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.
a) I guess you are a proponent of county-wide school districts, such as exist in some states such as Maryland, with busing and other steps to obliterate local school districts. Personally, I think that's a political non-starter in Ohio, although district consolidation has greatly improved the rural education experience in Ohio, and would offer cost savings elsewhere in Ohio.
Vouchers are in their infancy in Ohio, and many politicians want to extend them to all students, which would result in the Lebanonization of not only our school systems, but also of our society. This process already is underway with the establishment of Muslim charter schools and the proliferation of Christian charter schools. Your indifference to vouchers is shocking given your concern about the inequities that distinguish existing public school districts.
No, I don't prefer county-wide districts, particularly for large, urban counties like Cuyahoga County. However I do support consolidating 33 down to about 10 or 11 districts. For instance, I see little reason why some combination of Cleveland Heights-University Heights, Shaker Heights, Beachwood, South Euclid-Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights shouldn't merge together to form a larger district. It could be done without eliminating neighborhood schools and engaging in a far-flung busing program...and still save money through other economies of scale.
In regards to your second point, please don't confuse my lack of interest in discussing vouchers (and now charter schools, which is another separate issue) on this thread with a lack of concern about the potential damage these policies would have on the education system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
b) I know teachers in school districts other than SH and CH who have little ability to have disruptive students removed from their classrooms. My conclusion is that despite your representations otherwise, you know nothing about the "protocols" that exist to deal with disruptive students in the SH and CH school districts. Unlike you, I have qualified my comments and did not make unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. I don't know the present classroom conditions in SH and CH elementary schools, but it would be a concern of mine before I moved to those cities if I had elementary age children. E.g., I would ask about the protocols that you seem unable to explain. In fact, based on the conversations that I've had with elementary school teachers and my knowledge of my mother's experiences over many decades, I would investigate the protocols for disruptive students and certainly anti-bullying policies and programs in any school district under consideration.
Your problem is that you make a lot of assumptions and you base your statements on information that is either outdated or inapplicable to specific situations. Perhaps for a moment take into consideration that someone else has more direct knowledge on this issue than you do (after all I'm a resident of one of the districts in question and work in education) and accept that your conclusions are wrong.
You should probably just stick with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
I don't know the present classroom conditions in SH and CH elementary schools
No, I don't prefer county-wide districts, particularly for large, urban counties like Cuyahoga County. However I do support consolidating 33 down to about 10 or 11 districts. For instance, I see little reason why some combination of Cleveland Heights-University Heights, Shaker Heights, Beachwood, South Euclid-Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights shouldn't merge together to form a larger district. It could be done without eliminating neighborhood schools and engaging in a far-flung busing program...and still save money through other economies of scale.
You obviously haven't even considered the vast differences in tax bases and tax rates among these districts. E.g., you've got to be joking (at best) if you believe that Beachwood would want anything to do with your proposal.
There's also the perception, including among experts at the Gates Foundation, that local control of smaller districts produces much superior educational outcomes.
Your problem is that you make a lot of assumptions and you base your statements on information that is either outdated or inapplicable to specific situations. Perhaps for a moment take into consideration that someone else has more direct knowledge on this issue than you do (after all I'm a resident of one of the districts in question and work in education) and accept that your conclusions are wrong.
Your problem is that you claim to have a lot of knowledge, yet seem incredibly ignorant about educational realities and policies, as demonstrated by your consolidation proposal. How many of those districts would agree to pay the significantly higher real estate rates that exist in SH, where residents value highly their well-funded school district?
And tax rates are only a small part of the problem. Look at the even more vast differences (e.g., Richmond Hts. versus Beachwood) in per student expenditures.
Your personal attacks don't cover up the fact that you still have offered no particulars about the policies that you claim exist in SH and CH. What's the problem with backing up your claims with explanations? Do you have children in an elementary school in SH or CH? If so, why haven't you made this point before now?
I only can conclude that your statements are disingenuous, while I've been careful to say what I know and how I know it, often based on very current information gleaned from classroom teachers in districts other than SH and CH.
Based on conditions that I know once existed in SH schools, according to discussions with parents at that time, absent some particulars about changed policies that would be different than in other local school districts, I have no reason to take your arguments seriously.
Heck, I'm not even convinced you have any first hand knowledge of the problems in the SH and CH schools. Are you employed directly in elementary or secondary education? How do you have any knowledge of policies and programs in SH and CH? Do you work in the cafeteria?
As you claim you live in one of the these districts, we at least now know why you have a vested interested in discounting the difficulties posed by disruptive students in a classroom.
My wife's parent's live on the western part of the neighborhood, where the old mansions are. They've lived there since 1970 and have never seen a decline. It's just a coincidence that there are that many houses for sale. It happens. But I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with that neighborhood. It's safe, it has nice houses, and it's within walking distance of Little Italy, University Circle, Heights High, and Cedar-Lee.
Late to the discussion, but I'm a parent of two children in the Shaker schools as well as a former teacher. I spend a great deal of time in the schools and I can say that, at least in my observations, there is not a larger proportion of "disruptive" students than in the exurban and rural schools in which I've taught, and I've also learned (in the course of researching school districts) that there are procedures, supports, and alternate arrangements in place to address disciplinary concerns with minimum interruption to both the student of concern and the other students in the class. (Something that was lacking in some other districts in which I taught, even those with higher test scores.)
