S/O School Funding

[Carol in Cal.]

But we can't sacrifice our kids for hoped-for change. I was confronted by a retired state senator when he ranted at me that I should go back to working in the ps (I used to) because ALL the children would get the benefit of my hard work. I replied that my FIRST duty was to my OWN kids. I continue to help at the school (posting swim team photos as I type) but there are only so many hours in the day. I've spent hours this past week helping others with struggling kids (some hsed and some psed) but again, there are only so many hours each day. I saved the ps here many 1000s of $$ over the last 30 years, but our local ps has wasted most of it. We have a brand new alternative high school building. They used it for ONE year and now are storing kayaks in it. We tripled the size of a K-6 school and used it for ONE year, and now 90% of it is administration. 

 

I don't see us ever getting a viable charter school here The union just has too much clout. Our private school was hounded out of existence by social services. 

 

I have worked on education as a volunteer as well.

 

In addition to teaching coop classes with other homeschoolers, I helped found and run a local children's chorus that benefits schooled and homeschooled kids, have helped to start several charter schools, done fundraising and contributed to the local public school booster clubs, and started and ran a girls' academic uplift after school club for a public school in a tough neighborhood for several years.  I am not 'out of the system' just because I homeschooled.  In fact, I think that precisely because I homeschooled I know much more about how good teaching can work than I would have otherwise, and can help from a position of knowledge that I would not have had any other way.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

By homeschooling, though, you ARE opting out.  Just like parents who send their kids to private, parochial or charter schools are.

 

By voting for a charter law like the one here in CA, you're enabling some kids from nonaffluent families to have opportunities to be rescued from dismal failures or to get a fresh or more suitable approach to their educations than before.  That's not necessarily opting out, more like opting over, and more like giving improved opportunities to those whose circumstances won't allow homeschooling or private/parochial schooling.

 

I'm not using the public system - but I'm not setting up a shadow system that's publicly funded either.

 

Homeschooling doesn't set up any kind of alternate set of educational institutions that require funding, teachers, or other infrastructure that aren't available to the main system.  It also can really only serve a tiny group and isn't going to create an illusion of a working public system.

 

I'm not going to vote or advocate for that kind of decision.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Do people not see a difference between not sending their own kids to ps, and advocating for public policies that create a two-tier educational system that benefits some (themselves) and not others?

[MarkT]

Do people not see a difference between not sending their own kids to ps, and advocating for public policies that create a two-tier educational system that benefits some (themselves) and not others?

Why can't public charter schools benefit almost all?

 

(they may be broken in your particular state but conceptually and here in AZ they work for the most part)

 

The old entrenched school systems have issues such as tenure of low performing teachers, beholden to sports, etc

Shoveling money into them has not worked in the past. Time for a change.

[Arcadia]

OP,

 

Did you see the news about the “racial divide†for the Elite charter school proposal? Vallejo City Unified state testing results for 2017 (https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2017/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2017&lstTestType=B&lstGroup=1&lstCounty=48&lstDistrict=70581-000&lstSchool=0000000) were very bad too. For 11th grade, 59% failed English and 84% failed Math.

 

“FAIRFIELD — More than 150 people in a standing-room-only meeting Wednesday heard supporters and opponents of the proposed Elite Charter School – and two Solano County Board of Education members say that the “opportunity gap†for African-American and Latino students must be addressed.

 

Board member Dana Dean said after 47 people spoke about the charter proposal that she was deeply troubled that every supporter is a person of color and every opponent is white.â€

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-news/fairfield/solano-board-hears-elite-charter-school-proposal-praised-panned/

 

“The next speaker urged the seven-member governing board to approve Bishop’s petition, saying it was necessary for “low-income black and brown children to have the ability to determine their future.â€

 

Noting some of the raucous applause that followed some speakers’ remarks, he added, “There’s always going to be a struggle†when minorities “seek to advance†and gain power “to have access to choice.â€

...

And yet another speaker, noting the tenor of some speakers’ remarks, said the public hearing “was more a squabble about money than what’s best for students.â€

...

But Clarence Block, the 37th speaker, said the tenor of the remarks suggested little more than “vindictiveness†and concerns about job security.

...

Likewise, petition supporter Cherita Dilley said, “The achievement gap is real — we need to address it. Let’s figure out what works best for our students.â€â€œ

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/article/NH/20171214/NEWS/171219875

[DawnM]

All budgets require operating assumptions.

Those assumptions include how many pupils of various categories will be served in which grades in which schools.

And they also include which teachers will retire, and when, and how many administrators will be needed, and all kinds of other things.

When those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, the administration has to adjust their spending or run over or under budget.

In this case, they are arguing that the charter school is responsible for a catastrophic loss of revenue that made their budget assumptions incorrect, but the numbers that I see don't bear that out--so I interpret that as a deflection of their own responsibilities in that area.

 

Regarding the 'guidelines about what teachers you hired', as you mention there are exceptions to them of some sort.  For instance, locally when the 20 student class size law went into effect, experienced teachers in tough or medium schools applied to 'good' schools, and left the tougher ones in such quantities that one local school district had 57% of its teachers be emergency certification ones--the ones that took the CBEST test and jumped in as permanent substitutes, despite have backgrounds in non-education-related fields.  Ironically, 20 student class sizes were a disaster for the schools in rough neighborhoods around here.  The law of unintended consequences, always prevailing it seems.

 

I have a friend whose daughter spend over half of her first grade year with such a teacher--an enthusiastic but ignorant young woman with a degree in public relations and no idea how to teach or even what to teach and how fast.  And that wasn't even in a rough neighborhood, but a medium one; but it was at the time of the teacher shortage due to the implementation of that rule.  The original teacher of that class had wanted to teach 4th grade, so a few weeks into the year when a fourth grade class opened up he jumped.  He took all his classroom materials and decorations with him, since he had paid for them with his own money.  So the new 'teacher' had no clue, no stuff, and no idea what to do.  This should never ever happen, but it's the kind of thing that happens all the time in districts where money is short and/or prioritized over students.

