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.
Who said anything about obliterate? Provide a choice - either a public school if it fits your needs, or a private school if they offer a curriculum and educational level that would better fit your needs. Works for Germany.
Your example of Germany is not comparable. .. I understand what there system is.. it's a similar system that my husband was a part of. They have a more focused area of study in one area or another.. science concentrations. . etc. Our way of schooling, even in private instituatinos, is more broad. I personally do not feel that a high school student is mature enough to choose their area or field of concentration at that young age and hsould be taught ALL aspects... math , science..literature.. etc. More narrowed focus occurrs at the college level.
The question should be why not make our schools more vocationally geared and focused on a public level, rather than round about and then allow the students to choose their vocation at such a young age? My husband went to a school with a higher concentration of science.. and , btw.. he didn't choose that.. he was put there because that is where he excelled early in his education and the school system felt he would perform best.
And.. "public" schools would be all those schools where the poor who can't afford the private instituations would end up.. as more and more tax dollars would be diverted to private instituations!
Again.. as in the examples I illustrated Poor students would be left to fend for themselves in a Poorer performing school because their pockets were not deep enough for them to buy their way into a better school. Of course, t hat is with the acception of those few lucky students who end up with a scholorship or some way to pay for a better school given to them through charity. Their childs performance may be just as equal to my childs performance but simply because they are poor does not automatically give them the opportunity to get into the better school over my child who could do well, but I can't afford to send them to the better school. And poorer students tend to live in poorer areas.. which have less tax revenue. if in a voucher program the taxes for school paid gets shuffled to a school based on where that student goes to school.. well then you can see where the money will be funneled to and what schools will be lacking.
The better schools will cost more.. period in a tuition type system. And each school will have a capacity level and weither a child could attend will depend strongly on wether parents could afford it or not.
To evilnewbie.. I get what you are saying. Perhaps then we'll need tobreak the middle down a bit more, as there are different levels... as well as then you are condeming the poorer populatino to be trapped in a poorer performing school as their "choice" because they don't have a deep enough pocket to buy their way into the better school... which seems to do the exact opposite of what some have argued a voucher program would fix.
And it would fix.. if placement were based on performance..however we all know how that will go!! Performance of the student will not determine wether a student goes to school A,B or C. Money will giving those with slightly more a bigger advantage and further pushing down those who don't
Last edited by TristansMommy; 02-15-2009 at 01:41 PM..
Originally posted by Eeeee22895
Conservatives don't oppose education. Many of us do see the public education apparatus as extremely liberal. Cases in point:
1) Most of the teachers are union. The NEA and VEA officially are pro-Democrat.
2) My daughter was given an assignment last year during Black History Month to do a biography on a prominent and influential black from a given list. Among the names: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Malcolm X, MLK, Maxine Waters, and Shirley Chisholm. Nowhere on the list was the highest ranking black female in our government's history, Condoleeza Rice, or the lone black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.
3) On Channel 1, the school news channel, the kids have been consistently drummed by liberal themes: the war is bad, Obama is special, global warming is real and man-made, the bad economy is the fault of corporate greed and capitalism-gone-wrong.
4) The schools can't use the word "Christmas". December 25 is the Christian holiday, yet you can't refer to it by the name assigned to it by Christians.
(Side story. When my kids attended city schools, the word "Christmas" couldn't be used, but when they returned from the holiday break, the class was studying the ridiculous "Kwanzaa" and each student was asked to light one of the candles each day. You better believe I was in the principal's office in a heartbeat. I told her if my baby can't talk about Christmas, ain't no way she was lighting a damn Kwanzaa candle.
5) Back to the global warming hoax; An earlier poster in here made the laughable comment that conservatives were against critical thinking. I always understood science to be interested in only one thing: discovery of the truth. There is so much disagreement about the causes and even the existence of global warmning, I could never understand why in science classes, my kids were always taught that manmade global warming is an absolute. There aren't too many absolutes in science, but by God the unproven global warming was one of them.
