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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,052,579 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
.
Vouchers are designed to kill public ed. They are designed primarily to let whites in the South opt out of going to schools with blacks. Hence, the reasons the GOP loves 'em.
Comparing public schools and private schools is a clasic apples and oranges. You do know that?
Public schools MUST take all children in a given geographic area; private schools pick and choose.
Also, don't think all private schools are living up to the hype promoted by the businesses that invest in them.
One in the Milwaukee area was closed by Wi DPI after it was found that they were letting the students either leave or play games in the classroom, while the Admin. was busy forging test scores. Much of their PR comes from the fact that they are not closely regulated by anyone but themselves.
Actually ... it is lower-income blacks and other lower-income minorities who would benefit the most from a voucher system because it gives them a choice and a WAY out of the underperforming schools they are now stuck in because their parents cannot afford private education. So who is against minorities in this instance Geechie?
Most "low performing" public schools are in areas abandoned by state/local governments. If you want to help those schools you're going to have to invest in them- not pull $$ away from them.
I disagree. The Chicago Public Schools spend over $11,000 per student per year and the Washington, DC public schools spend over $13,000. Taxpayers are heavily invested in them, but they still yield poor results. It's not about the money.
Quote:
Which is why they loved "Leave No Child Behind" (gotta love Madison Ave spin on these names), because the way it is structured (and not funded) 99% of schools will be listed as "underperforming" within the next decade.
Then, there's the little matter of college. ...after a 4 year college (which used to be affordable to the average person until Ronnie Reagan took the government out of student loans and put the banks in) our grads are the best in the world- which is why China (when they can get out of the dictatorship) and India sends their best and brightest here.
Precisely! Why? Because many colleges use selective enrollment. And here's the kicker - PUBLIC tax money goes to private colleges and universities (Pell Grants, etc.).
All colleges use selective enrollment, don't they? Underachievers in high school will generally not change in college. Maybe some kind of intermediate program could prove otherwise.
It is foolish to accomodate students and parents who feel that an education is owed to them just because they pay their money. The opportunity, when it comes, is to give the student a chance to learn things. It is the student's actions that determine whether he/she will become educated or not.
I disagree. The Chicago Public Schools spend over $11,000 per student per year and the Washington, DC public schools spend over $13,000. Taxpayers are heavily invested in them, but they still yield poor results. It's not about the money.
Precisely! Why? Because many colleges use selective enrollment. And here's the kicker - PUBLIC tax money goes to private colleges and universities (Pell Grants, etc.).
.
It's all about money. A 14 week training for an Army grunt costs more than a year's state subsidy for 2/3 of US schoolkids. And the same people who talk about how bloated the schools are demand more spending for defense. (and trust me, I've worked both). Which is why you measure the $ spent vs the size of the social problems needed to be fixed- like in a city school system like Chicago.
And why don't you point out where public ed IS working? And why is it working where it is? Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin.
As far as the PEW study vs Leave No Child, all that proves is if you design a target that can't be hit, then there is no use in measuring a sucess rate. And note PEW (e.g. Stateline) only concentrates on a couple of states in the South, where public ed has always been subject to winds of public disdain due to racism.
Lastly, we have always educated everyone in this country. And that's counter to what you are favoring.
Last edited by Geechie North; 02-16-2009 at 12:22 PM..
Actually ... it is lower-income blacks and other lower-income minorities who would benefit the most from a voucher system because it gives them a choice and a WAY out of the underperforming schools they are now stuck in because their parents cannot afford private education. So who is against minorities in this instance Geechie?
.
Guess you've never seen the results for Milwaukee or Cleveland.
How many people who are so anti-education here have been in their neighborhood public school in the last decade (other than to yell at the school sec because their kids were late again), or have served on a school board?
I fear we sprout propaganda without any knowledge of the facts.
It is foolish to accomodate students and parents who feel that an education is owed to them just because they pay their money. The opportunity, when it comes, is to give the student a chance to learn things. It is the student's actions that determine whether he/she will become educated or not.
'When it comes' is the key factor in your statement. For many students trapped in public schools that are undereducating them, that opportunity doesn't come. Again, I refer to the precipitous declines in achievement among the top- and mid-level students noted in The Other Crisis in American Education. The only group of students who are making progress are the low-level students. Their achievement has increased slightly, while everyone else's has gone down - dramatically so for the top-level.
If your argument is that students educate themselves, then why do we need to support the outrageously expensive and frequently abysmal public school system?
How many people who are so anti-education here have been in their neighborhood public school in the last decade (other than to yell at the school sec because their kids were late again), or have served on a school board?
I fear we sprout propaganda without any knowledge of the facts.
Some posters have posted facts with supporting references, some have posted only their opinions. Take from it what you will.
First - I have seen NO POST from ANYONE who would, in the slightest degree, indicate or inferr, they were "anti education". Quite the opposite.
As to the question you have posed above: I have. As a parent, Grandparent, Substitute teacher, School Board member.
You?
No, They are anti-education. They just won't say so.
Yes, also.
Two terms on school board; two kids graduated from local public HS- received outstanding educations.
Teach at college level; interface with local (albeit different) HS. Which is how I know most of what I've read here is anti-education. And specious propaganda not supported by facts.
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.