 

But it isn't about "screw the actual credentialed teachers."  Emergency credentialing is due to a shortfall in teachers.  

 

 

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/addressing-californias-growing-teacher-shortage-2017-update-report

 

I was one of those emergency credentialed teachers.  I was not an idiot, but thanks for adding that in.  

 

Emergency credentialed teachers have to get at least 6 semester units per year in a valid teacher ed licensing program each year to continue teaching.  I finished 15 per year and finished up my teaching credential in 2 years and a summer.

 

12M is a huge shortfall and not a "oh they just messed up the operating budget a bit" amount.

[Carol in Cal.]

Do people not see a difference between not sending their own kids to ps, and advocating for public policies that create a two-tier educational system that benefits some (themselves) and not others?

 

I think you might be misunderstanding how charters are playing out here in CA.  Of course, this varies from state to state.

 

Actually, it is the public schools that are a two tier educational system that benefits some and not others.  The tiers are Basic Aid vs. non Basic Aid districts, which are funded completely differently and hence have different priorities in terms of access.  Additionally there is a sub tier, the magnet schools, that are varied in their 'levels' and in fairness.

 

The charters are public schools that attempt to circumvent the restrictions and bad culture in some public school environments or to offer a nonstandard educational approach that is right for some kids but not for others.  The charters are more attractive to families with poor public schools available to them, but not exclusively so.  And they don't cost any more than public schools do, which means that they are accessible to those of limited means who could not afford private schools or homeschooling.  To me that makes them more democratic.

 

I have never personally advocated for a charter that I planned to use myself.  I have, though, advocated for charters that I could see would benefit the community.  I think that that is valid and moral. 

 

I think it is immoral to require parents to put their children's education or even their safety at risk for the 'greater good', and I don't think anyone should have to do that, rich or poor.  Charters are the poor people's private schools. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

But it isn't about "screw the actual credentialed teachers."  Emergency credentialing is due to a shortfall in teachers.  

 

Right, and at that point in time there was a shortfall in credentialed teachers that resulted in a horrendous lack of trained teachers at the schools who needed them most.

 

 

I was one of those emergency credentialed teachers.  I was not an idiot, but thanks for adding that in.  

 

???????????????????  Dawn, for heaven's sake, I never called anyone an idiot.  But did you not see a problem though with that scenario?  Those children had a teacher who did not know how to teach or even what they were supposed to learn, for a foundational year of school.  I think that that is awful.  No one went after that young woman and called her an idiot.  She meant well, and she had a job, and the kids were at least supervised.  My friend thankfully was only working parttime then, and was able to help--she volunteered two full days per week in that classroom.  I still mostly feel sorry for those kids though.  Don't you?

 

Emergency credentialed teachers have to get at least 6 semester units per year in a valid teacher ed licensing program each year to continue teaching.  I finished 15 per year and finished up my teaching credential in 2 years and a summer.

 

12M is a huge shortfall and not a "oh they just messed up the operating budget a bit" amount.

 

I agree, 12M is large, and it's clearly not from just one thing, whether that thing is the operating budget or the charter school or whatever. 

 

[DawnM]

I agree, 12M is large, and it's clearly not from just one thing, whether that thing is the operating budget or the charter school or whatever. 

 

 

You called her ignorant.  

 

Do I feel sorry for any child who has a bad teacher?  Sure.  But you cannot lump all emergency credentialed teachers into that "ignorant" category.  Many of us did a good job.  In fact, I was featured in a news article because my students were the first to have a 100% passing rate of ESL ever in the district.

[Terabith]

"What the best and wisest parents want for their child, that must we want for all the children of the community.  Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy."  - John Dewey

[Carol in Cal.]

Dawn, I think it's great that you stepped up and did a good job.

Most of us here on the boards are not educated as teachers, and stepped up and did a good job.  That being so, I'd pretty much be the last person to say that everyone in that position is ineffective.

 

But this particular young woman, though well-intentioned, was ignorant of her job.  She didn't know what to teach or how to teach.  She had no one mentoring her.  She had no classroom materials.  It was a mess, and not one of her making, but definitely a mess for those kids.

 

Unintended consequences, as noted, of a praiseworthy attempt to improve education. 

 

It's seeing things like that over the years that has made me more conservative about trying to predict likely outcomes of changing established systems quickly.  I'm much more of a gradualist now.

 

You called her ignorant.  

 

Do I feel sorry for any child who has a bad teacher?  Sure.  But you cannot lump all emergency credentialed teachers into that "ignorant" category.  Many of us did a good job.  In fact, I was featured in a news article because my students were the first to have a 100% passing rate of ESL ever in the district.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[shawthorne44]

...

I don't see us ever getting a viable charter school here The union just has too much clout. Our private school was hounded out of existence by social services. 

 

I know this stuff to be true, but it still makes me spitting mad.   

[DawnM]

Dawn, I think it's great that you stepped up and did a good job.

Most of us here on the boards are not educated as teachers, and stepped up and did a good job.  That being so, I'd pretty much be the last person to say that everyone in that position is ineffective.

 

But this particular young woman, though well-intentioned, was ignorant of her job.  She didn't know what to teach or how to teach.  She had no one mentoring her.  She had no classroom materials.  It was a mess, and not one of her making, but definitely a mess for those kids.

 

Unintended consequences, as noted, of a praiseworthy attempt to improve education. 

 

It's seeing things like that over the years that has made me more conservative about trying to predict likely outcomes of changing established systems quickly.  I'm much more of a gradualist now.