6) In my son's government class, video was shown of Tina Fey ridiculing Sarah Palin. The teacher, a Democrat activist made it clear that Palin was unqualified to be president, (even though she wasn't running for that job) echoing the media. Always left unmentioned was that Obama, who WAS running for president, wasn't as qualified as Palin for president, again even though she was the VEEP candidate.
7) And finally, when Obama came to town, fully a third of the teachers from my daughter's school left school to attend the rally. The city schools sent taxpayer-funded school buses. When Sarah Palin came, a few weeks later, there was almost no mention of the event, even though Palin drew about 7,000 more than Obama.
I'm just getting warmed up, but this gives you the idea of why conservatives distrust the motives of Big Education.
A lot of that's unfortunate. Condi and Clarence should have been on that list, as well as Colin Powell. And I agree about the Kwanzaa thing.
But I have to ask, aside from Kwanzaa, what did you do about it? Did you talk about the anti-Palin teacher to the principal? I hope so. In my town the administrators are VERY responsive to parents. We even have parents who are trustees on the school board so that they can influence things one way or the other.
There are options for conservative parents. I think, way more than they realize. Do you think these "liberal values" were always there? If you think they're there, then you must also think that they must have come from somewhere at some point in the past.
Seriously, I'm more centrist (maybe slightly left--still working that out) but if something's bothering you about the school, talk to the principal, like you did during kwanzaa. And if they're not responsive, get together with like minded parents and try to influence your district that way. Do you go to school board meetings?
If I was your kids' teacher I'd ask you to come to me if you have ANY problem with what I'm doing. I can't always acommodate 150 different parents, but you pay me through your taxes, you trust me with your kids, and even if I disagree with you, you deserve to be heard by me or my principal. Period.
Providing a choice WOULD obliterate public schools.. because ALL Parents will wanttheir child to go to the best school.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is it bad? If taking your kids out of the public school, and sending them to a better school, would destroy the public school system, then so be it. Fact of the matter is that the average PRIVATE school costs less per student than we currently pay for public school. But paying for public schools is MANDATED, meaning we have no way out of it, and most of us can't afford to pay for BOTH. So, allowing us to take our kids and our money out of public schools might actually educate our kids better AND save us money.
Then you're going to have to explain why BOTH the SAT and the ACT had to be recentered to adjust for consistently declining scores from all over the NATION. And why the studies cited in The Other Crisis in American Education have found significant achievement drops in the top- and mid-level students throughout the NATION.
They should have been "recentered".. rather what should be looked at is WHY are students now not performing where they should!! AND as I've pointed out.. it's CULTURAL .. and has MUCH to do with family home life and attitudes toward school by the children that attend school.. the work ethic of the students ETC.
How do you know that?
Because I know what I was taught. I know how hard I worked to achieve my grades and KEEP my grades. Because I came out intelligent, insightfull and knowledgeable.. because my brothers had the same education and went on to achieve well in College adn beyond (as I stated one is a PHD in genetics the other a mechanical engineer).. And I know had I gone to college (I did part time buy my career pursuits at the time didn't require a college education) I would have excelled and done well because I had the tools neccesary from my public education to do so.. just as my brothers had. THAT's how I know.
How do you know that? School choice, public and private, seems to work well for other countries, like Germany.
And you want to preserve that by TRAPPING students in the public schools that are undereducating them - KEEPING them down, KEEPING them from being able to compete with those who had access to a better education. Way to go... you're an oppressor.
Did you even bother to read the article I linked about the rise of the meritocracy in India? What's happening there is the exact opposite of what you assert. Their entrenched elite class is disappearing.
Who said I wanted to TRAP them.. NO.. I don't.. however, by privitizing you will be trapping POOR students into POOR performing schools because they will not have the means to buy their way into the better performing schools. If it were all merit based.. then I would say go right ahead.. but we all know that in this country how hard you work does not always equal getting what you deserve.. and that money and privledge buys a lot.
NO.. I'm about FIXING the public school system so that everyone feels they are getting the education that they want/need.
Ironically you think that your solution of privitization will untrap students.. LOL.. but what you are actually created is an environment of those that hvae the deeper pockets will get and those that are poor will not get. As it is now Poor students have the opportunity to take thier education and do with it what they can.. if they don't cease that, it's up to them. And the same goes for every income level regardless.
