Friday, July 01, 2005
Publik Skool
Check out this article.
Here's the summary: Offer students (who pass an achievement test) at underachieving schools financial vouchers to attend private schools. Leave all of the underachieving students at the crappy schools that we can't afford to improve because we're paying to send the smart students elsewhere.
Taft is a dummy. Even with my public school education, I was able to come up with a better idea: IMPROVE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Comments:
<< Home
Hi Curf!
Wish I'd have known your blog was here. Would have visited.
Here's a personal story that may give a little perspective on the whole education debate. Keep in mind that the United States public school system is ranked one of the last in the industrialized nations. They have had decades upon decades to remedy the situation with NO results. I wrote this from that framework...
______________________________
Not long ago a liberal friend of mine had new carpet and flooring installed in his home.
1. He shopped six different places before he settled on the individual he felt qualified to put his flooring in.
2. He refused to make a down payment or ANY kind of payment to the individual until the job was done and the results PERFECT.
3. After the job was completed, he made the guy who put it in come back TWO times to fix things that I couldn't even detect were wrong.
4. He also got more out of the guy than he paid for--wood transitions (which cost the carpet guy extra) instead of brass or aluminum.
5. Sam was the biggest pain in the rear with his contractor, and expected far more for his money than he should have.
It lead into a GREAT discussion about education which made me ask the following questions:
1. Sam, did you go with the guy who was the most expensive? Was the best deal the most expensive one? No? You went with who you thought would do the best job for the money, huh.
2. Don't you think that there should be just one carpet supplier and installer? (The most expensive one...) because if you give money to one of the small guys, it takes money away from the big guys so they can't do as good a job.
3. Why did you refuse to pay until the job was done? You always seem to be more interested in paying for processes rather than results? Doesn't spending more money always bring better results? Why not pay and just accept what you get?
4. If the carpet and flooring was in, why did you make the guy come back over and over again to get it perfect? Why not pay him more money to come back and fix it?
You get the gist...
Sam is interested in choice (competition) and performance (outcomes) when it comes to his own money, but loses that concern when it comes to spending other peoples' money. Or is there some other motivation?
-Jack
Wish I'd have known your blog was here. Would have visited.
Here's a personal story that may give a little perspective on the whole education debate. Keep in mind that the United States public school system is ranked one of the last in the industrialized nations. They have had decades upon decades to remedy the situation with NO results. I wrote this from that framework...
______________________________
Not long ago a liberal friend of mine had new carpet and flooring installed in his home.
1. He shopped six different places before he settled on the individual he felt qualified to put his flooring in.
2. He refused to make a down payment or ANY kind of payment to the individual until the job was done and the results PERFECT.
3. After the job was completed, he made the guy who put it in come back TWO times to fix things that I couldn't even detect were wrong.
4. He also got more out of the guy than he paid for--wood transitions (which cost the carpet guy extra) instead of brass or aluminum.
5. Sam was the biggest pain in the rear with his contractor, and expected far more for his money than he should have.
It lead into a GREAT discussion about education which made me ask the following questions:
1. Sam, did you go with the guy who was the most expensive? Was the best deal the most expensive one? No? You went with who you thought would do the best job for the money, huh.
2. Don't you think that there should be just one carpet supplier and installer? (The most expensive one...) because if you give money to one of the small guys, it takes money away from the big guys so they can't do as good a job.
3. Why did you refuse to pay until the job was done? You always seem to be more interested in paying for processes rather than results? Doesn't spending more money always bring better results? Why not pay and just accept what you get?
4. If the carpet and flooring was in, why did you make the guy come back over and over again to get it perfect? Why not pay him more money to come back and fix it?
You get the gist...
Sam is interested in choice (competition) and performance (outcomes) when it comes to his own money, but loses that concern when it comes to spending other peoples' money. Or is there some other motivation?
-Jack
Oh my God, that is too funny!
Jack, I agree that competition is great. But if you want that kind of competition, shouldn't the private schools be giving out scholarships instead of the city giving out vouchers?