 

But there are bad teachers who have credentials as well.  It just comes with the territory, and with a 35% drop in teacher ed program enrollment nationwide, the pickings are going to be even slimmer in the upcoming years.

 

The job is so different than it was years ago.  The demands and low pay make it a field I wouldn't encourage anyone to go into anymore.  

[Bluegoat]

Why can't public charter schools benefit almost all?

 

(they may be broken in your particular state but conceptually and here in AZ they work for the most part)

 

The old entrenched school systems have issues such as tenure of low performing teachers, beholden to sports, etc

Shoveling money into them has not worked in the past. Time for a change.

 

 

I think you might be misunderstanding how charters are playing out here in CA.  Of course, this varies from state to state.

 

Actually, it is the public schools that are a two tier educational system that benefits some and not others.  The tiers are Basic Aid vs. non Basic Aid districts, which are funded completely differently and hence have different priorities in terms of access.  Additionally there is a sub tier, the magnet schools, that are varied in their 'levels' and in fairness.

 

The charters are public schools that attempt to circumvent the restrictions and bad culture in some public school environments or to offer a nonstandard educational approach that is right for some kids but not for others.  The charters are more attractive to families with poor public schools available to them, but not exclusively so.  And they don't cost any more than public schools do, which means that they are accessible to those of limited means who could not afford private schools or homeschooling.  To me that makes them more democratic.

 

I have never personally advocated for a charter that I planned to use myself.  I have, though, advocated for charters that I could see would benefit the community.  I think that that is valid and moral. 

 

I think it is immoral to require parents to put their children's education or even their safety at risk for the 'greater good', and I don't think anyone should have to do that, rich or poor.  Charters are the poor people's private schools. 

 

 

I can see how in some cases they could have utility for al, with good public schools too.

 

But that doesn't seem to be what is happening in the OP community.  And I'm not sure how it can be anything but two tier in this type of situation where the ps is languishing with serious problems and disadvantaged kids, while other parents are getting their kids into charters to avoid that.  

 

I'm not talking about requiring parents to do anything, though - I think turning any discussion of good public institutions for all into  question of forcing people to do something personally detrimental is a major reason you have these public institutions that can't find their way, or even get off the ground as in health care.

[Arcadia]

I'm not talking about requiring parents to do anything, though - I think turning any discussion of good public institutions for all into question of forcing people to do something personally detrimental is a major reason you have these public institutions that can't find their way, or even get off the ground as in health care.

The first thing would be to removed assignment of schools based on residential address. That alone indirectly stratified school students by family income.

 

When your school board members tell you to contribute to their election campaign funds before they are willing to talk to you, it makes more sense to find your kids better choices unless you are rich enough to bribe the school board members.

 

Even if I were to go back to volunteer work, I would rather volunteer where there is some appreciation instead of being taken for granted.

 

Good public schools for all would be to have more school choices so parents don’t feel trapped by where they stay and how much they earn. Where school admin aren’t able to tell you to take it or leave it, thinking that you can’t afford private school and so would just have to accept wherever they choose to dump your child into.

[Bluegoat]

The first thing would be to removed assignment of schools based on residential address. That alone indirectly stratified school students by family income.

 

When your school board members tell you to contribute to their election campaign funds before they are willing to talk to you, it makes more sense to find your kids better choices unless you are rich enough to bribe the school board members.

 

Even if I were to go back to volunteer work, I would rather volunteer where there is some appreciation instead of being taken for granted.

 

Good public schools for all would be to have more school choices so parents don’t feel trapped by where they stay and how much they earn. Where school admin aren’t able to tell you to take it or leave it, thinking that you can’t afford private school and so would just have to accept wherever they choose to dump your child into.

 

That seems like it might be largely a situation created by bizarre funding models, not to mention corrupt school board members.

 

Countries with relatively successful school systems don't generally seem to have school choice as a fundamental or important component.

 

On the contrary, I think the one of the common denominators seems be kids usually go to local schools, and almost everyone uses the same school system.

[Mrs.Wilson]

.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mrs.Wilson

[Arcadia]

Countries with relatively successful school systems don't generally seem to have school choice as a fundamental or important component.

Singapore has school choice even though it is debatable whether my home country’s education system is successful or not. I attended a government funded catholic convent school for primary school which was a 10 minutes drive away off peak instead of the co-ed primary school which was a 10 mins walk from home.

 

ETA:

From OECD 2017 report titled School choice and school vouchers: An OECD perspective

“Focus on framework conditions and implementation.

Despite what critics might say, school choice, in and of itself, neither assures nor undermines the quality of education. Much of the evidence fnds that it is the framework conditions under which school choice and school vouchers operate, and how such instruments are implemented, that seem to matter most. Introducing and expanding school choice requires smart policies that ensure that benefts are maximised while risks are minimised.

 

Ensure that choice is real, relevant and meaningful.

School choice will only generate the anticipated benefts when the choice is real, relevant and meaningful, i.e. when parents can choose an important aspect of their child’s education, such as the pedagogical approaches used to teach them. If schools are not allowed to respond to diverse student populations, to distinguish themselves from each other, choice is meaningless.

 

Create a level playing feld for all providers to enter the system.School choice and school vouchers allow other education providers to enter the system. But when systems prevent certain kinds of schools from providing education, it becomes impossible to offer a fair “choiceâ€. When private schools are invited to be part of the “functionally public†education system, they should have the capacity to offer a similar range of options for courses as public schools do. This implies that these schools should receive a commensurate level of public funding. When expanding school choice and vouchers for private schools, policies should also ensure that public schools are granted greater autonomy.†http://www.oecd.org/edu/School-choice-and-school-vouchers-an-OECD-perspective.pdf

Edited December 19, 2017 by Arcadia

[Bluegoat]

Singapore has school choice even though it is debatable whether my home country’s education system is successful or not. I attended a government funded catholic convent school for primary school which was a 10 minutes drive away off peak instead of the co-ed primary school which was a 10 mins walk from home.

