How many Presidents of the last 100 years have had a child go to the Washington DC public schools? One

The thing is that with private schools while any one private school will not be good for every student there is a private school for pretty much every type of student. One-size-fits-all is a big and inevitable issue for public schools. And it is not always the same issue. You would be surprised how many Millburn families send their child to private school, obviously not because the public schools are not good and not because they are stuck up but rather because the Millburn public schools can be a truly awful environment for the "average" student. It is a great place for the above average, services are pretty good for those with major special needs. But it is hard to find a comfortable place if you are average and the stress on those students can be extreme.

I agree that there's never going to be a perfect fit for every child and a choice system presents some tradeoffs, but I think we (as a society) could do a lot better than we are of meeting kids' individual needs.

There's no inherent reason why public school systems can't better differentiate their schools.  A few big cities, like New York City, do this, but I think that one-size-fits-all is deeply ingrained into administrators' (and many BOE members') DNA.  Sometimes, even if admins actually wanted to differentiate a school, in practice they couldn't because it is so politically difficult to change a school that's already been established and the average superintendent only lasts 4-5 years on the job.  

I'm not one to believe that the private sector always delivers services more efficiently.  I think privatized prisons are a really bad idea. I think the government should be very skeptical of for-profit universities too. 

BUT there is something to the question of why so many people who accept government-funded>private sector delivered services for non-K-12 education accept it elsewhere.

There are lots of privately owned (even for profit or religious) nursing homes that get huge government money.

There are lots of privately owned (even for profit or religious) hospitals that get huge government money.

There are lots of privately owned (religious) international charities that get huge government money.  

There are lots of privately owned (even for profit or religious) Pre-Ks that get huge government money.

There are lots of privately owned (even for profit or religious) universities that get huge government money.

etc etc etc

Does anybody object to any of this?  Has the ACLU ever sued because the Notre Dame gets government money or the Daughters of Israel Nursing Home?

No.  Everybody accepts this stuff.  

And yet, as soon as you say that maybe the government could give a few dollars to a Catholic elementary school or a non-sectarian charter school, people go crazy.

Why is this?  

ml1 said:

I agree that's one of the big issues. And having had 2 children go all the way through the SOMA public school system, it's been our experience. Public school is "one-size-fits-all" in a world in which no two kids have the same needs.

But what system will afford that? Even in an exclusive private school, it's not going to be tailored to meet the unique needs of every student. Unless we all hire private tutors for our kids, nothing will be a perfect fit for everyone.

There's also something to be said for having kids navigate themselves through a system that doesn't cater to them and treats them like the other students.  The world they will all eventually enter is itself "one-size-fits-all," and isn't going to treat them as unique and delicate flowers. 

Runner_Guy said:

Reasonable people can disagree on how a school should be structured, how much homework kids should have, and what the curriculum should feature.  I don’t think “one-size-fits-all” is a strategy that is likely to lead to the greatest satisfaction.  Since different parents want different things, I think, within reason, they ought to have the opportunity to choose the school that’s best for their own kids.

Runner_Guy said:

And yet, as soon as you say that maybe the government could give a few dollars to a Catholic elementary school or a non-sectarian charter school, people go crazy.

Why is this?  

Because the pot of education money is already too small to fit current needs, and there are already battles over who gets what pieces of that pot.

sprout said:

Runner_Guy said:

And yet, as soon as you say that maybe the government could give a few dollars to a Catholic elementary school or a non-sectarian charter school, people go crazy.

Why is this?  

Because the pot of education money is already too small to fit current needs, and there are already battles over who gets what pieces of that pot.

I'm sure there are people who sincerely feel this way that any diminishment of money for public ed is unacceptable, but a lot of voucher plans have been structured so that the voucher payment would be significantly less than what schools spend per student, so that if kids leave the public schools, the schools only give up a few thousand dollars per student.

Sometimes voucher programs are set up so that only state money "follows the child" (up to $5100 pp) and the public schools keep the local tax levy.  If every single child in the Clark County Public Schools (NV) went to a voucher school, the CCPS would still have 40% of their budget for 0 students.

I haven't thoroughly studied every state's voucher funding, but they are are rarely structured like charter school funding, where the money transferred is 70%-100% of per pupil spending.  

The DC Opportunity Scholarships program was/is 100% federally funded too, so the DCPS didn't lose a cent when a child enrolled in a private school.  (this hasn't stopped Obama from repeatedly trying to kill the Opportunity Scholarships program)

I respect anti-voucher arguments, but I think the argument that a voucher system would be damaging because it would drain public schools of motivated students is more compelling than the argument that vouchers would drain schools of money.  

a lot of people have an objection to tax revenue being diverted to a parallel system.