Change the curriculum.. hold your public school more accountable.. raise your voice and things will change.. but don't think that privitizing and shoveling public money to private instituations is the way to go. ..
Isn't there a quote that says " The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Providing a choice WOULD obliterate public schools.. because ALL Parents will wanttheir child to go to the best school.
And all of them would go to the best schools... you have a problem with that?
Quote:
And your example of Germany is not comparable. .. I understand what there system is.. it's a similar system that my husband was a part of. They have a more focused area of study in one area or another.. science concentrations. . etc. Our way of schooling, even in private instituatinos, is more broad. I personally do not feel that a high school student is mature enough to choose their area or field of concentration at that young age and hsould be taught ALL aspects... math , science..literature.. etc. More narrowed focus occurrs at the college level.
And that is the reason why so many college kids come out with useless degrees... they lack the direction in high school... this is one of main fixes that private education would do... helping to place students in future career paths... college is not the answer for a lot of kids because simply, we don't need college education to fix a car... a vocational school is a good alternative... high school SHOULD be where they advise prospective students to go...
Quote:
Again.. as in the examples I illustrated Poor students would be left to fend for themselves in a Poorer performing school because their pockets were not deep enough for them to buy their way into a better school.
Then you would withdraw your student to a better school (at ZERO cost)... try doing that in public education... good luck... guess what happens to that underperforming school... it won't be a problem any more... you fixed that problem... public education, that school will never be fixed and people will continue to throw money at it... winner? Privatization..
Quote:
Of course, t hat is with the acception of those few lucky students who end up with a scholorship or some way to pay for a better school given to them through charity. Their childs performance may be just as equal to my childs performance but simply because they are poor does not automatically give them the opportunity to get into the better school over my child who could do well, but I can't afford to send them to the better school.
With privatization, its not the ability to afford a better school.. Better schools are competing to get your student... its a complete role reversal... I think you don't really understand the system at all... better schools are rewarded with more students... poor performing schools have to improve (they have NO other choice)... public education, poor performing schools don't have to improve... no matter what... their payroll is guaranteed...
Quote:
And poorer students tend to live in poorer areas.. which have less tax revenue. if in a voucher program the taxes for school paid gets shuffled to a school based on where that student goes to school.. well then you can see where the money will be funneled to and what schools will be lacking.
The better schools will cost more.. period in a tuition type system. And each school will have a capacity level and weither a child could attend will depend strongly on wether parents could afford it or not.
The voucher in a privatization schedule is set in stone... 10k for every student regardless of where the student lives... its a federal program that doesn't discriminate where you live...
Quote:
To evilnewbie.. I get what you are saying. Perhaps then we'll need tobreak the middle down a bit more, as there are different levels... as well as then you are condeming the poorer populatino to be trapped in a poorer performing school as their "choice" because they don't have a deep enough pocket to buy their way into the better school... which seems to do the exact opposite of what some have argued a voucher program would fix.
Lets take poorer communities who traditionally need "less" money for schooling... we are doing a fixed voucher system, 10k per student. That means the poor communities have MUCH more money than would be allocated... The rich communities however would be getting LESS money because most of their students would be in higher cost private schools (HOWEVER, as part of the privatization, they get ZERO dollars for schools that charge more than 10k per student)... therefore the money is actually tilted FOR poorer communities... I can explain the system in more detail if you want... but basically the poor communities or more populated communities get the most amount of money... the wealthy will have to pay for their own kids higher cost private education (ZERO dollars goes to them for their kids education)...
Quote:
And it would fix.. if placement were based on performance..however we all know how that will go!! Performance of the student will not determine wether a student goes to school A,B or C. Money will giving those with slightly more a bigger advantage and further pushing down those who don't
Yes, schools that perform better will get more money because people will enroll their kids into that school (just like you enrolling your kid into that school)... However this is where you are wrong... privatization means schools have to be upfront with costs... so here is the system... the government mandates that each student gets a 10k voucher, the maximum amount a school can charge is 10k to get the voucher... that really great school you want your kid to go to... can only cost as much as the voucher... that means, schools won't charge more for your kid which means your kid WILL have the same advantage as anyone else to go to that school... how much money the parents have is completely taken out of the equation.... i.e. education is no longer about how much money the parents have or about who lives where... its only about which school performs better and which one the parent PICKS... the parent picks the school, not the other way around...