 

ETA:

From OECD 2017 report titled School choice and school vouchers: An OECD perspective

“Focus on framework conditions and implementation.

Despite what critics might say, school choice, in and of itself, neither assures nor undermines the quality of education. Much of the evidence fnds that it is the framework conditions under which school choice and school vouchers operate, and how such instruments are implemented, that seem to matter most. Introducing and expanding school choice requires smart policies that ensure that benefts are maximised while risks are minimised.

 

Ensure that choice is real, relevant and meaningful.

School choice will only generate the anticipated benefts when the choice is real, relevant and meaningful, i.e. when parents can choose an important aspect of their child’s education, such as the pedagogical approaches used to teach them. If schools are not allowed to respond to diverse student populations, to distinguish themselves from each other, choice is meaningless.

 

Create a level playing feld for all providers to enter the system.School choice and school vouchers allow other education providers to enter the system. But when systems prevent certain kinds of schools from providing education, it becomes impossible to offer a fair “choiceâ€. When private schools are invited to be part of the “functionally public†education system, they should have the capacity to offer a similar range of options for courses as public schools do. This implies that these schools should receive a commensurate level of public funding. When expanding school choice and vouchers for private schools, policies should also ensure that public schools are granted greater autonomy.†http://www.oecd.org/edu/School-choice-and-school-vouchers-an-OECD-perspective.pdf

 

The bolded is what I am getting at.

 

I don't think that is the issue.  Butmaking school choice easier in places where the system is failing is the evidence of a problem - bad schools - and also tends to dilute real attempts to fix the fundamental problems.  It's not adressing them, it's sidestepping them.

 

When the public schools are good, if people choose a different school it tends to be for a different kind of reason - students with unusual needs, wanting religious instruction, that kind of thing.  It will be a fairly small part of the package and most people, including those who are well off or have political weight, will have their kids in public schools.  

 

When anyone who can manage it takes their kids elsewhere, and the wealthy and powerful have no intention of their kids setting foot in a public school, that's a problem.  Then the middle class figuring out how to take some of that education funding to create publicly funded  "private schools" for their kids?  

[bethben]

Our charter school has a 64% grade proficiency failure for math and a 40% failure in English according to testing. But it’s doing better than the state average and people say how great the school is. It’s also a very heavy parent participation. So, if the school spent all of its money on technology and didn’t buy basketballs for gym class, the PTO will raise money to offset things like that so it makes the school have an alternative funding source.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bluegoat]

Public school is supposed to address the academic needs of all students. In the recent past, its used the honors label rather than the charter label for those who would like to learn on grade level or higher material but are the minority in the school.  I don't see either as a 'private'. I see both as classrooms that serve the academic and emotional needs of a large chunk of students nationwide...which is the major portion of the mission the state has charged them with.  I don't believe a student's family should have to move to access an education, just because some politician decided to consolidate a few districts and underfund the students who have social/emotional/medical problems that prevent them from learning, or the pol has decided not to open enough seats.  It's a tactic that is used to make people move and lower home values to the point that pols and their buddies can buy land on the cheap in desirable neighborhoods. Watch the real estate cycle. 

 

Yeah, I really don't think this is what I'm talking about - I did mention specialty schools in my post.

[shawthorne44]

The bolded is what I am getting at.

 

I don't think that is the issue.  Butmaking school choice easier in places where the system is failing is the evidence of a problem - bad schools - and also tends to dilute real attempts to fix the fundamental problems.  It's not adressing them, it's sidestepping them.

 

When the public schools are good, if people choose a different school it tends to be for a different kind of reason - students with unusual needs, wanting religious instruction, that kind of thing.  It will be a fairly small part of the package and most people, including those who are well off or have political weight, will have their kids in public schools.  

 

When anyone who can manage it takes their kids elsewhere, and the wealthy and powerful have no intention of their kids setting foot in a public school, that's a problem.  Then the middle class figuring out how to take some of that education funding to create publicly funded  "private schools" for their kids?  

 

 

I don't think that is necessarily true.   You could have a 'good school' that does a good job of teaching grade-level material, and school choice would still be a good thing.    Even in preschool, there is play-based or academic versions, and people often have strong opinions either way.   That continues throughout education in that people want different amounts of academic vigor.   Then you tack on different philosophies.   Look at us, we are a collection of parents who are more concerned and knowledgeable than the vast majority of parents.   We can't come to agreement about the best way to educate.   In Math there is Spiral vs. Mastery, and also Concepts vs. Formulaic.    There are project focused people, and book focused people and worksheet focused people.   If we weren't able to homeschool, I'd like to have the option of picking a book focused school.   

[Bluegoat]

I don't think that is necessarily true.   You could have a 'good school' that does a good job of teaching grade-level material, and school choice would still be a good thing.    Even in preschool, there is play-based or academic versions, and people often have strong opinions either way.   That continues throughout education in that people want different amounts of academic vigor.   Then you tack on different philosophies.   Look at us, we are a collection of parents who are more concerned and knowledgeable than the vast majority of parents.   We can't come to agreement about the best way to educate.   In Math there is Spiral vs. Mastery, and also Concepts vs. Formulaic.    There are project focused people, and book focused people and worksheet focused people.   If we weren't able to homeschool, I'd like to have the option of picking a book focused school.   

