[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And of you think federal money does anything but funnel money to the teacher ,you are crazy.
Wait, you think federal money increases teachers wages? did you mean to say “administrators”?
What did you mean by this?[/quote]
Seriously. Last time I checked, teachers weren’t rolling in the dough. Particularly the moronic, semi-literate teachers who are willing to accept jobs in the worst schools.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook’s argument has gone from ALL vouchers to just Federal vouchers.
js - pick a position and stick with it.
Education will not improve until parents care enough to teach their children.
It is not the Federal government’s job to teach my kids. It is not the State government’s job to teach my kids.
It is MY job to teach my kids.
And the last time I checked, money doesn’t teach a damn thing.
And of you think federal money does anything but funnel money to the teacher ,you are crazy.
I’m the FIRST one to say you can’t just throw money at the problem and early intervention is needed and that it ultimately starts with the parents. I said this dozens of pages ago before you morons started this shitfest about how wonderful this ridiculous voucher proposol is.
BUT, money is still necessary. There are schools where students don’t have textbooks. They share 2-3 to a textbook and don’t get to take the textbooks home for assignments. I don’t give a damn what kind of environment they have at home or how much parents might stress the importance of education. There are schools that don’t have the resources for kids to learn EVEN if everything else was perfect (which it is decidely not). If the federal government’s going to stick it’s nose and tax us, those are the places where most of the money should be going.
This is an excellent point and I’ll add to it. There are schools that not only lack funding, but lack administrative capacity to get the job done.
Years ago I did some work with Milwaukee public schools. One quick example: One school was supposedly the “college prep” high school in the area. As JS said, they did not have enough books to go around and students had to share textbooks. The teacher had ordered books over a year previously (still used the same book from the previous year) but still had not received any. Supposedly this was due to 1) funding issues, 2) simple lack of administrative capacity.
Another school in Milwaukee simply didn’t have an emergency plan. When I asked the VP who was supposedly in charge of it, he told me it was “a secret.” The teachers involved told me the truth…it didn’t exist.
Throwing money at these type of problems won’t solve them, but taking money away from these situations won’t solve them either. Vouchers may have helped some kids to get into better schools and given them an opportunity that changed their lives, but vouchers certainly didn’t fix a broken system.
Again, I think vouchers are necesary to help kids and parents who care to have opportunities that they otherwise wouldn’t have had, but it’s certainly no panacea, and the problems that JSbrook is bringing up should be DEALT WITH and not ignored as some on this thread are doing. [/quote]
How have you found the teachers in those schools? In addition to lack of resources, the quality of teachers willing to work in the worst schools seems to be a big problem. My friends who did Teach for America said that some of the career teachers at their schools barely seemed able to read themselves.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Again, I think vouchers are necesary to help kids and parents who care to have opportunities that they otherwise wouldn’t have had, but it’s certainly no panacea, and the problems that JSbrook is bringing up should be DEALT WITH and not ignored as some on this thread are doing. [/quote]
Yes, but even then it would to be state vouchers, if an effective, fair and workable system could be devised. Federal vouchers simply don’t provide enough money for anyone to attend a different school unless they are already comfortable. Agreed?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…As things exist today, federal government does not take much of the public’s money to use on education and it does not fund much public education…
You need to stop believing the bumper stickers you read.[/quote]
And you need to stop taking what right-wing political commentators say at face value and go look at the actual federal budget yourself.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And of you think federal money does anything but funnel money to the teacher ,you are crazy.
Wait, you think federal money increases teachers wages? did you mean to say “administrators”?
What did you mean by this?[/quote]
I meant teachers’ UNIONS. But administration is another black hole where tax dollars disappear to.
The school district where I live, pay taxes to, and my kids attend has a whopping 250 kids from k-12.
They pay a “superintendent” $60K/year. His duties consist solely of interacting with the school board, and making sure we are standing in the right line for federal and state funds.
$60K for a part time job.
Vouchers would pretty much eliminate his job, as public schools would be forced to become competitive with the private sector if they wanted to stay open.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…As things exist today, federal government does not take much of the public’s money to use on education and it does not fund much public education…
You need to stop believing the bumper stickers you read.
