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.
This argument is a bit circular. Many public schools are, by nature, "low-performing" precisely because of the high percentages of problem students and students with disabilities. You can put those students in any school whether it be public, private, parochial, or charter, and they're still going to struggle with the standardized tests.
Maybe you're saying that the rest of the students shouldn't be dragged down by those other "low-performing" students? That's what magnet schools have always been for and I've always thought that we needed to expand on that system and institute three or four tiers of groups for students (1. scholars, 2. average student, 3. below-average/remedial students, 4. trouble-makers).
At least in California you can tell if the students with disabilities are the ones bringing down the test scores. It's broken down on the accountability report card. Do you think that students with disabilities don't deserve an education?
Voting for the school board is nothing more than choosing who is going to spend my money.
I disagree. Voters have power in that regard. It's a power that most seemingly don't take very seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
I'm all in favor of public schooling, but the funding of that schooling needs to be voluntary, not by force.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Education is a vital part of our democracy and all should access to it. A great many of the same folks that complain about having to pay taxes for public education attended those very same public schools with their parents only paying a small portion of the costs, if that. Besides being hypocritical, a voluntary system would be a severely underfunded system characterized by class disparities.
At least in California you can tell if the students with disabilities are the ones bringing down the test scores. It's broken down on the accountability report card. Do you think that students with disabilities don't deserve an education?
Of course they deserve an education. All I'm saying is that their often poor test scores on these cookie-cutter standardized tests are a big part of what brings down a school's overall ranking. Urban schools often have several times as many kids with disabilities than their suburban counterparts and yet many state rankings systems don't adjust for this at all. So by no means am I not saying that they don't deserve an education, I'm simply saying that their low test scores should not be used as part of determining whether or not a school is of low quality.
Of course they deserve an education. All I'm saying is that their often poor test scores on these cookie-cutter standardized tests are a big part of what brings down a school's overall ranking. Urban schools often have several times as many kids with disabilities than their suburban counterparts and yet many state rankings systems don't adjust for this at all. So by no means am I not saying that they don't deserve an education, I'm simply saying that their low test scores should not be used as part of determining whether or not a school is of low quality.
Well, the parents should read the accountability report cards (other states have them, yes?) and see if the ones bringing down the test scores are the students with disabilities. If the problem does not lie with those students, a child should have the right to a decent education. You can't get that at every school, and kids who want it (or parents who want it for their kids) should be given that opportunity. How are low-income kids ever supposed to move up in life if they are stuck in failing schools?
I'm all in favor of public schooling, but the funding of that schooling needs to be voluntary, not by force.
What about stop signs? Should stop sign funding be voluntary?
Because if we did that we'd have fewer stop signs, save a ton of cash, and then we wouldn't need to educate the populace with public schooling because why learn to read when there's nothing to apply it to? No stop signs. No public schools.
People are indignant because PUBLIC money is going to private schools. Guess what? Public money is OUR money. We should be free to spend it as we see fit.
fine. Then I would like to specify that MY money not be spent on the war in Irag, on on the roads on the other side of the county because I don't drive on those. Don't you see what a slippery slope that argument is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge
I'm a taxpayer, and I want a quality education for every child in the whole country, no matter how poor they, their parents, or their community may be. This is the United States of America, and every child deserves the same quality of education as the children of the president. I don't know how any US citizen could want less for any American child.
~~~~~~~~~
There is a movement in this country to privatize education. There are people who think everyone should pay their own way; which of course would mean the rich would have educated kids, and the poor would have uneducated kids.
These vouchers or "scholarships" are a step in that direction. There are corporations, including Walmart that are pouring tons of money into local school districts to get these programs going. They take money away from the public schools and send it to private schools. I'm against any type of program that does that.
I live in a district that has a pro-voucher board and a pro-voucher superintendent. They pushed through a voucher plan, sent a bunch of money to private religious schools, then the plan was ruled unconstitutional. The district has yet to get all of the money back. This is a district that encompasses the 6th wealthiest county in the country. We have excellent public schools, open enrollment options, and an abundance of charter and magnet schools. We have choices. Lots of them.
I can't say that I'd be against this plan if we had failing schools, a lack of choices, and a high poverty level. We have none of those here. I can't say that I'd be against the plan if it was specifically for special needs kids, or low income families. It's not.
What I can't understand is why our board, who is supposed to be doing what is best for our public schools, thinks this is in the best interest of the public schools. They should be spending their time and our money making our schools better, not sending money and students elsewhere.
Public education benefits all of society. I have to wonder if someone who thinks they should be able to keep "their" money, or who thinks education should be pay-for-your-own, has any foresight whatsoever.
Maybe you're saying that the rest of the students shouldn't be dragged down by those other "low-performing" students? That's what magnet schools have always been for and I've always thought that we needed to expand on that system and institute three or four tiers of groups for students (1. scholars, 2. average student, 3. below-average/remedial students, 4. trouble-makers).