Cities have finite financial resources. Take away a hunk of that money to spend on private schools and there is that much less money for public schools. I'm sure there is fat in the school budget that can be eliminated, but that's unlikely to happen. I'm definitely not for throwing tons of money at the public school system. Some changes need to be instituted to make it better. But why take public money and use it to send kids to private schools? If they achieve that well they'll get scholarships and the money can be sent to put another cop on the beat.
Jack, I agree that competition is great. But if you want that kind of competition, shouldn't the private schools be giving out scholarships instead of the city giving out vouchers?
Cities have finite financial resources. Take away a hunk of that money to spend on private schools and there is that much less money for public schools. I'm sure there is fat in the school budget that can be eliminated, but that's unlikely to happen. I'm definitely not for throwing tons of money at the public school system. Some changes need to be instituted to make it better. But why take public money and use it to send kids to private schools? If they achieve that well they'll get scholarships and the money can be sent to put another cop on the beat.
Jack,
Thank you so much for coming to visit my crappy blog. It's quite the honor considering how it pales in political comparison to the other sites you frequent. I added your blog to my links in thanks.
I would ask if this liberal friend was Mochi if you didn't live in South Carolina.
To sum it all up, Public School and Vouchers for Private Schools would be "other people's money", correct? I'm not so sure how one person was able to make the decision of how to spend "other people's money" instead of it getting an actual vote from those "other people". That's my main gripe. If the private voucher system is really the best way to go, why not close all of the public schools, (which are poor to say the least) and use ALL of the money in the system to allow parents the choice to send their children to whichever school is best. It doesn't make much sense to me to rob Peter to pay Paul (the Public School System to pay the Private Sector). And why can't those students that "score poorly" be allowed to spend "other people's money"? It seems elitist to me.
Thank you so much for coming to visit my crappy blog. It's quite the honor considering how it pales in political comparison to the other sites you frequent. I added your blog to my links in thanks.
I would ask if this liberal friend was Mochi if you didn't live in South Carolina.
To sum it all up, Public School and Vouchers for Private Schools would be "other people's money", correct? I'm not so sure how one person was able to make the decision of how to spend "other people's money" instead of it getting an actual vote from those "other people". That's my main gripe. If the private voucher system is really the best way to go, why not close all of the public schools, (which are poor to say the least) and use ALL of the money in the system to allow parents the choice to send their children to whichever school is best. It doesn't make much sense to me to rob Peter to pay Paul (the Public School System to pay the Private Sector). And why can't those students that "score poorly" be allowed to spend "other people's money"? It seems elitist to me.
And Sean, thank you as well. My crappy blog has never seen so much love. I linked to your blog too.
Isn't Ohio Hilarious?
Private schools here already do give out scholarships (as you suggested) for "high achievers", but it rarely covers the entire tuition which has been really great for keeping the poor ("THOSE people") out of the private sector.
Isn't Ohio Hilarious?
Private schools here already do give out scholarships (as you suggested) for "high achievers", but it rarely covers the entire tuition which has been really great for keeping the poor ("THOSE people") out of the private sector.
Sean,
First a quickie.
I send my daughter to a private school. It is not the most expensive--about $2,200 a year. Greenville County spends over $5,000 per year per student. Our private school SAT scores, retention rates, and every other statistic does not even compare to Greenville County's-- Double in some categories, triple in others.
Here's the thing. If there is a school out there that is doing a piss-poor job of educating your child would you like to be forced to put them there? Send the money where to the performing schools and the bad ones will go out of business. That's just common sense.
-Jack
First a quickie.
I send my daughter to a private school. It is not the most expensive--about $2,200 a year. Greenville County spends over $5,000 per year per student. Our private school SAT scores, retention rates, and every other statistic does not even compare to Greenville County's-- Double in some categories, triple in others.
Here's the thing. If there is a school out there that is doing a piss-poor job of educating your child would you like to be forced to put them there? Send the money where to the performing schools and the bad ones will go out of business. That's just common sense.
-Jack
Curf,
What are you talking about!