 

I don't think this sounds unreasonable, but when I look empirically at good school systems, I don't see specialty schools and alternate schools as being a major part of the picture.  They may have some school for kids who are very bright, or have unusual learning needs.  They might have some faith schools, or dance schools, etc.  But those tend to be used by only a very small portion of the population, who are NOT trying to get out of the main system because it is poor - they have more specialized needs in some way.

 

A lot of them have a variety of types of high school education too - technical ed, pre-professional, academic.  So there may be differentiation there.

 

But I do not think that it is accidental that a lot of specialty school are not a feature in these systems.  It seems to me that what they have is a strong commitment from the vast majority of the population to the best evidence based educational methods.  

[shawthorne44]

I have a lawyer-friend that one time over beers I asked why the police/government went so hysterical over vigilante justice.   It seems that there is crime, then worse than that is a cop-killng, then even worse than that is vigilante justice.  In the news had been a vigilante case where the guy killed was guilty as sin.   Just in general, this friend is very wise.    He said that, while the grunt-level cops might not have a problem with it.   The high-level cops hated it because it was a sign to everyone that they were doing a crappy job.   
Seems to me the same thing is going on here.   So when I hear a public school system complain about alternatives, I pay as much attention as when someone says "Stop treating me like a child" while whining and stamping their feet.  

[Bluegoat]

 All students here are to have an appropriate academic education.  The only specialty schools are the ones that must have certain equipment  or specialist teachers for those with medical issues.  All others are classrooms that are sorted by some attribute and grouped into schools.  Sometimes they are called 'school within a school', 'magnet school', 'evening school', 'charter school', ''vo-tech', comprehensive high school', 'English language learner'...whatever...but all these groupings are doing is, in a politically correct manner, relieving the classroom teacher of the impossible task of teaching grade level academics to students who cannot comprehend, alongside students who can but but haven't mastered, and students who have already mastered the grade level material.

 

I am really not sure what you are getting at here.

[shawthorne44]

I am getting at the law. All children's academic needs are to be met, until they age out.  The law does not say, show up, be screened, and sent to study hall if your academic needs are not what the teacher or school wants to offer.   It does not say that just classified children are to have appropriate academics. In order to follow the law, the school district must make the classroom a place of learning for each and every child, not just the majority.  ....

 

That is dreamy.   I am guessing you don't live in the U.S.

[shawthorne44]

I live in the U.S. The pendulum is starting to swing back here.  Everyone that wanted to move has moved, and the lawsuits are in process.

 

Where is this magical place?  Maybe those who homeschool and then life changes and they can't anymore could move there.   

[nixpix5]

I have a lawyer-friend that one time over beers I asked why the police/government went so hysterical over vigilante justice. It seems that there is crime, then worse than that is a cop-killng, then even worse than that is vigilante justice. In the news had been a vigilante case where the guy killed was guilty as sin. Just in general, this friend is very wise. He said that, while the grunt-level cops might not have a problem with it. The high-level cops hated it because it was a sign to everyone that they were doing a crappy job.

Seems to me the same thing is going on here. So when I hear a public school system complain about alternatives, I pay as much attention as when someone says "Stop treating me like a child" while whining and stamping their feet.

Thought provoking analogy. I hadn't thought of it this way before.

 

 

I see charters as reverse of how school was in the 80s. Back then, teachers taught to the average and those struggling or with issues were pulled out for help or put in self contained classrooms. With LRE this changed. Teachers then were supposed to scaffold but what actually has happened in some schools is the teacher teaches to the struggling children. This has caused parents to pull their kids and put them in, what is essentially a self contained classroom on a different campus...ie charter school.

 

What might need to happen is for public schools to look at how Montessori classrooms teach to diverse kids and provide individual instructions to all. That is one place Montessori education shines.

 

This is slightly off topic but felt a bit shady to me...our umbrella school is considered a public school not a charter. They made it in News Week with a bronze medal, high testing results and so on. It was listed as a public school with no mention of the fact that it is a school that provides choice classes to a bunch of homeschooled kids. So parents are doing the brunt of the work. It just makes me wonder how often this occurs and what the actual numbers are for legitimate public school testing.

[Bluegoat]

I am getting at the law. All children's academic needs are to be met, until they age out.  The law does not say, show up, be screened, and sent to study hall if your academic needs are not what the teacher or school wants to offer.   It does not say that just classified children are to have appropriate academics. In order to follow the law, the school district must make the classroom a place of learning for each and every child, not just the majority.  The district can build a class and a school in many different ways, so that each child can learn. Or it can not, and attempt to excuse itself by appealing to elitism, equality, racism, etc.  The bottom line is that if a district wants to call a group of classes a charter, there is nothing wrong with that choice..its politically acceptable way to build a group of classes that contain children who meet the mission of the charter.  

 

Here for example, charters are quite limited. The only charter in my area is for at risk, nonviolent, nonadjudicated high school students who are ELL, and neurotypical. They are all offered one:one instruction in core basic high school subjects.  One could hardly call that a private school.  The same scenario in an adjacent district is simply called afternoon session, or evening session.

 

And I've talked about these ideas in my post.  

 

They certainly are not a matter of creating a publicly funded alternate system to avoid failing public schools.

 

So I am not sure what you are trying to get at - add something, agree, disagree, what?

[Bluegoat]

Thought provoking analogy. I hadn't thought of it this way before.

 

 

I see charters as reverse of how school was in the 80s. Back then, teachers taught to the average and those struggling or with issues were pulled out for help or put in self contained classrooms. With LRE this changed. Teachers then were supposed to scaffold but what actually has happened in some schools is the teacher teaches to the struggling children. This has caused parents to pull their kids and put them in, what is essentially a self contained classroom on a different campus...ie charter school.

 

What might need to happen is for public schools to look at how Montessori classrooms teach to diverse kids and provide individual instructions to all. That is one place Montessori education shines.