To use an analogy -- many of the same communities that have "failing" schools also have high crime rates. Higher than in upper middle class neighborhoods, and much higher than countries like Singapore. In those communities, many people have very legitimate gripes about how their neighborhoods are policed. It might even be said that those communities have "failing" police precincts.

But no one is suggesting that the way to more effectively police those communities is to give neighborhoods voucher credits to start up their own "charter police forces."  Mostly because we'd think it ludicrous that crime would disappear from poverty-stricken neighborhoods that have lots of guns, gangs and drug trafficking if only we just had police choice.

It's not really that different with public schools. If you give people choice, it isn't going to solve most of the underlying reasons why schools "fail."

Runner_Guy said:

sprout said:

Runner_Guy said:

And yet, as soon as you say that maybe the government could give a few dollars to a Catholic elementary school or a non-sectarian charter school, people go crazy.

Why is this?  

Because the pot of education money is already too small to fit current needs, and there are already battles over who gets what pieces of that pot.

I'm sure there are people who sincerely feel this way that any diminishment of money for public ed is unacceptable, but a lot of voucher plans have been structured so that the voucher payment would be significantly less than what schools spend per student, so that if kids leave the public schools, the schools only give up a few thousand dollars per student.

You know our district doesn't have the luxury of giving up only 'a few thousand dollars per student'. And if we pull private school students back into our public schools, who then become the ones to use the vouchers, it becomes an even bigger financial loss. Our district's financial struggles are not unique - so the perspective of not wanting 'our tax money' given away to other schools is not uncommon.

The education pot would need to be substantially enlarged before funding could be given to non-district schools without a fight.

broigus said:

The thing is that with private schools while any one private school will not be good for every student there is a private school for pretty much every type of student. One-size-fits-all is a big and inevitable issue for public schools. And it is not always the same issue. You would be surprised how many Millburn families send their child to private school, obviously not because the public schools are not good and not because they are stuck up but rather because the Millburn public schools can be a truly awful environment for the "average" student. It is a great place for the above average, services are pretty good for those with major special needs. But it is hard to find a comfortable place if you are average and the stress on those students can be extreme.

Perfect!

I'm a firm believer that in high school, every student should have a moment in the sun -- something that makes them feel good about themselves. It can come via grades, volunteer work, drama, sports, teen groups, charisma -- but something that says, "I Was Here." If the student body is too big, this is hard to accomplish. You have to know your kid to know what's a good fit for them. 

Private school isn't perfection, but IMO, the issues are addressed with lightening speed. When I email a teacher, I can expect an email in 1-2 hours tops and if not, definitely by early evening. If they have time, they'll call me during their break and the chat is never rushed. Teachers have even called during their travel time home or over the weekend. 

When my children were at SOMS, I too had great communication rapport with most of their teachers. No weekends or travel time, but I didn't expect that. And they got back to me within a reasonable amount of time. Not a week, but maybe a day or two, which I expected. 

One of the best things about private, IMO, is their ability to weed out those who wish to do harm. Whether that be disruption, drug use, issues regarding social media, violence, agitation, or just the garden type variety trouble maker, the school has no time for nonsense. Unlike public school, they don't have to take in a kid and educate him. They will kindly contact the family to discuss the reason(s) why Student won't be returning. And in a business sense, no loss for them regarding one student down on the spreadsheet; there are many to choose from on the waiting list. 

I have no problem with people choosing to send their children to private schools whether or not I would do so given their circumstances.

I have a BIG problem with taxpayer funds being used to support that choice (including the NJ policy of funding transportation of private school students.)   I want those public funds used to make the public schools as good as they can be. The onlycas where I think it is justified to spend public funds for private school attendance is for special education placements for children who have significant learning disabilities that cannot be handled in a cost effective way in the public schools. 

ml1 said:

we've had this discussion many times, and no one gets moved one inch off their original position, so I won't try to make an argument, just post a few questions. I don't have any vested interest in the public school system, I'm not in the union, I'm not a teacher, no one in my family or extended family is a teacher.  So if there really is a solution to better educational outcomes that involves completely revamping public education, I don't have any philosophical or personal interest in denying it.

But my big question is this -- if we could wave a magic wand and replace the U.S. "system" of education (if it really can be called a "system" at all), and replace it with that of Singapore or Finland or South Korea, or some other country that outperforms the U.S. on standardized tests, would we end up with the same results as other countries?