And you need to stop taking what right-wing political commentators say at face value and go look at the actual federal budget yourself.[/quote]
If the federal budget contains a single dime of money for education - it is a dime too much.
You obviously don’t understand how the voucher system should work.
Charter schools in Texas are growing every year. Not exactly a voucher system, but it does give parents a choice between the crap that is traditional public education, and expensive private schools.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And of you think federal money does anything but funnel money to the teacher ,you are crazy.
Wait, you think federal money increases teachers wages? did you mean to say “administrators”?
What did you mean by this?
I meant teachers’ UNIONS. But administration is another black hole where tax dollars disappear to.
The school district where I live, pay taxes to, and my kids attend has a whopping 250 kids from k-12.
They pay a “superintendent” $60K/year. His duties consist solely of interacting with the school board, and making sure we are standing in the right line for federal and state funds.
$60K for a part time job.
Vouchers would pretty much eliminate his job, as public schools would be forced to become competitive with the private sector if they wanted to stay open.
[/quote]
My ‘headmaster’ was no less of a figurehead at my private elementary school. The same is true at many private schools across the country. Private schools waste and misuse PLENTY of money. They just have more to play with.
As far as teacher’s unions go, they are certainly self-interested parties. They look out for the interests of teachers at least as much as students. But I’m not sure where you cooked up your theory that most educational funding gets swallowed up by the unions. In 2005, the last year there is data for, almost 90% of NEA and other union funding came from members dues.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…As things exist today, federal government does not take much of the public’s money to use on education and it does not fund much public education…
You need to stop believing the bumper stickers you read.
And you need to stop taking what right-wing political commentators say at face value and go look at the actual federal budget yourself.
If the federal budget contains a single dime of money for education - it is a dime too much.
You obviously don’t understand how the voucher system should work.
Charter schools in Texas are growing every year. Not exactly a voucher system, but it does give parents a choice between the crap that is traditional public education, and expensive private schools.
[/quote]
I agree that federal taxes should not go to fund education. But they do. We are all taxed and that money is pooled. Given that, you should not be given a refund from that pool at the expense of impoverished schools. I don’t know how charter schools in Texas work, but I know that a federal voucher system does not give enough money back for poor parents to take their kids out of the crap that is traditional public education and send them somewhere better. It only results in less money for public schools, and the crappiest schools get crappier. And the students there remain stuck in them.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You obviously don’t understand how the voucher system should work.
[/quote]
You have an ideal, that’s nice. You should keep that idea as you look at the voucher systems that currently exist and think of specific policies that would change a number of problems that currently exist with them, and additional problems that would exist if the programs were to expand. Do you have one example of a voucher system that functions the way you envision it should?
Just because there is something good in theory doesn’t mean it’ll work in reality. The devil is in the details.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Again, I think vouchers are necesary to help kids and parents who care to have opportunities that they otherwise wouldn’t have had, but it’s certainly no panacea, and the problems that JSbrook is bringing up should be DEALT WITH and not ignored as some on this thread are doing.
Yes, but even then it would to be state vouchers, if an effective, fair and workable system could be devised. Federal vouchers simply don’t provide enough money for anyone to attend a different school unless they are already comfortable. Agreed?[/quote]
Yeah, a federal program alone couldn’t do it. Perhaps if it was coupled with a state or district level program it could work. The trick is, as you say, to insure that we’re helping the kids who need help.
And to remember that vouchers are no panacea as so many are arguing.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers)
Wrong. I have thought about this more than Jsbrook. This is evident in his posts. We have already gone around on this in anohter thread. I am not going to do it again unless someone starts another thread.
There are no significant pitfalls (compared to what we have) to a voucher program. All the gov’t has to do is set standardized testing (optional but probably necessary at first) and write the check. [/quote]
Bluntly speaking, you hadn’t even realized that there currently are voucher systems in that other thread.
You’re not looking at the realities on the ground and not thinking about implementation. Theory is great, but it doesn’t equate to working results. The devil is in the details.