I can tell already that I am going to enjoy your 'blog and enjoy it thoroughly.
One thing I've noticed about you, Curf, is that you THINK. That is a rare trait in a liberal! ha!---NOO, just kiddin'.
I'll be a regular, and be back often to talk.
On the education issue, I just think that if we are going to pay for socialized education, then give the money to the parent (voucher) and let them spend it on the school they want to send their kid too. As it is now, there are a ton of non-performing schools with tenured deadwood that is hurting our kids. We need to weed those out, and send the money to those doing the better job.
I pay huge property taxes and in addition I have to pay tuition for my child to go to a performing school. Seems a little unfair to me. Also, it seems unfair to those kids out there who are stuck in non-performing schools.
It all comes down to the question:
With our existing system, who is getting hurt?
-Jack
What are you talking about!
I can tell already that I am going to enjoy your 'blog and enjoy it thoroughly.
One thing I've noticed about you, Curf, is that you THINK. That is a rare trait in a liberal! ha!---NOO, just kiddin'.
I'll be a regular, and be back often to talk.
On the education issue, I just think that if we are going to pay for socialized education, then give the money to the parent (voucher) and let them spend it on the school they want to send their kid too. As it is now, there are a ton of non-performing schools with tenured deadwood that is hurting our kids. We need to weed those out, and send the money to those doing the better job.
I pay huge property taxes and in addition I have to pay tuition for my child to go to a performing school. Seems a little unfair to me. Also, it seems unfair to those kids out there who are stuck in non-performing schools.
It all comes down to the question:
With our existing system, who is getting hurt?
-Jack
Hmm. This is an interesting conversation. As a brief introduction, I met Mochi a while back because his wife and mine are teachers in the same Boston public school. Suffice it to say, I've been around education debates quite a bit.
The problem I see with vouchers is the same problem Boston is having with charter schools. By letting people abandon an underperforming school it would leave only the worst, most poorly performing kids - until, as Jack says, it just folds. That's akin to alleviating homelessness by sending them all to Australia.
The absolute number one thing that determines a child's performance, bar none, is the support of the parents. That's why throwing money all over the place hasn't worked, because they're not addressing the real problem.
Unfortunately there is no sure fire way to get the parents involved. What's worked best so far is empowering the teachers and faculty by not having them jump through meaningless hoops. These are the people that deal with the children every day - not bureaucrats or politicians, but teachers. If we stopped crapping on them for a change, we'd take a HUGE step forward. Contrary to popular belief, they're not all idiots who couldn't get a job doing something else and/or just want summers off. Most of them are hard working professionals who sincerely want (and know) what's best for the children they teach.
The problem I see with vouchers is the same problem Boston is having with charter schools. By letting people abandon an underperforming school it would leave only the worst, most poorly performing kids - until, as Jack says, it just folds. That's akin to alleviating homelessness by sending them all to Australia.
The absolute number one thing that determines a child's performance, bar none, is the support of the parents. That's why throwing money all over the place hasn't worked, because they're not addressing the real problem.
Unfortunately there is no sure fire way to get the parents involved. What's worked best so far is empowering the teachers and faculty by not having them jump through meaningless hoops. These are the people that deal with the children every day - not bureaucrats or politicians, but teachers. If we stopped crapping on them for a change, we'd take a HUGE step forward. Contrary to popular belief, they're not all idiots who couldn't get a job doing something else and/or just want summers off. Most of them are hard working professionals who sincerely want (and know) what's best for the children they teach.
Smorgasborg,
Maybe I've met you before. Mochi and his wife are good friends of mine from the East Coast. I've got a big red Afro-Poof so I stand out a little. You might remember me if we've met.
My first of twelve-thousand majors in college (for four years at least) was education. I'm obviously not in the camp that would crap on those heroes such as your wife and Mochi's that actually give half a crap about the future of mankind. The educators are definitelty not to blame. I personally am placing the blame on funding. With more funding in our public schools, your wives' might have access to better text-books, computers, educational videos, and field-trips (not to mention a better salary that might make the rare few that hate their job try a little harder) or maybe hiring teachers with Masters Degrees to name a few.