I completely disagree with this statement. Every child should be offered the same education. If you peg a child into being a C student, he will always remain a C student and will never have the opportunity to be better, simple because he was told he is a C student. If you tell a child he is an A student, then he will think he is an A student and be an A student.
If you set high expectations for every child, then you start to see actual results and what students are capable of.
For what it's worth, I've been in private (non-religious) and public schools. My private school was a much better school than either of the public schools that I went to, which were supposedly "good" schools. (The school I was districted for was a pretty bad school, so my parents sent me out-of-district one year and wrote a letter to get me into another school in my district during another year.) At the public school level, they decided it would be great to divide the students into gifted and non-gifted once a week. From there, they took the non-gifted kids and put them in to three groups. (1, 2, and 3). Group 3 was the "top" students and Group 1 was the group of students who did poorly.
I spent a semester in Group 3 and a semester in gifted. The gifted class was a complete waste of time and I felt like there were so many students in Groups 1, 2, and 3 that actually could have been amazing students if they had been given the chance and told "Actually, You can do it. It doesn't matter what neighborhood you come from or that your parents were high school drop-outs. You can be smart too." The thing is, public school is all about putting students in their places, and the students in Group 1 never were really given a proper chance.
For what it's worth, my sister has autism and goes to a PUBLIC charter school. The school has a high percentage of minority students. It operates on a budget of about $2500 per student which is about 25% of the budget of a local regular public school. They have made large amounts of progress and students who typically would do really poorly are actually thriving at her school.
Every kid deserves the chance at a good education. Not just the kids who you think are "scholars", but EVERY child.
I do not agree with statement if we tell any student he/she is an A student, he/she will be a really A student. I think we've done too much of that, and our education system is failing now compare with other countries.
We do need to give each child a chance to receive the best education: for them. Children and their families should be prepared to work hard to reach this goal, nothing should be taking for granted. Why 10 kids should suffer at class when all teacher's time is spend on one troublemaker?
I think voucher system can help us to introduce a competition between public schools and private schools and therefore to improve our educational system. Religious studies should be made optional in schools that can accept vouchers and parents should be able to pick the best school for their child (it could be school with emphasis in science or theater study or art or something else), but not the school assigned by some lotto system or people making their careers in politics.
Wow, judgmental much? My first high school was riddled with gangs, bomb threats, and lock downs. I think that parents should be able to enroll their children in another school, but it has nothing to do with race. I love being around people from diverse backgrounds and do not feel very comfortable around a large group of white people. I'm just not used to it as I grew up in a very diverse area. However, if I were low-income, I would not want my child going to a failing school. There are other high schools in that district (not any whiter and only slightly less brown if you think race really matters) that perform much better without all the violence issues.
Explain to me how school choice, which will take money away from public schools by reducing their enrollment, is going to improve public education. School choice is selfish. It's saying I want to move my kid away from a situation to put them in a better situation. It's all about individuals self interest at the expense of the overall quality of public education.
I taught a test prep class at a school district in north St. Louis where the high school has a 1 rating on great schools. Only 33% of their students passed the EOC assessment in English compared with 74% statewide; 13% were proficient in government compared to 57% statewide; 7% were proficient in alegebra I compared to 60% statewide; and 11% were proficient in biology compared to 61% statewide. This district has lost it's accredidation and is viewed as possible the worst district in the St. Louis area. Yet I met kids there that scored high 20's on their ACT and were going to college. I witnessed honors English classes with every bit as challenging a curriculum as other schools. Good students will get a good education wherever they go. There will always be programs for the high achievers. Schools are labeled "bad" based on the number of "bad" students. It has very little to do with the education that is offered at the school.
Explain to me how school choice, which will take money away from public schools by reducing their enrollment, is going to improve public education. School choice is selfish. It's saying I want to move my kid away from a situation to put them in a better situation. It's all about individuals self interest at the expense of the overall quality of public education.
I taught a test prep class at a school district in north St. Louis where the high school has a 1 rating on great schools. Only 33% of their students passed the EOC assessment in English compared with 74% statewide; 13% were proficient in government compared to 57% statewide; 7% were proficient in alegebra I compared to 60% statewide; and 11% were proficient in biology compared to 61% statewide. This district has lost it's accredidation and is viewed as possible the worst district in the St. Louis area. Yet I met kids there that scored high 20's on their ACT and were going to college. I witnessed honors English classes with every bit as challenging a curriculum as other schools. Good students will get a good education wherever they go. There will always be programs for the high achievers. Schools are labeled "bad" based on the number of "bad" students. It has very little to do with the education that is offered at the school.
As I said before (maybe in another thread) not every school does have those options. The really bad high school I went to had barely any honors classes, let alone AP. There wasn't even a single Anatomy and Physiology class. There was no Calculus class, etc. This is actually quite common out here in many low-income schools. You cannot always get a quality education just because you want one.
I don't necessarily think school choice has to include private schools. A parent should be able to easily transfer a student to a different public school if the zoned school is really bad. Yes, there technically is a program now, but the schools you are allowed to transfer to usually don't have open seats for students who would want to transfer.
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.