And “all they have to do is set standardized testing”? Do you realize the dificulty in this? Have you an example of a standardized test that would work? Perhaps a country with a standardized test that works? Find one and then join the conversation.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Check the statistics:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html
[/quote]
You are spending a tremendous amount of time on this and really just thrashing about. Let’s start with some easy concepts and work from their.
The Federal Gov’t
This is the easiest case to make so we will start here.
The federal gov’t has no business educating our children. If they would like to help fund education, I begrudgingly accept this. Let them provide a voucher for every student. Let the parents decide where to spend that voucher. No more direct funding of any program. Now schools must compete for this money. Jsbrook seams to think that everyone loves the public schools, so nothing changes except that the schools get the entire federal budget for education. The DoE had a total budget of 68B in 2007. Jsbrook points out the 47B in 2006 that was actually spent on education. What if all of it went to education instead of unnecessary bureaucrats? If all they have to do is hand out vouchers, the DoE is not going to need 20B just to operate. So, actually more like $1,500 per student.
Now, what do we think will happen if parents are given the choice to spend that $1,500 where they think their children will get the best education. An educated person would probably deduce that demand for private schools or alternative “public” schools will arise. If communities and state want to build more schools, fine. They have the same opportunity to compete for that $1500. Any parents that were $1500 dollars shy of sending their kids to private school will. They still pay local and state tax but are no longer a burden on the public schools. This equates to either a savings for tax payers or more money per student at the public schools. According to jsbrook more money per student is all we really need for world class education. We all win.
Off to college. Today the fed gives direct grants to schools. They also provide low interest loans for students. Schools raise their rates, outcry for more loans from the fed. It’s a nice little racket they have going there. Today many colleges really only focus on competing for federal grants, and have lost focus on competing for, and providing the best education for, students. Instead of providing direct grants to universities and loaning money to students, why not allocate the total budget to vouchers for students? Now we have competition for students instead of competition for grants. If you don’t think lower tuition costs and more efficient institutions will arise out of this, I don’t know how to help you. If you don’t think this will cut down on the expense of handing out money, leaving more for actual education, I don’t know how to help you.
Off to the state.
The fed was an easy start as they have no constitutional right to tax for public education. If they are to ignore the constitution, the least they can do is distribute that money in the most effective manner.
The states are a bit more complicated. I still believe their should be a voucher program but do believe this will be a tougher pill to swallow. Not because it would not work 100% better than what we have now, but because I am from MN and we have a very strong teachers union here and are very pro-big gov’t.
Again, a voucher program does not take money away from any particular school or district, it just makes them compete for it. If their is a demand for Muslim or Catholic or Jewish schools, the state or community can compete for those students along with the private sector. My guess is that public schools will not compete and we will see privatization of education. What does this mean :
Innovation - something government programs are almost completely incapable of. There have been tremendous innovations in education with program like sylvan. Unfortunately only the well off can afford programs like this. What do you think would happen if there where $70B up for grabs? Do you think we would see more programs like this? Do you think we would see any economies of scale?
More power in the hands of Parents - Right now the teacher’s unions are running education. Our tax dollars fund teacher salaries, a portion of which goes to the union so they can lobby and support politicians that are pro union. So my tax dollars are being spend to fund an organization that I absolutely despise and has done more to harm our children’s education than anybody. Time to put the power back in the hands of parents.
Better pay for better teachers - this is really a continuation of the one above. The way we compensate union teacher is absolutely disgusting. Paying factory workers based on how long they have been on the job is deplorable enough, but teachers. Unforgivable. This is arguably the most important profession in this country. So what do we do, we discourage the very best and reward the very worst. Teachers should be paid on merit. Good teachers should make much more than they do, and bad teachers should find another job. Not allowing good teachers or potential teachers to get the most money for their skill has done a tremendous amount of damage to this country. What about all the 20 year industry veterans that are sick of the rat race and would rather give back to the community? 20 years in physics, sorry, we’re going to pay you as much as the 20 year old with a political science major. Who do you think takes the job?
Anecdote - I had a social studies teacher when I was a senior that had been tenured for some time. We rarely saw him. He put a big screen tv in front of his classes, where he would play recordings of himself teaching various subjects. He had recorded these several years prior and hadn’t done much teaching since. He was, however, up on current events as he would read various news papers and magazines throughout the day. He just never share any of it with us.