All of these things might possibly improve those statistical results that school systems rely on so heavily... at least a little.
And Australia isn't for the homeless, it's for criminals. (A side joke that you and Mochi might understand).
Even if every parent became magically involved overnight, the 8 hours that they're away "learning" could be better served by better access to funding to provide them the tools needed.
Maybe I've met you before. Mochi and his wife are good friends of mine from the East Coast. I've got a big red Afro-Poof so I stand out a little. You might remember me if we've met.
My first of twelve-thousand majors in college (for four years at least) was education. I'm obviously not in the camp that would crap on those heroes such as your wife and Mochi's that actually give half a crap about the future of mankind. The educators are definitelty not to blame. I personally am placing the blame on funding. With more funding in our public schools, your wives' might have access to better text-books, computers, educational videos, and field-trips (not to mention a better salary that might make the rare few that hate their job try a little harder) or maybe hiring teachers with Masters Degrees to name a few.
All of these things might possibly improve those statistical results that school systems rely on so heavily... at least a little.
And Australia isn't for the homeless, it's for criminals. (A side joke that you and Mochi might understand).
Even if every parent became magically involved overnight, the 8 hours that they're away "learning" could be better served by better access to funding to provide them the tools needed.
My dear friend Jack,
Thanks again for actually visiting my crappy site. Even if we secretly hate each other (just kidding), our differing opinions provide for great discussion.
First and foremost, congrats on being able to send your daughter to private school. Although I enjoyed my own "Publik" experience, I've got a little guy of my own who's future I must now consider (and at current, our public school systems are not performing up to par). The only problem is that I can't guarantee that I will be able to afford a private education for my son a few years down the road.
You're right...Private schools do indeed out-perform the Public Sector in all of the ways that you mentioned. Of course I would not like to be "forced" to place my child in an underperforming school.... I'd rather be "forced" to place my child in a moderately performing school until he's able to perform well enough to earn those vouchers that we're discussing. Without that funding that's now being funneled to private school vouchers though, I'm doomed to send him to a terrible school, tutor him at home, and pray that my son achieves well enough to earn vouchers to ship him off elsewhere.
And as for "weeding out" those underperforming schools (as good business and common sense as you mentioned), why should my child suffer in the process? I know that you pay property taxes to send us poor folk to school and that probably ticks you off a whole lot considering the 2G's + that you spend on your daughter's education annually. Wouldn't you rather spend less than $100 extra on your property taxes annually to send your daughter to a free, good performing public school as opposed to paying both taxes and tuition for one that currently out-performs the public sector?
Post a Comment
Thanks again for actually visiting my crappy site. Even if we secretly hate each other (just kidding), our differing opinions provide for great discussion.
First and foremost, congrats on being able to send your daughter to private school. Although I enjoyed my own "Publik" experience, I've got a little guy of my own who's future I must now consider (and at current, our public school systems are not performing up to par). The only problem is that I can't guarantee that I will be able to afford a private education for my son a few years down the road.
You're right...Private schools do indeed out-perform the Public Sector in all of the ways that you mentioned. Of course I would not like to be "forced" to place my child in an underperforming school.... I'd rather be "forced" to place my child in a moderately performing school until he's able to perform well enough to earn those vouchers that we're discussing. Without that funding that's now being funneled to private school vouchers though, I'm doomed to send him to a terrible school, tutor him at home, and pray that my son achieves well enough to earn vouchers to ship him off elsewhere.
And as for "weeding out" those underperforming schools (as good business and common sense as you mentioned), why should my child suffer in the process? I know that you pay property taxes to send us poor folk to school and that probably ticks you off a whole lot considering the 2G's + that you spend on your daughter's education annually. Wouldn't you rather spend less than $100 extra on your property taxes annually to send your daughter to a free, good performing public school as opposed to paying both taxes and tuition for one that currently out-performs the public sector?
<< Home