If we have to have public schools, and I'm on MOL so we have to ;-), I would prefer a system like the Denmark's. This system provides local control and allows parents to use their own discretion on where their children go to school.  

The taximeter system comprises four elements of grants: (a) a
basic grant; (b) a teaching grant; (c) an operational grant; and (d) a
building grant to cover rent, interest, debt servicing and maintenance.
Except for the basic grant (which is a lump-sum grant irrespective of the
size of the institution, covering basic operational expenses), all grants are
activity determined. The actual grant depends on student numbers, age
distribution of pupils, and the seniority of teachers.
The advantages of the taximeter system, according to the MOE,
are as follows:
1. Institutions are increasingly becoming demand-driven and
result-oriented
2. Institutions are behaving in a more economically rational
manner
3. Demographic changes are automatically reflected in
government expenditures
4. Great administrative simplification in relation to the large
number of institutions
5. Improved collaboration and coordination amongst institutions

I admit that there may be challenges to implementing this system here that may not exist in Denmark.  However, I do think this is a good template. 

ml1 said:

Another question is this -- as a country do we really value education for education's sake? Even among educated people, the notion that a university education is job training seems to be widespread.  How many people think calculus or physics are a waste of time to study because it's not something any of us will ever "use" again. So my question is -- as a country are we too indifferent (if not hostile) to education and learning for learning's sake to ever be top performing in standardized tests compared to the rest of the world?

It's a great question.  I think this is part of the problem.  Learning some of these topics can be hard work.  However, I've found that almost anything worth pursuing involves hard work.  

I'd add onto this.  I think another problem is that people think education is only formal education.  We should always be educating ourselves.  Especially in the current economic climate.   I try to read a non-fiction book every week or 2. 

ml1 said:


And the other question I always ask myself is this -- if public education in the U.S. is fatally flawed, why are there places that produce outstanding results? In NJ alone, why is it that you get a great outcome in Millburn or Mendham public schools but not in Irvington or Camden?  Is poor academic performance in this country truly because public schools are a flawed model beyond fixing? Or the result of other causes?

If we could just get rid of the unions and the public school "cartel," would the gap in performance between poor students, African American students, Hispanic students and ESL students and upper middle class students just go away?

I think there are a few issues here.  Some of this is $$.  And some of this is the parents.  Parents in Millburn will have ***** if their kid does poorly.  I'm not sure the same rings true in some urban environments. I've heard stories of some urban schools lacking books or using decades old text books(I believe the Atlantic did an article on the Philadelphia schools system that covered this).  Let's face it.  That is never going to fly in a community like Millburn.

To me though.  The question isn't "Can we educate everybody?"  I think that is idealistic.  The real question should be "Can we educate everybody that wants to be educated?".  I think sometimes by trying to do the former we fail at the latter. 

terp said:

I've heard stories of some urban schools lacking books or using decades old text books(I believe the Atlantic did an article on the Philadelphia schools system that covered this).  

There was this Atlantic Monthly article from 2014, but the writer was making points that were larger than the lack or age of textbooks:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/

(Disclosure: My wife worked on the support staff of a K-8 school in the Philadelphia district for several years before we moved in 2011.)

I think you answer this question when you ask the Millburn vs. Camden question. The differences are community/parents/money. 

We've had an underclass in this country since the Brits first started exporting its "riffraff"  to the colonies and our founders reaffirmed the class structure they knew from their home country through indentured servitude and land distribution, among other practices.

People who grow up poor in the U.S. stay poor if it's their "heritage," as documented in the recent books (White Trash, Hillbilly Elegy) on class in the U.S. The only leg up is education, which is virtually denied the poor by dint of the communities in which they live.

Moreover, in my experience, and this is most sad to me, you can't simply take a kid out of his/her environs and send him to a Millburn and expect success if he goes back home to the same home/community conditions. This is not true of some immigrant kids whose family life has been stable and whose values have been instilled in a rich culture/family structure. And, unfortunately, our perpetually poor Americans are unfairly compared to middle-class immigrants or immigrants with a rich culture/family structure. "Why can't you people (urban and rural poor) be more like those people?"

I have no answers except to say it ain't unions and it ain't teacher education. It's a rigid class system that perpetuates poverty. 