You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is it bad? If taking your kids out of the public school, and sending them to a better school, would destroy the public school system, then so be it. Fact of the matter is that the average PRIVATE school costs less per student than we currently pay for public school. But paying for public schools is MANDATED, meaning we have no way out of it, and most of us can't afford to pay for BOTH. So, allowing us to take our kids and our money out of public schools might actually educate our kids better AND save us money.
You have to read the rest of the post to understand why I say that.. If you read the entire post and what privitization would lead to, you'd understand why its a bad thing..
Exactly what about leaving tham NO choice equates to not being trapped?
Quote:
by privitizing you will be trapping POOR students into POOR performing schools because they will not have the means to buy their way into the better performing schools.
Would this not then create the ability of those schools to hyperfocus on those students' needs, and specifically target instruction in the most meaningful and effective way? Instead, schools now try to be everything to everyone, succeed with maybe a few, and fail at meeting everyone else's needs.
Quote:
Ironically you think that your solution of privitization will untrap students.. LOL.. but what you are actually created is an environment of those that have the deeper pockets will get and those that are poor will not get.
Well, no. I'm advocating CHOICE, public OR private. But it's interesting that you frame your claim in this way... You all but flat out admit that public schools are inferior.
Quote:
As it is now Poor students have the opportunity to take thier education and do with it what they can.. if they don't cease that, it's up to them. And the same goes for every income level regardless.
Actually, no. That is only true for students who are able to go to schools that actually meet their educational needs. Many public schools don't meet students' needs.
Quote:
Change the curriculum.. hold your public school more accountable.. raise your voice and things will change..
And all of them would go to the best schools... you have a problem with that?
And that is the reason why so many college kids come out with useless degrees... they lack the direction in high school... this is one of main fixes that private education would do... helping to place students in future career paths... college is not the answer for a lot of kids because simply, we don't need college education to fix a car... a vocational school is a good alternative... high school SHOULD be where they advise prospective students to go...
And so why can't that happen on the PUBLIC school level? why does it HAVE to be private institutions that do that. I remember having guidance counselors in school that did JUST that..guide me. My district offered vocation education training in addition to basic studies.. as a matter of fact I went to one of those schools half the day (I studied musical theatre and acting). And some of my counterparts went to Tech schools part of the day.. for hairdressing, car mechanics or what have you. Establishing those type of schools should be done on a local level and if they dont' offer it it's because they don't have it available. It can be done on a public school level.
However, not everyone wants to know exactly what they want to do with their life at that age. That's why many go for liberal arts degrees.. OR, like my brothers who liked science in H.S , choose their majors accordingly.
Then you would withdraw your student to a better school (at ZERO cost)... try doing that in public education... good luck... guess what happens to that underperforming school... it won't be a problem any more... you fixed that problem... public education, that school will never be fixed and people will continue to throw money at it... winner? Privatization..
With privatization, its not the ability to afford a better school.. Better schools are competing to get your student... its a complete role reversal... I think you don't really understand the system at all... better schools are rewarded with more students... poor performing schools have to improve (they have NO other choice)... public education, poor performing schools don't have to improve... no matter what... their payroll is guaranteed...
My problem is that EACH SCHOOL has a capacity limit. So what happens when those that want to get in to THAT high peforming school , but can't because there is a capacity limit issue? Sorry. out of luck!! But wait.. Billy or Jane's parents make a "contribution" to the private instituation and suddenly a spot opens THAT is my issue with privitization.
The voucher in a privatization schedule is set in stone... 10k for every student regardless of where the student lives... its a federal program that doesn't discriminate where you live...