 

This is slightly off topic but felt a bit shady to me...our umbrella school is considered a public school not a charter. They made it in News Week with a bronze medal, high testing results and so on. It was listed as a public school with no mention of the fact that it is a school that provides choice classes to a bunch of homeschooled kids. So parents are doing the brunt of the work. It just makes me wonder how often this occurs and what the actual numbers are for legitimate public school testing.

 

Not that this is a bad idea, but I think it is simpler than this.

 

Smaller classes.  Less testing.  More freedom for teachers.  Less political crap in curriculum development.  Supports for kids with extra needs.

 

The first and to some degree send and third being the most important.  You can't teach a class of 30 kids, many of whom have special needs, and get them all performing well on standardized tests, and actually have a reasonable learning environment.  Especially when you constrain the teaching methods to the level that they are actually scripted.

[SKL]

Do people not see a difference between not sending their own kids to ps, and advocating for public policies that create a two-tier educational system that benefits some (themselves) and not others?

 

Because different kids have vastly different needs, it seems better to have more choices.  Especially if the so-called "alternative" has proven efficient and effective compared to the "default."  Why is it an alternative at all, vs. an expected part of the public school system?  I know some public systems have a variety of alternative school settings for different interests and needs.  If the public school does this well, more power to them, but if they don't, it's time to outsource.

 

PS I'm not personally invested in either option.  I pay full price for my kids to attend a school that isn't in the public system.  I've also paid taxes toward the public schools for 3 decades and done lots of volunteer work in public schools.  I fully expect to pay my share (way more than most) for a decent public education for other people's kids, but I also believe that a other kids' education is likely to be better if they have more real, accessible choices.

[nixpix5]

Not that this is a bad idea, but I think it is simpler than this.

 

Smaller classes. Less testing. More freedom for teachers. Less political crap in curriculum development. Supports for kids with extra needs.

 

The first and to some degree send and third being the most important. You can't teach a class of 30 kids, many of whom have special needs, and get them all performing well on standardized tests, and actually have a reasonable learning environment. Especially when you constrain the teaching methods to the level that they are actually scripted.

This is what I was getting at when I was talking about least restrictive environment. By loading classrooms with too many kids and when many challenges it changed the make up of the classroom. It is noble but they hadn't worked out all of the issues. This is why people are self selecting "self contained classrooms" for their kids by moving them to charters. If classrooms can no longer challenge kids or even keep them on grade level, parents are going to be upset about that. Teachers spend so much time contending with behavior they lose valuable teaching time. I know LRE was meant as a good thing for all but there are some issues that need to be countered.

[shawthorne44]

If you go to the NYTimes, you can search for Stanford Study.  That will give you the info for average acheivement by district.   My casual look says districts that acheive above average for their demographics in my neighborhood are following the law. They haven't excluded, but they have a behavior criteria for admission to honors/AP and they allow individual study for students who have accelerated further but aren't ready to grad early.  Perhaps its similar in your area. Maybe not, depending on how your state law reads.

 

One of the founders where I work is from Russia, so we have several Russians at work.   They have commented that our public schools are far more communist than theirs ever were.  Everyone gets the same education unless you have a documented learning disability.   If you want to work faster or independently you are elitist and ignored or shunned.   Gifted education is a joke and only marginally better than the 'regular' classes.   My impression was this was the norm.    I know it was that way when I was in school and it is that way in my (different) area now.  

[Bluegoat]

Because different kids have vastly different needs, it seems better to have more choices.  Especially if the so-called "alternative" has proven efficient and effective compared to the "default."  Why is it an alternative at all, vs. an expected part of the public school system?  I know some public systems have a variety of alternative school settings for different interests and needs.  If the public school does this well, more power to them, but if they don't, it's time to outsource.

 

PS I'm not personally invested in either option.  I pay full price for my kids to attend a school that isn't in the public system.  I've also paid taxes toward the public schools for 3 decades and done lots of volunteer work in public schools.  I fully expect to pay my share (way more than most) for a decent public education for other people's kids, but I also believe that a other kids' education is likely to be better if they have more real, accessible choices.

 

But to me this gets to the heart of the issue - if this is a better way to do things that creates these amazing charter schools, then why is it an alternative and not just "the school system".  Clearly the system could be running in a better way.  

 

Why carry on running a chunk of school system that clearly doesn't work?  

 

If the reason the charters work is that they can weed some kids out, that is a problem from the perspective of public education, and funding too, potentially.  If they work because they pay teachers less, that suggests that the problem that needs to be addressed lies elsewhere, funding or maybe union related issues. (And - it might itself be a problem if they are running the schools by underpaying teachers, not giving benefits, and that kind of thing.  That's also not right, even if it ends up with a "better" school.)

[Reefgazer]

This is one of the main reasons with withdrew from public school; the behavior issues just dragged down the performance of the entire class and school because the teacher and administrators spent so very much time redirecting and stopping class for discipline issues.  One year in DS's class, the teacher had to clear the room of all children because one child was picking up chairs and throwing them (in second grade!).  They lost almost an hour of instructional time that day because of the disruption. I have one child that wants to return to school, but I told him that it will have to be a private school because under no circumstances will I send him to our public schools again.

This is what I was getting at when I was talking about least restrictive environment. By loading classrooms with too many kids and when many challenges it changed the make up of the classroom. It is noble but they hadn't worked out all of the issues. This is why people are self selecting "self contained classrooms" for their kids by moving them to charters. If classrooms can no longer challenge kids or even keep them on grade level, parents are going to be upset about that. Teachers spend so much time contending with behavior they lose valuable teaching time. I know LRE was meant as a good thing for all but there are some issues that need to be countered.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by reefgazer

[bethben]

This is what I was getting at when I was talking about least restrictive environment. By loading classrooms with too many kids and when many challenges it changed the make up of the classroom. It is noble but they hadn't worked out all of the issues. This is why people are self selecting "self contained classrooms" for their kids by moving them to charters. If classrooms can no longer challenge kids or even keep them on grade level, parents are going to be upset about that. Teachers spend so much time contending with behavior they lose valuable teaching time. I know LRE was meant as a good thing for all but there are some issues that need to be countered.