 

And the other question I always ask myself is this -- if public education in the U.S. is fatally flawed, why are there places that produce outstanding results? In NJ alone, why is it that you get a great outcome in Millburn or Mendham public schools but not in Irvington or Camden?  Is poor academic performance in this country truly because public schools are a flawed model beyond fixing? Or the result of other causes?
 

GL2 said:

This is not true of some immigrant kids whose family life has been stable and whose values have been instilled in a rich culture/family structure. And, unfortunately, our perpetually poor Americans are unfairly compared to middle-class immigrants or immigrants with a rich culture/family structure. "Why can't you people (urban and rural poor) be more like those people?"

But culture can be changed and instilled. Brushing teeth was once considered absurd until a little more than 100 years ago there was a campaign that changed the culture around that. Cigarettes were considered very cool until a concerted effort changed that idea for most. So cultural impediments can be changed. But it takes concerted efforts that must come from the affected communities.

sprout said:

Runner_Guy said:

sprout said:

Runner_Guy said:

And yet, as soon as you say that maybe the government could give a few dollars to a Catholic elementary school or a non-sectarian charter school, people go crazy.

Why is this?  

Because the pot of education money is already too small to fit current needs, and there are already battles over who gets what pieces of that pot.

I'm sure there are people who sincerely feel this way that any diminishment of money for public ed is unacceptable, but a lot of voucher plans have been structured so that the voucher payment would be significantly less than what schools spend per student, so that if kids leave the public schools, the schools only give up a few thousand dollars per student.

You know our district doesn't have the luxury of giving up only 'a few thousand dollars per student'. And if we pull private school students back into our public schools, who then become the ones to use the vouchers, it becomes an even bigger financial loss. Our district's financial struggles are not unique - so the perspective of not wanting 'our tax money' given away to other schools is not uncommon.

The education pot would need to be substantially enlarged before funding could be given to non-district schools without a fight.

There's no denying that voucherization would be incredibly disruptive, especially if vouchers were available to middle-class families.  

There are lots of free market-type people who would not be deterred by any disruption to high-performing districts and would want universally available vouchers available to kids of every income, but I think most elected officials have been more cautious.  Most of the voucher laws that have gone into effect or been seriously contemplated would only be available in certain low-performing districts and/or only available to low-income families.  

The voucher program that Chris Christie has periodically promoted would only be available in a handful of districts too.

Nevada's voucher law is unique because there is no income ceiling and it is supposed to be available everywhere in the state.  

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/opinion_nj_opportunity_scholar_2.html

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

@ml1

But no one is suggesting that the way to more effectively police those communities is to give neighborhoods voucher credits to start up their own "charter police forces."  Mostly because we'd think it ludicrous that crime would disappear from poverty-stricken neighborhoods that have lots of guns, gangs and drug trafficking if only we just had police choice.

It's not really that different with public schools. If you give people choice, it isn't going to solve most of the underlying reasons why schools "fail."

I don't think the police analogy holds very well, although I admit the private hospital and private nursing home analogies are imperfect as well.  However, I think the private Pre-K and private university analogies are very strong.  Why is it that we are all fine with taxpayer money going to private (even for-profit) Pre-Ks and universities but everybody goes crazy when any government money goes to a K-12 private school?  

I think pro-voucher people are being disingenuous when they say that vouchers will improve education overall.  Vouchers might work for the kids who use them and who get to attend school with other motivated kids, but the kids left behind would be hurt.  

However, I think the non-educational arguments for vouchers are stronger, like over time a voucher system would delink community income from school quality and help struggling cities build their middle classes.  I'm not a conservative, but if I were, I'd suppose that a voucher system would lower taxes over time too and weaken teachers unions and those can count as features, not bugs.  

broigus said:

GL2 said:

This is not true of some immigrant kids whose family life has been stable and whose values have been instilled in a rich culture/family structure. And, unfortunately, our perpetually poor Americans are unfairly compared to middle-class immigrants or immigrants with a rich culture/family structure. "Why can't you people (urban and rural poor) be more like those people?"

But culture can be changed and instilled. Brushing teeth was once considered absurd until a little more than 100 years ago there was a campaign that changed the culture around that. Cigarettes were considered very cool until a concerted effort changed that idea for most. So cultural impediments can be changed. But it takes concerted efforts that must come from the affected communities.

I agree. And that's the promise of free public education. Learn. Aspire to a career. Achieve a level of self-sufficiency and even comfort. And there are certainly poor folks who achieve against all odds. But when you're born into poverty and dysfunction, it tends to perpetuate itself. 

