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.
You are absoultely right about throwing money to the schools. Most indeed doesn't go where it needs to go.
What about parents who are so worried about where the rent money is coming from next month or so addicted to crack, that they cannot even entertain the thought of choosing "the best school"? Sadly in many, many homes, school choice is not a priority.
Nancy
The voucher system wouldn't eliminate public schools. People who can't or don't choose to entertain school choice could still attend them. Though I must wonder why a crack addict who does nothing about their addiction continues to be a custodial parent.
If the "voucher" system was the answer then ALL of Minnesota's schools would be excellent. Voucher systems are not the answer. Minnesota has had statewide open enrollment for 20 years and the bad schools are still bad and the great schools are still great. It has done nothing to improve the bad schools but it has given a lot of kids a choice of where to go to school. The problem is, parents are parents and if you don't care if your kid gets an education in an inner city school you won't care if your kid gets and education in a good suburban school. Those that need to use the program the most, don't take advantage of the program. Until you address the issue of FAMILIES and PARENTS not caring about how their children do in school, schools will not improve. The proof of that is very easy to see-find a good school and you find parents that care, look at a bad school and where are the parents??
I agree with you that vouchers do not work. I do, however, disagree about why they do not work.
Parents who have low levels of education themselves or who have low levels of English comprehension have higher barriers to getting their children transfered into better performing schools. Additionally, much published information about school performance is accessed online, requiring computer access and some internet literacy. If the school system provided assistance to such vulnerable families in failing schools and helped them to thoughtfully choose better schools, then the system would be more fair (but also more expensive).
Also, going to an out-of-district school often creates transportation and scheduling challenges for families. Here again, middle class and affluent families have more flexibility in making arrangements on behalf of their children.
In the mean time, middle class and affluent children flee struggling schools as quickly as possible. The funding and attention they take with them can contribute to further sinking poor performing schools.
I agree with you that vouchers do not work. I do, however, disagree about why they do not work.
Parents who have low levels of education themselves or who have low levels of English comprehension have higher barriers to getting their children transfered into better performing schools. Additionally, much published information about school performance is accessed online, requiring computer access and some internet literacy. If the school system provided assistance to such vulnerable families in failing schools and helped them to thoughtfully choose better schools, then the system would be more fair (but also more expensive).
Also, going to an out-of-district school often creates transportation and scheduling challenges for families. Here again, middle class and affluent families have more flexibility in making arrangements on behalf of their children.
In the mean time, middle class and affluent children flee struggling schools as quickly as possible. The funding and attention they take with them can contribute to further sinking poor performing schools.
Assistance is available to anyone that wants it either through the state or the schools themselves. Free transportation is provided from the inner city schools to several suburban schools for those that want to use it--it is NOT provided for kids in the suburban districts going to a different district however. Like I said, those parents (or students for that matter) that care about getting a good eduction seek out the opportunities available, those that don't care, don't.
performance, how you you propose that we do this? Consider the following:
We are dealing with human beings who have different personalities, life experiences and moods. Students are sick or absent from school often (usually not the child's fault unless you are dealing with a teenage student) and the list goes on.
If you want it based on test scores what about:
Kindergartners and first graders? It is developmentally inappropriate to test five and six year old children and get accurate results. Then you would have to consider that you are dealing with children who have had a very wide range of experiences. Some come to Kindergarten already reading because they have supportive, literate parents who know how to parent their children. Some come not even being able to recognize their names, colors or shapes and don't even know the difference between a letter, a number, a word and a sentence.
As they get older you are dealing with the same issues. We want them all at the same place by the end of the school year, but still you are dealing with children who have parents who are illiterate, in jail, who have never owned a book or taken them to the library, who have abused and/or neglected them and who haven't given them a meal since yesterday's free school lunch, as well as children whose parents are members of PTA, who discipline and love their children, read to their children and talk and play with their children. There is no equality and it rarely levels out over the years.