You obviously haven't even considered the vast differences in tax bases and tax rates among these districts. E.g., you've got to be joking (at best) if you believe that Beachwood would want anything to do with your proposal.
Of course I'm aware of that, but that's the whole point. The structure itself is inherently unequal. I know that Beachwood residents would complain, but they're sitting on surpluses that are in large part being funded by non-residents. It shouldn't be allowed to continue just so they can have their imaginarily separate society...which isn't really all that separate as we're beginning to see the influx of crime at some of their long-standing institutions like Beachwood Place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
There's also the perception, including among experts at the Gates Foundation, that local control of smaller districts produces much superior educational outcomes.
Do you have a source? You may be referring to the Gates Foundation's small schools initiative, which they've mostly abandoned in recent years for increasing school choice through charter schools and vouchers.
Your problem is that you claim to have a lot of knowledge, yet seem incredibly ignorant about educational realities and policies, as demonstrated by your consolidation proposal. How many of those districts would agree to pay the significantly higher real estate rates that exist in SH, where residents value highly their well-funded school district?
And tax rates are only a small part of the problem. Look at the even more vast differences (e.g., Richmond Hts. versus Beachwood) in per student expenditures.
Thanks, but I'm aware of all that, despite your attempts to imply that I'm not. The issue at hand is the fact that these inequalities exist between districts and residents that are so close in proximity. What I'm suggesting as being ideal would take a significant change in attitude and perhaps even circumstances. But that's not to say that there couldn't be real benefit (financially as well as academically) from it happening. The borders that we have created in this region (some close to a century old) are mostly artificial and have allowed some communities to thrive at the expense of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Your personal attacks don't cover up the fact that you still have offered no particulars about the policies that you claim exist in SH and CH. What's the problem with backing up your claims with explanations? Do you have children in an elementary school in SH or CH? If so, why haven't you made this point before now?
I only can conclude that your statements are disingenuous, while I've been careful to say what I know and how I know it, often based on very current information gleaned from classroom teachers in districts other than SH and CH.
Based on conditions that I know once existed in SH schools, according to discussions with parents at that time, absent some particulars about changed policies that would be different than in other local school districts, I have no reason to take your arguments seriously.
Heck, I'm not even convinced you have any first hand knowledge of the problems in the SH and CH schools. Are you employed directly in elementary or secondary education? How do you have any knowledge of policies and programs in SH and CH? Do you work in the cafeteria?
As you claim you live in one of the these districts, we at least now know why you have a vested interested in discounting the difficulties posed by disruptive students in a classroom.
Personal attacks? Show me where I said anything other than that you were "wrong." But now you accusing me of "working in the cafeteria," phrased in a manner as if to be an insult, makes you sound like a low-class elitist. Glad to see that you're now engaging in the same type of weak sauce debate tactics that you're incorrectly accusing me of using.
I'm just calling this how I see it. I grew up in this area, currently live around here, work in the education profession, and have contacts in numerous area districts. That's a little bit more than your decade-old anecdotes and assumptions. That's really all you need to know when I tell you that you're wrong. I know how the schools operate much more than you do.
In regards to me being a resident of one of the districts, of course that means that I have a vested interest in the schools. I won't for a second hesitate to point out that these (and other similar) districts have their problems, problems that in large part stem from large concentrations of poor, troubled students. However these districts also have ways of dealing with the problems at the lower levels. But I also won't hesitate to stand up for all the good that these schools do in the face of tremendous challenges, especially when an apparent outsider is providing some half-baked opinion on the matter.
an apparent outsider is providing some half-baked opinion on the matter.
Yeah, you haven't engaged in insults.
The fact remains that nobody has told us exactly how SH and CH deals with disruptive students.
Until they do, their reported knowledge and expertise is not only highly suspect, it's meaningless.
I'm tired of asking you or anybody else to provide exact details only to be answered with vague responses and platitudes and claimed expertise. The fact that details haven't been provided suggests to me that those claiming knowledge don't have it.
I'm not saying that a district such as Beachwood handles disruptive students better, I'm suggesting that they have many fewer of them. Do you dispute this?
Here's a report on the Gates Foundation small school initiative. Nothing says that the Gates Foundation doesn't believe in their small school theory. What the foundation apparently believes is that it's meaningless without substantial structural reform, which is a common sense conclusion.
Many persons in Ohio would like to see more equitable school funding. Actually, we're going the other way and I don't see the aggrieved communities doing anything to reverse the situation, such as a concerted political effort. Dismal voter turnout in aggrieved districts suggests to me that there is little understanding of the issue or just general indifference.
Thanks, but I'm aware of all that, despite your attempts to imply that I'm not. The issue at hand is the fact that these inequalities exist between districts and residents that are so close in proximity. What I'm suggesting as being ideal would take a significant change in attitude and perhaps even circumstances. But that's not to say that there couldn't be real benefit (financially as well as academically) from it happening. The borders that we have created in this region (some close to a century old) are mostly artificial and have allowed some communities to thrive at the expense of others.
My point is that there will be losers if you consolidate districts, and perhaps less support for public schools as aggrieved parents flock to better funded charter schools. You seem to believe it is a win-win solution.
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.