So for me, it's either acknowledge a class system and accept it, or invest in social programs that are effective in lifting a generation out of the endless cycle. The hypocrisy IMO is the idea that we can ignore both and still blame people for their plight.

Top down does not work. It needs to happen organically from the midst of the community.

broigus said:

Top down does not work. It needs to happen organically from the midst of the community.

One of the challenges of living in poverty is living with greater instability/lack of predictability.

Unfortunately, our education system, including the closing of low-performing schools, the transience of charter schools, and high turnover in teachers and administrators, adds to the instability in not only students' lives, but the lives of their families.

The ability to drive change is better within a more stable system (or attempts to change may just add to the chaos). Educational (and childcare), residential (e.g., housing, safety, utilities, sanitation, health, etc.), and economic stability come from the top.

We have seen top down attempts repeatedly for the past 50 or so years. That is enough time and enough attempts to show that they do not work and often make things worse. Only community based efforts can succeed. That does not mean they can not be funded from the top. But they can not be controlled from the top or they will continue to expensively fail.

broigus said:

We have seen top down attempts repeatedly for the past 50 or so years. That is enough time and enough attempts to show that they do not work and often make things worse. Only community based efforts can succeed. That does not mean they can not be funded from the top. But they can not be controlled from the top or they will continue to expensively fail.

Second part seems right to me (fund top-down; community-based effort).

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

I've heard stories of some urban schools lacking books or using decades old text books(I believe the Atlantic did an article on the Philadelphia schools system that covered this).  

There was this Atlantic Monthly article from 2014, but the writer was making points that were larger than the lack or age of textbooks:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/


(Disclosure: My wife worked on the support staff of a K-8 school in the Philadelphia district for several years before we moved in 2011.)

Thanks for posting that.  I'm not sure if that is the article.  For some reason, my memory of it was a bit more dire.

I would agree that national standardized tests (and using this as a rubric for teachers/schools) are part of the problem.  I really think that decentralizing control would be helpful....that and changing the structure of incentives...see my prior post.

A few questions (serious ones):

Are we OK with some states using the Bible as a resource? 

In history and science classes? 

Do we owe other people's kids oversight (from feds) or do states decide the quality of education?

If I live in a "very conservative" state, where battles over textbooks continue, do my taxes pay for Bible education in history and science?

The states are all sovereign democracies so they should be able to do as they please. States with more successful policies will prosper compared to others and populations will migrate. Those with bad policies will need to either change them or die. People in NJ should not dictate education policy to Texas any more than we should to Kazakhstan.  

broigus said:

The states are all sovereign democracies so they should be able to do as they please. States with more successful policies will prosper compared to others and populations will migrate. Those with bad policies will need to either change them or die. People in NJ should not dictate education policy to Texas any more than we should to Kazakhstan.  

If we aren't going to have national standards we shouldn't have federal funding, either. Probably scrap all federal funding to avoid having the strong states carry the weaker states. Perhaps we ought to scrap the notion of united states altogether.

Yes, the kids would suffer. But, hey, sometimes they have to pay the price of dumb adult decisions.

The Federal government should stick to the very limited powers given to it by the sovereign states in the constitution. It has grabbed powers it is not supposed to have.

broigus said:

The Federal government should stick to the very limited powers given to it by the sovereign states in the constitution. It has grabbed powers it is not supposed to have.

Okay then. No federal aid to states.

Fine with me. That is actually the way it should be. No reason to funnel money through the Federal government. That is not its proper role. Every state can collect its own taxes. I consider the Federal government raising money to turn over to states is unconstitutional.

broigus said:

No reason to funnel money through the Federal government. 

Yeah, no reason at all.

broigus said:

The states are all sovereign democracies so they should be able to do as they please. States with more successful policies will prosper compared to others and populations will migrate. Those with bad policies will need to either change them or die. People in NJ should not dictate education policy to Texas any more than we should to Kazakhstan.  

Was it correct for the Federal Government to pass and enforce the Civil Rights Act?  Is it correct for the Federal Government to get involved in cases such as Brown vs. the BOE?  Where do you draw the line?

I'd also include stopping fed aid for all the social services impacted by poor education of a state's citizens. 

Since states were bound to the bill of rights by amendment of the constitution after the civil war, it is ok for Federal Courts to enforce those rights to the extent they exist. The Federal government should not not have any further role beyond that any more than it should regarding rights in Saudi Arabia. So the courts were correct to rule in Brown. 

The Federal government is a creation of the states that only rightly has the limited powers given to it by the sovereign states. It can not legitimately take any other powers so most of what it does today is illegal.