keeping the kids home just to get the money?
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 06-06-2015 at 09:17 AM..
I agree with the others on here. I think it is high time we get the government out of education. It is a giant, big mistake. It doesn't work and just causes more problems. I agree, let it work, get rid of tenure. Tenure, in my experience, just protects bad people who get good benefits for life. Stop the insanity. Government is this giant black hole where all our taxes just disappear!
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.