How do you propose we rate music teachers, art teachers, PE coaches, band directors, chorus directors, home economics teachers, Media Specialists, foreign language teachers, guidance counselors, etc.?
What about the difference in test scores between the teachers of students in IB programs, gifted classes, etc., teachers of students in general ed classrooms in mostly middle class socioeconomic schools and teachers of students in very poor neighborhoods? What about teachers who teach special ed children? I had two students moved out of my K classroom last year and into an ESE program because their IQ full scale scores were 60. Is it fair to pay a teacher based on those students' scores?
You could base it largely on the evaluation by the school administrator, but those can be very political. I have had the personal privilege of having one who would rate you lower if he didn't agree with something you said or did, even if it had nothing to do with what was going on in your classroom. Thankfully those types of probably few and far between, but they're out there and can ruin careers.
As a teacher for 27 years and a parent of two young adult children and one going to middle school next year I agree that there are some teachers out there who should have never entered the profession and some who have taught long and hard and need to consider retirement, but those too are few and far between. Consider too that we can only go as far academically and with discipline as the school district and states will allow us to go. We cannot just automatically retain children, place them in special classes without testing, staffing and if necessary, due process and cannot just expel or throw them out. Nor can we move into their homes to show them a little love, discipline them, make sure they get a bedtime story, a good night's rest and a good dinner. Those decisions and rights are not ours.
Fair proposals? I would love to hear them!
Nancy
In any occupation, there are ways to measure achievements and teachers are no different. Also, children can be tested to gage their achievement also. Granted the tests can be designed to suit their mental abilities according to age.
There is no equality in life. All I can say that all we can do is do our best with our kids and the community. There is so much you can do. We did that with our kids and do help the community doing volunteer work with children and families that may need some help in life.
I remember an anecdote of the granpa walking along the beach with his grandson. As they walk along the grandpa pick up starfish back to the sea. The grandchild asked why do that if he cannot help of the starfish. The grandpa said "Well, I did help this one, and this one, and this one. It matters to them that I helped them. You cannot save all the starfish in the world but I know I made a difference to the ones I saved."
Regardless of what programs we come up with to help the education system do a better job for the students, we will not be able to have a program for every single student according to his needs. Some, sadly, will stay by the wayside. That does not mean we cannot try to help as many as we can though and our goal is to reach them all but realistically that will not happen. Resource are scarce in every area of our lives and in society so we cannot just think about saving students. There are many other issues we still have to attend. The other day I was reading a list of lobbyists. Well, I was amazed to read there is a lobbyist for just about every issue there is they all want a piece of the pie from the federal government. There is only so much available out there, take care.
If you can't feed your children, why do you have custody?
...
The voucher system wouldn't eliminate public schools. People who can't or don't choose to entertain school choice could still attend them. Though I must wonder why a crack addict who does nothing about their addiction continues to be a custodial parent.
There is already a shortage of foster homes for the children whose parents abuse them or neglect them to the point of being dangerous. The department of social services tries to keep children with their parents until (often after) the conditions deteriorate to the point where the children's lives are at stake.
What do you suggest we do with such children? I've recommended orphanages or children's homes be re-introduced. Not only would the children at least be in a structured environment where they would be on a regular schedule with proper mealtimes, but the negligent parents would lose the money that acts as an incentive to keep having such children.
I've been at the same school for 17 years now. There were 169 students who passed through my classes last year, though I ended the year with only 125. These students were responsible for bringing 22 children into this world. Four of them had two children each. So far. That I know of.
It's a daunting situation.
It is the norm in the inner city for girls to become pregnant--the older ones by their boyfriends, the younger ones by older predatory men, often their mothers' boyfriends. It is the norm for the "baby daddies" to have more than one "baby mama". It is the norm to be on government aid for food, housing, medical care, child care, and now cell phones. Some families try to get their children to act out at school so that they can get a "crazy check", the name for SSI, which can bring in around $500 per child. Life is not so unbearable when you have several thousand dollars coming in each month with all necessary living expenses paid.
