The Failure of "Public" Education

[PaulinVA]

Originally Posted by buffalo

How much is it spread out per the total student population. $1000?

I don't know. In my school system, there are people, "aides", that shadow individual kids (for medical issues, as an example) to allow for them get an education. There are whole alternative high schools.

If the cost was not considerable, then Catholic schools would provide the service as well.

[ACCT]

Commentary: Free to Choose
Wall Street Journal
By MILTON FRIEDMAN
June 9, 2005; Page A16

Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents."

"A Nation at Risk" stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series of major attempts to reform the government educational system. These reforms, however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had negligible effect on the quality of the public school system. Though spending per pupil has more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for inflation, students continue to rank low in international comparisons; dropout rates are high; scores on SATs and the like have fallen and remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone functional literacy, in the United States is almost surely lower at the beginning of the 21st century than it was a century earlier. And all this is despite a major increase in real spending per student since "A Nation at Risk" was published.
* * *
One result has been experimentation with such alternatives as vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Government voucher programs are in effect in a few places (Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, the District of Columbia); private voucher programs are widespread; tax credits for educational expenses have been adopted in at least three states and tax credit vouchers (tax credits for gifts to scholarship-granting organizations) in three states. In addition, a major legal obstacle to the adoption of vouchers was removed when the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the Cleveland voucher in 2002. However, all of these programs are limited; taken together they cover only a small fraction of all children in the country.

Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the gulf between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents to have more control over the schooling of their children, on the one hand, and the adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders and educational administrators to any change that would in any way reduce their control of the educational system.

We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a statewide voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). In both cases, the initiatives were carefully drawn up, and the voucher sums moderate. In both cases, nine months or so before the election, public opinion polls recorded a sizable majority in favor of the initiative. In addition, of course, there was a sizable group of fervent supporters, whose hopes ran high of finally getting control of their children's schooling. In each case, about six months before the election, the voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly unscrupulous campaign against the initiative. Television ads blared that vouchers would break the budget, whereas in fact they would reduce spending since the proposed voucher was to be only a fraction of what government was spending per student.

Teachers were induced to send home with their students misleading propaganda against the initiative. Dirty tricks of every variety were financed from a very deep purse. The result was to convert the initial majority into a landslide defeat. This has also occurred in Washington state, Colorado and Michigan. Opposition like this explains why progress has been so slow in such a good cause.

[ZoeyBdo]

Instead of vouchers and the like, couldn't one argue that the failure of a public education isn't necessarily the education itself, but the lack of encouragement and follow-through by the parents?

I don't have children, but I attended a public school. School is what you make of it, but my parents also made sure I could read in kindergarten, made sure I could write and write properly in cursive (something that's not even taught anymore ~ heaven forbid!!) and took interest in my school work and extracurriculars.

I'm sorry, but at some point we have to stop blaming the schools and the teachers and point the finger where it really belongs.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by ACCT

...We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a statewide voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). ... In each case, about six months before the election, the voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly unscrupulous campaign against the initiative. ... The result was to convert the initial majority into a landslide defeat. ...

I was living in CA at the time. The proponents did not counter this attack very well. Instead of repeating their claims that vouchers would improve education, they should have used a little reverse psychology and said something like, "Vote against vouchers because we don't want your riff-raff in our successful private schools."

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by ZoeyBdo

Instead of vouchers and the like, couldn't one argue that the failure of a public education isn't necessarily the education itself, but the lack of encouragement and follow-through by the parents?

I don't have children, but I attended a public school. School is what you make of it, but my parents also made sure I could read in kindergarten, made sure I could write and write properly in cursive (something that's not even taught anymore ~ heaven forbid!!) and took interest in my school work and extracurriculars.

I'm sorry, but at some point we have to stop blaming the schools and the teachers and point the finger where it really belongs.

I somewhat disagree. The educational establishment is in a leadership position. In fact, the word "education" comes from the Latin "e duco" meaning "to lead out". It is long past the time when it shows some leadership in the right direction.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by ZoeyBdo

Instead of vouchers and the like, couldn't one argue that the failure of a public education isn't necessarily the education itself, but the lack of encouragement and follow-through by the parents?

I don't have children, but I attended a public school. School is what you make of it, but my parents also made sure I could read in kindergarten, made sure I could write and write properly in cursive (something that's not even taught anymore ~ heaven forbid!!) and took interest in my school work and extracurriculars.

I'm sorry, but at some point we have to stop blaming the schools and the teachers and point the finger where it really belongs.

There's only so much parents can do - yes, the problem is also the teachers and the unions, but even more than those, the HUGE federal bureaucracy. If parents are going to be essentially doing the work, why send the kids to government schools to be indoctrinated, why not homeschool?

The government school system is a MESS, by and large.