 

There are a ton of charter schools around where I live.  The education level at these charter schools is not that much different than the regular public school.  If the charter schools closed down, there would be 40-60 kids per classroom in the public schools in our district only because the schools are having trouble keeping up with the population explosion we are seeing here.  So, instead of the Charter school being an alternative to public school education, it becomes just another public school with no difference in class size or academics.  They opened a new 6-12 grade charter school in my neighborhood.  It took 6th-8th grade out of the elementary school.  Instead of allowing smaller class sizes because they now had  more classrooms at the k-5 level, they maxed out each classroom to 30 kids and increased their enrollment significantly (around 60 kids per grade).  They had to.  The elementary school assigned our neighborhood is a small rural school that has been swallowed up by massive suburban type growth. There are some charters that are excelling in academics, but they are in the "rich" section of town.  You pay a lot more per house to live there.  I fail to understand why our district can't do better.

[Bluegoat]

This is what I was getting at when I was talking about least restrictive environment. By loading classrooms with too many kids and when many challenges it changed the make up of the classroom. It is noble but they hadn't worked out all of the issues. This is why people are self selecting "self contained classrooms" for their kids by moving them to charters. If classrooms can no longer challenge kids or even keep them on grade level, parents are going to be upset about that. Teachers spend so much time contending with behavior they lose valuable teaching time. I know LRE was meant as a good thing for all but there are some issues that need to be countered.

 

I think it's been a failure almost everywhere.  There was an article I read yesterday about the union that represents teaching assistants - they released pictures of assistant's who had been injured on the job.  Really serious injuries, broken bones, bites, etc.

 

That is not on for teachers, kids, anyone.

 

I can't imagine wanting it as a parent of that kid, either.  If my child is that violent, I am looking for a more specialized classroom, not full inclusion, one where they can really work on helping that child learn to cope, and also learn academically.  I knew some parents when I was in school who were big into advocating for full inclusion - their daughter had Downs, but was not disruptive or anything like that.  They were super-passionate over the principle, but I wonder what they think about it now - the mom was a teacher.

 

Even if it is just learning differences, every time you add a kid with that extra need for planning, you are going to have to have less other kids - it's not like there are more hours in the day.

[bethben]

This is one of the main reasons with withdrew from public school; the behavior issues just dragged down the performance of the entire class and school because the teacher and administrators spent so very much time redirecting and stopping class for discipline issues.  One year in DS's class, the teacher had to clear the room of all children because one child was picking up chairs and throwing them (in second grade!).  They lost almost an hour of instructional time that day because of the disruption. I have one child that wants to return to school, but I told him that it will have to be a private school because under no circumstances will I send him to our public schools again.

 

Yes!  My dd is going to the school in our neighborhood.  The school has taught the kids to give certain hand signals to their classmates when they're talking or doing something that could get them into trouble.  My dd has taken it to a new level and feels very responsible that it is her duty to keep the class under control.  I've basically had to tell her to ignore the school rule and just mind her own business.  I explain that I'm her mom and if she gets called out on not helping administer classroom control (every kid is supposed to do this), that they will have to come talk to me.  She's gotten verbal tics that usually happen when her body is stressed.  She fails to understand why kids just can't listen to the teacher.  

[SKL]

But to me this gets to the heart of the issue - if this is a better way to do things that creates these amazing charter schools, then why is it an alternative and not just "the school system".  Clearly the system could be running in a better way.  

 

Why carry on running a chunk of school system that clearly doesn't work?  

 

If the reason the charters work is that they can weed some kids out, that is a problem from the perspective of public education, and funding too, potentially.  If they work because they pay teachers less, that suggests that the problem that needs to be addressed lies elsewhere, funding or maybe union related issues. (And - it might itself be a problem if they are running the schools by underpaying teachers, not giving benefits, and that kind of thing.  That's also not right, even if it ends up with a "better" school.)

 

Because unions and bureacracies are entrenched, and because some people are afraid of change.

 

You might notice that my first post on this topic asked why they don't close the failing school and send everyone somewhere else.  Why must we throw more good money after bad?  The rot is in the old, so don't blame the new for trying to help the victims.

 

Some of your posts seem to argue that it's unethical to allow kids to escape on the public dime.  I think there must be some disconnect - I realize you aren't in the USA so maybe you can't picture how it works (or often doesn't work) here.

 

Imagine a home where kids are callously starved on a chronic basis despite numerous visits by CPS, tax-funded parenting classes, and every kind of welfare funding.  The parents spend all that money on Pepsi and Dunkin Donuts and that's what the kids eat when they eat at all.  The kids also brutalize each other on a daily basis with nobody ever stopping them.  This goes on for years, for generations, with no end in sight.  Would you argue that it's unethical to get those kids out of that house?  That we should just keep giving those parents more money and more time to harm their kids?  When there are other responsible people able and willing to step in?

 

As for the contrast with homeschooling - yes, I think it is equally ethical (if not more ethical) to propose good alternatives for other people's kids as compared with just taking our own kids out of the bad situation and escaping it all together.  It's good to get my own kids out of a burning building, but it's also good to help other people's kids get out.  The fact that I may not be able to save every kid shouldn't stop me from trying to help those I can.

[DawnM]

Because unions and bureacracies are entrenched, and because some people are afraid of change.