Local communities - To me the revolution starts at the federal level and works down. If community funded schools have decreasing student bodies, this should save the tax payer money and provide for smaller class sizes and more attention to those that still attend. People that can afford to send their kids somewhere else with just the federal and/or state voucher are still paying property tax but are not a burden on the system. So essentially the community school has more money to spend per student. According to jsbrook this is all that’s missing in order to provide our children with a world class education.
Many of you that have read any of my posts in the past will immediately realize that I used spell check on this one. I should have skipped that to make a point. I guess we’ll just have to use my grammar and punctuation to highlight the failings of public education.
http://www.ideapublicschools.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=222&srcid=191
http://www.kipphouston.org/kipp/KIPP_Houston_High_School1_EN.asp?SnID=1124004717
Each of these charter schools spend about 20% less per student than the average school in Texas. Their results speak for themselves. Every one of these schools has a long waiting list of students trying to get in (students are taken on a first come, first enrolled basis). School choice works when it is done well. Forcing schools to compete for students/funding can only help students in the long run.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers)
Wrong. I have thought about this more than Jsbrook. This is evident in his posts. We have already gone around on this in anohter thread. I am not going to do it again unless someone starts another thread.
There are no significant pitfalls (compared to what we have) to a voucher program. All the gov’t has to do is set standardized testing (optional but probably necessary at first) and write the check.
Bluntly speaking, you hadn’t even realized that there currently are voucher systems in that other thread.
You’re not looking at the realities on the ground and not thinking about implementation. Theory is great, but it doesn’t equate to working results. The devil is in the details.
And “all they have to do is set standardized testing”? Do you realize the dificulty in this? Have you an example of a standardized test that would work? Perhaps a country with a standardized test that works? Find one and then join the conversation.
[/quote]
We don’t need him to join the converstation. He’s ‘thought about it more than the rest of us.’ It’s just that his thought has left him unable to recognize the problems in existing state voucher systems or even realize that they exist. And unable to grasp how the small amount the Fed spends on vouchers renders a federal voucher system entirely ineffectual.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
How have you found the teachers in those schools? In addition to lack of resources, the quality of teachers willing to work in the worst schools seems to be a big problem. My friends who did Teach for America said that some of the career teachers at their schools barely seemed able to read themselves.[/quote]
Teacher quality was quite low. This was, I think due to a few factors.
in ability to get non-certified teachers in the door. I knew a PhD who wanted to “give a year” teaching at MPS…they wouldn’t have him for anything but a sub or part time-er because he wasn’t certified. B/c ofthis he couldn’t make the money #s work and he didn’t do it… this is just one example, but it’s a huge problem, IMO, when a PhD who teaches at the local uni can’t quickly “get certified”
Shitty situations. The teachers were treated like hell, the schools were falling apart, administration was hellish, the kids were treated like hell…would you want to work there?
Low pay for teachers…especially given the shitty situations. Hell, would you want to work there? How about if we only paid you 32,000/year? low pay will produce low quality. Low pay + shitty situation will equal even worse quality.
Shit, I’ve got to go, I’ll try to type more later.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers)
Wrong. I have thought about this more than Jsbrook. This is evident in his posts. We have already gone around on this in anohter thread. I am not going to do it again unless someone starts another thread.
There are no significant pitfalls (compared to what we have) to a voucher program. All the gov’t has to do is set standardized testing (optional but probably necessary at first) and write the check.
Bluntly speaking, you hadn’t even realized that there currently are voucher systems in that other thread.
You’re not looking at the realities on the ground and not thinking about implementation. Theory is great, but it doesn’t equate to working results. The devil is in the details.
And “all they have to do is set standardized testing”? Do you realize the dificulty in this? Have you an example of a standardized test that would work? Perhaps a country with a standardized test that works? Find one and then join the conversation.
[/quote]
I was quite aware. We have discussed this in much more detail in another thread.