[ACCT]

I am not advocating shutting the doors of public education, just opening more doors of private education.

The parents will vote with their school vouchers. They will decide which public schools will stay open and which public schools will close. Additionally, many new private schools will open. New schools will give parents even more choices. Why should the state have a monopoly on education?

[PatriceA]

Originally Posted by ACCT

I am not advocating shutting the doors of public education, just opening more doors of private education.

The parents will vote with their school vouchers. They will decide which public schools will stay open and which public schools will close. Additionally, many new private schools will open. New schools will give parents even more choices. Why should the state have a monopoly on education?

OR decide which PRIVATE schools should close.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by PatriceA

OR decide which PRIVATE schools should close.

Private schools are already subject to market forces. If one was not better than free public schools, why would parents spend more of their money supporting that which they could get for free? IOW, it would have already gone out of business.

[PatriceA]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

Private schools are already subject to market forces. If one was not better than free public schools, why would parents spend more of their money supporting that which they could get for free? IOW, it would have already gone out of business.

Some are barely getting by. Part of the arguement I hear for vouchers is that the schools that are struggling would overflow with new students if only the parents could use vouchers. That's not necessarily the case. I think some people that think vouchers would solve the problem of some Catholic schools being closed in my area aren't really looking at the real reasons these schools may be closing. At least in my diocese, parents are already determining that some private schools should close, the vouchers wouldn't make any difference because some private schools are just subpar or inadequate education choices.

I haven't made up my mind on school vouchers. I hear pros and cons on both sides. But I do think people on either side may be quite surprised on how people would use the vouchers if they were issued. I do believe our local parish school still wouldn't survive because many of the problems they have can't be fixed with more financial aid. Can't throw money on a problem if the administration won't take the time to look at their own administration and discipline problems.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by PatriceA

...I haven't made up my mind on school vouchers. I hear pros and cons on both sides. But I do think people on either side may be quite surprised on how people would use the vouchers if they were issued. I do believe our local parish school still wouldn't survive because many of the problems they have can't be fixed with more financial aid. Can't throw money on a problem if the administration won't take the time to look at their own administration and discipline problems.

I have mixed emotions about them, myself. I fear politics will infect private schools much as they have public.

"GATE-closing plan stirs parental debate at Lincoln Middle School"
By Adam Klawonn
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 19, 2005
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/e...1mi19vusd.html

VISTA, CA – Parents of Latino students at Vista's most ethnically diverse school are incensed over a campaign by other parents to preserve an honors program there.
...

The proposal to dismantle the Gifted and Talented Education, or GATE, program at the school is supported by the Latino parents, opposed by parents of the GATE students.
...
"All students should be treated equally," Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. "We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less." [Emphasis added.]

Do we want to open another Pandora's Box for the ACLU's feeding frenzy?

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

I don't know. In my school system, there are people, "aides", that shadow individual kids (for medical issues, as an example) to allow for them get an education. There are whole alternative high schools.

If the cost was not considerable, then Catholic schools would provide the service as well.

It has to do with mandates and population size as a percentage.

[Lujack]

Per-pupil cost is a bad measure.

Since my college term ends before the public school year does, I'd usually work as a substitute teacher or teacher's aide in the public schools for a few weeks at the end of the year. As an aide a couple of times, I subbed in a classroom for the severely autistic (and I do mean severely; non-verbal, one of the kids was deaf...it was a rough day). We had a teacher and two aides in the room for seven students, and to be perfectly honest we probably could have used a third aide. I've substituted as a teacher, even as a kindergarten teacher by myself with almost thirty five-year-olds, but I've never worked as hard as I did on those days.

Cognitively disabled class, same thing-a teacher and two aids for 10 kids.

Those kids send the per-pupil cost through the roof, and Catholic schools don't educate those kids (not that there's anything wrong with them not doing it, they don't have the resources).

[ACCT]

There is present discrimination against parents who send their children to nonpublic schools. Universal vouchers would end the inequity of using tax funds to school some children but not others.

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by ACCT

There is present discrimination against parents who send their children to nonpublic schools. Universal vouchers would end the inequity of using tax funds to school some children but not others.

Why is there discrimination against parents who send their children to non-public schools?

Tax funds are used to establish a public school system; many choose not to use it, to use it for some parts of their education but not for others, or for all of it.

Its been that way for a very long time, and the Catholic school system achieved its period of greatest scope and success with far less funding than it has right now (during the 1950's, when over half of all Catholic children were in Catholic schools).

I was in public school up until 5th grade and in Catholic school from 6th to 12th. My brothers were in public school up to 8th grade and went to a Catholic high school. My parents have voted yes on the public school budget every year.

Supporting our Catholic schools is our duty as Catholics; people today seem to grumble about this far more than they should, in two different ways-some demand vouchers, while others don't donate anything because they are "paying enough in tuition already".