Lets take poorer communities who traditionally need "less" money for schooling... we are doing a fixed voucher system, 10k per student. That means the poor communities have MUCH more money than would be allocated... The rich communities however would be getting LESS money because most of their students would be in higher cost private schools (HOWEVER, as part of the privatization, they get ZERO dollars for schools that charge more than 10k per student)... therefore the money is actually tilted FOR poorer communities... I can explain the system in more detail if you want... but basically the poor communities or more populated communities get the most amount of money... the wealthy will have to pay for their own kids higher cost private education (ZERO dollars goes to them for their kids education)...
Yes, schools that perform better will get more money because people will enroll their kids into that school (just like you enrolling your kid into that school)... However this is where you are wrong... privatization means schools have to be upfront with costs... so here is the system... the government mandates that each student gets a 10k voucher, the maximum amount a school can charge is 10k to get the voucher... that really great school you want your kid to go to... can only cost as much as the voucher... that means, schools won't charge more for your kid which means your kid WILL have the same advantage as anyone else to go to that school... how much money the parents have is completely taken out of the equation.... i.e. education is no longer about how much money the parents have or about who lives where... its only about which school performs better and which one the parent PICKS... the parent picks the school, not the other way around...
That's all well and good.. but here's the problem.
For example.. where I grew up school taxes for a district was closely tied to property value. So.. lets say a district has houses that range in price from $200K to 2million.. not unplausable where I lived. The "tax money" collected for that child in the $200K house is far less than the taxes collected in the household worth $2mill... and it could be from $5000 to approx say $20K. Now.. that parent still has to pay school property taxes right? So that poor student's $5K in taxes will follow the student to the new better performing school.. and that schools $20K property tax contribution will follow THAT student to that high performing school.
If what everyone paid in school taxes was a flat percentage, than what you say would make sense.. however, that is not possible. Why .. because the tax dollars that go to the district are NOT only from the STATE or even FED government.. but from Property taxes. Property taxes is what pays for the school. State money or Fed money only SUPPLEMENTS and adds to the schools money collect to taxes.. and hopefully keeps the school tax collection lower. If what they get from the state and what they need to operate don't match, school taxes are raised.
And so you see how a school would take the people paying higher property taxes.. as that money would follow that student to the private institution vs. the person living in the lower taxed home.
How schools are run and funding for them varies from region to region, state to state.
Also.. what happens when there are more students wanting to go to a higher peforming school then there are spots for? HOw do you determine who gets in and who doesn't?
Your example of Germany is not comparable. .. I understand what there system is.. it's a similar system that my husband was a part of. They have a more focused area of study in one area or another.. science concentrations. . etc.
Yes and no - it depends on the school a student CHOOSES. Some are focused; some aren't.
Quote:
My husband went to a school with a higher concentration of science.. and , btw.. he didn't choose that.. he was put there because that is where he excelled early in his education and the school system felt he would perform best.
I'm not sure why he felt he couldn't choose, others do choose.
Quote:
Again.. as in the examples I illustrated Poor students would be left to fend for themselves in a Poorer performing school because their pockets were not deep enough for them to buy their way into a better school.
I disagree with that assessment, but even if it were true... you're espousing the mentality of, 'we can't save them all, so we won't save any.'
Quote:
The better schools will cost more.. period in a tuition type system. And each school will have a capacity level and weither a child could attend will depend strongly on wether parents could afford it or not.
What are you basing that on, fact or opinion?
Quote:
Perhaps then we'll need tobreak the middle down a bit more, as there are different levels... as well as then you are condeming the poorer populatino to be trapped in a poorer performing school as their "choice" because they don't have a deep enough pocket to buy their way into the better school... which seems to do the exact opposite of what some have argued a voucher program would fix.
...if placement were based on performance..however we all know how that will go!! Performance of the student will not determine wether a student goes to school A,B or C. Money will giving those with slightly more a bigger advantage and further pushing down those who don't
Do you have any facts to back that up, or is it just your opinion?
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.
) but if something's bothering you about the school, talk to the principal, like you did during kwanzaa. And if they're not responsive, get together with like minded parents and try to influence your district that way. Do you go to school board meetings?