My question is at what age is a child supposed to realize that this is a bad way of life and begin focussing on getting a good education so that he/she can leave his family behind? Five? Nine? Thirteen? Then the girl gets pregnant at fourteen or fifteen and the cycle starts again. The boy gets in trouble with the authorities and the cycle starts again. To break away from the norm is much more difficult and less rewarding than to go with the flow.
Most problems in American schools originate in social problems. For the last fifty years, our society has tried to redefine them as school problems. In the inner city, that has been three generations. The problems did not begin in the schools, and they cannot be solved by the schools.
Paying teachers more is not the solution to improve the schools. You can clearly see, from all your questions, that devising such a system would cause too many problems. The teachers/administrators would waste so much time trying to game the system. The major problem with the school system is the fact that most of the money sent to schools DOES NOT go to the classroom. It goes to other stuff that has zero effect on classroom performance.
The solution to solve this is to move to a voucher system. Allocate public dollars to each student and the student can decide what school to attend. That will introduce a very competitive atmosphere for educating children. The schools that perform best will be rewarded with more students wanting to go to the school. Schools will become more specialized as well. For example, there will be schools that will cater to specific students like the blind, hearing impaired or mentally disabled. All of the waste and bureaucracy will be eliminated. Schools will be forced to deliver the best value or they will simply lose their customers (the students).
In the above system, teachers will be paid what they are worth. A teacher that does not perform well will simply be let go and teachers that perform exceptionally will be rewarded with continued employment, bonuses and other such incentives.
Who pays for school construction? Would the vouchers go to the school or to the teacher? Wouldn't your system reflect on the schools and not INDIVIDUAL teachers? If a weak teacher goes to a good school are they in good? A good teacher in a weak school? What happens when a class is full if you are paying individual teachers? Can they bid their salary up to take you?
There is already a shortage of foster homes for the children whose parents abuse them or neglect them to the point of being dangerous. The department of social services tries to keep children with their parents until (often after) the conditions deteriorate to the point where the children's lives are at stake.
What do you suggest we do with such children? I've recommended orphanages or children's homes be re-introduced. Not only would the children at least be in a structured environment where they would be on a regular schedule with proper mealtimes, but the negligent parents would lose the money that acts as an incentive to keep having such children.
I've been at the same school for 17 years now. There were 169 students who passed through my classes last year, though I ended the year with only 125. These students were responsible for bringing 22 children into this world. Four of them had two children each. So far. That I know of.
It's a daunting situation.
It is the norm in the inner city for girls to become pregnant--the older ones by their boyfriends, the younger ones by older predatory men, often their mothers' boyfriends. It is the norm for the "baby daddies" to have more than one "baby mama". It is the norm to be on government aid for food, housing, medical care, child care, and now cell phones. Some families try to get their children to act out at school so that they can get a "crazy check", the name for SSI, which can bring in around $500 per child. Life is not so unbearable when you have several thousand dollars coming in each month with all necessary living expenses paid.
My question is at what age is a child supposed to realize that this is a bad way of life and begin focussing on getting a good education so that he/she can leave his family behind? Five? Nine? Thirteen? Then the girl gets pregnant at fourteen or fifteen and the cycle starts again. The boy gets in trouble with the authorities and the cycle starts again. To break away from the norm is much more difficult and less rewarding than to go with the flow.
Most problems in American schools originate in social problems. For the last fifty years, our society has tried to redefine them as school problems. In the inner city, that has been three generations. The problems did not begin in the schools, and they cannot be solved by the schools.
But schools do make a great scapegoat.
Very good pioints and very good questions. I know what you are talking about because I am a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) on behalf of neglected and abused children. My latest case shows some signs of hope after both the father and the mother spend time in jail, got out, have been working with CPS on their rehab and just two weeks ago they go their children back. What are the odds the children will follow on mom and dad footsteps? From what I see pretty high but I still have hope. The foster home the spent four years in had a wonderful couple that took care of them as if they were their own children. How much of an impact they had on those kids? Time will tell, take care.
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.