In order for a voucher program to work it has to large enough and permanent. Would you start a brand new school or make any inovation at all if dollars supporting you ROI were temporary? Trials will not work. Limited scope implementations will not work. When the only choice is anohter public school, what have we really done? Nothing.
[quote]doogie wrote:
http://www.ideapublicschools.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=222&srcid=191
http://www.kipphouston.org/kipp/KIPP_Houston_High_School1_EN.asp?SnID=1124004717
Each of these charter schools spend about 20% less per student than the average school in Texas. Their results speak for themselves. Every one of these schools has a long waiting list of students trying to get in (students are taken on a first come, first enrolled basis). School choice works when it is done well. Forcing schools to compete for students/funding can only help students in the long run.
[/quote]
Do you think programs like this would expand if a $70B, or better yet $500B, market for them were to appear? I do. I think we would see even better schools for less money. But that’s just me and my silly common sense. Good post.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You obviously don’t understand how the voucher system should work.
You have an ideal, that’s nice. You should keep that idea as you look at the voucher systems that currently exist and think of specific policies that would change a number of problems that currently exist with them, and additional problems that would exist if the programs were to expand. Do you have one example of a voucher system that functions the way you envision it should?
Just because there is something good in theory doesn’t mean it’ll work in reality. The devil is in the details. [/quote]
The devil is in the federal government thinking that one size fits all. Hell, the devil is in anyone thinking one size fits all.
jsbrook is whining about how horrible vouchers are and how they can’t work because poor inner-city kids in whatever town are not benefiting.
I say that can work. Charter schools are doing quite well here in Texas. I think vouchers would work just as well.
What do you say? You are real quick with the retort, but have yet to offer your opinion on anything in this forum.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers)
Wrong. I have thought about this more than Jsbrook. This is evident in his posts. We have already gone around on this in anohter thread. I am not going to do it again unless someone starts another thread.
There are no significant pitfalls (compared to what we have) to a voucher program. All the gov’t has to do is set standardized testing (optional but probably necessary at first) and write the check.
Bluntly speaking, you hadn’t even realized that there currently are voucher systems in that other thread.
You’re not looking at the realities on the ground and not thinking about implementation. Theory is great, but it doesn’t equate to working results. The devil is in the details.
And “all they have to do is set standardized testing”? Do you realize the dificulty in this? Have you an example of a standardized test that would work? Perhaps a country with a standardized test that works? Find one and then join the conversation.
We don’t need him to join the converstation. He’s ‘thought about it more than the rest of us.’ It’s just that his thought has left him unable to recognize the problems in existing state voucher systems or even realize that they exist. And unable to grasp how the small amount the Fed spends on vouchers renders a federal voucher system entirely ineffectual. [/quote]
I’ve already addressed this a couple of times in my post above, but in case you missed it…WRONG.
You pulled your $1500 statistic out of the air. It’s not enough for low-income students to attend private schools, anyway.
The problems of admission remain. Private schools choose who to accept and not to accept. One of the key reasons private schools excel is because of this selectivity. Private schools admit students from backgrounds that place a premium on education. And the parents can usually afford tutors for their struggling childern and are capable of recognizing and addressing their needs in other ways. WITHOUT additional support programs for both parents and children, which costs a lot MORE money, admission of such kids would degrage the quality of this schools.
But the schools would not allow this to happen. The top schools wouldn’t admit those kids. Over time, and not all that long at that, there would be great private schools, mediocre private schools, and terrible private schools.
Best case scenario: education gets privatized. A host of private schools spring up. The best ones cost many thousands of dollars. Parents pay for them with this fanciful voucher of $1500 and additional thousands in private money. Then there are middle grade private schools. They cost less.
Finally, you get the lowest grade private schools. They only cost $1500. The amount of the fanciful voucher. They choose to accept the poorest and worst students from the worst backgrounds. The schools still suck. What’s changed? Nothing to speak of. Schools are just private now, and parents get handed $1500 directly to send kids to school instead of the government putting it towards schools. It’s still not enough to establish good schools.
By the way, I NEVER. Never never never said more money per student was all that was needed. I said that students need basic rsources. And students forced to share textbooks 3 to a book and lacking other basic resources will not excel even if their home life was perfect and t