 

You might notice that my first post on this topic asked why they don't close the failing school and send everyone somewhere else.  Why must we throw more good money after bad?  The rot is in the old, so don't blame the new for trying to help the victims.

 

 

 

 

Because the schools around them are also failing.

Because the schools around them are all overcrowded already.

Because there is no bussing in many areas and parents can't take them.  And when there is bussing, it is hard for kids to commute an hour or longer every day AND play sports, AND keep up with their homework, AND participate in any after school tutoring or activities.  Busses often don't run after regular school hours either.

 

The above issues are very real problems for many of our larger cities inner-city areas.

Edited December 19, 2017 by DawnM

[Bluegoat]

Because unions and bureacracies are entrenched, and because some people are afraid of change.

 

You might notice that my first post on this topic asked why they don't close the failing school and send everyone somewhere else.  Why must we throw more good money after bad?  The rot is in the old, so don't blame the new for trying to help the victims.

 

Some of your posts seem to argue that it's unethical to allow kids to escape on the public dime.  I think there must be some disconnect - I realize you aren't in the USA so maybe you can't picture how it works (or often doesn't work) here.

 

Imagine a home where kids are callously starved on a chronic basis despite numerous visits by CPS, tax-funded parenting classes, and every kind of welfare funding.  The parents spend all that money on Pepsi and Dunkin Donuts and that's what the kids eat when they eat at all.  The kids also brutalize each other on a daily basis with nobody ever stopping them.  This goes on for years, for generations, with no end in sight.  Would you argue that it's unethical to get those kids out of that house?  That we should just keep giving those parents more money and more time to harm their kids?  When there are other responsible people able and willing to step in?

 

As for the contrast with homeschooling - yes, I think it is equally ethical (if not more ethical) to propose good alternatives for other people's kids as compared with just taking our own kids out of the bad situation and escaping it all together.  It's good to get my own kids out of a burning building, but it's also good to help other people's kids get out.  The fact that I may not be able to save every kid shouldn't stop me from trying to help those I can.

 

 

But they aren't getting the kids out of the house.  That is the problem.  More like, they take the appealing kid and leave the others.

 

Some kids are able to access an advantage, using public money, while others are left to rot.  Mostly the ones given the advantage access it on the basis of having proactive middle class parents.  

 

This is as if we had a failing public health care system, and so some people managed to create, with public funding, an alternate system that was only available to those who weren't too sick or had no behaviour problems.

 

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and used to functioning public healthcare and functioning public education that I find this a problem, yea, that is a possibility.  That's why I think it's completely counter-productive, you cannot build a functioning system on the basis of an escape for some, especially the ones who are already privileged in terms of birth.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bluegoat

[nixpix5]

But to me this gets to the heart of the issue - if this is a better way to do things that creates these amazing charter schools, then why is it an alternative and not just "the school system". Clearly the system could be running in a better way.

 

Why carry on running a chunk of school system that clearly doesn't work?

 

If the reason the charters work is that they can weed some kids out, that is a problem from the perspective of public education, and funding too, potentially. If they work because they pay teachers less, that suggests that the problem that needs to be addressed lies elsewhere, funding or maybe union related issues. (And - it might itself be a problem if they are running the schools by underpaying teachers, not giving benefits, and that kind of thing. That's also not right, even if it ends up with a "better" school.)

And there's the rub. In our area, the reason private schools have better outcomes is because teachers can teach at a high level and if your kid can't keep up then it isn't the school for you. Public school has no ability to pick or choose. They are inundated with behavior, mental health and various other issues. Their hands are tied in what they can do to give consequences, their hands are tied in what they teach, their hands are tied in who and how many are in their class. Some kids do better in smaller classes with more one on one, not in a class of 30.

 

At the private school I worked at we wanted to add a special education specialist but were told if we did this; if we changed what we offered then we would have less say in who we could accept and deny. My director decided it wasn't worth it. We decided to just keep supporting kids that needed it the way we had been. This decision was made because we felt we couldn't take more challenged kids. The teachers were already complaining they didn't have time to get to the neurotyoical or gifted kids. We began screening kids out that applied ok IEPs. We were able to shift the success of the school back to where it was before we were more inclusive. It was both heartbreaking but necessary because our teachers were not trained in some of the issues they were having to deal with. We had parents of kids with high needs in our school recommending our school to other people with high needs who wanted to bail from ps. The world of mouth exploded. We could only do what we were doing for the ones we had because we dumped all resources we had at them. Too many and it tilted the whole school. It got out to our Asian families that we were becoming a "special needs" school and they started pulling their kids out which further tilted the classroom. (Our school was predominately Asian and popular within our Asian communities hence my wording here. This wasn't meant to sound racist. I hope this makes sense).

 

This example is what has happened in ps but it happened at my private school within 2 years. It was so rapid. The fact is, people are looking for other options and an alarmingly high rate. Behavior is a huge reason for this.

 

ETA: I know this is riddled with typos, will come back and fix later. Heading out the door. Hopefully you can make sense of it ;)

Edited December 19, 2017 by nixpix5

[SKL]

But they aren't getting the kids out of the house.  That is the problem.  More like, they take the appealing kid and leave the others.

 

Some kids are able to access an advantage, using public money, while others are left to rot.  Mostly the ones given the advantage access it on the basis of having proactive middle class parents.  

 

This is as if we had a failing public health care system, and so some people managed to create, with public funding, an alternate system that was only available to those who weren't too sick or had behaviour problems.

 

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and used to functioning public healthcare and functioning public education that I find this a problem, yea, that is a possibility.  That's why I think it's completely counter-productive, you cannot build a functioning system on the basis of an escape for some, especially the ones who are already privileged in terms of birth.

 

Your assumption that only the most "appealing" kids are accepted in charter schools is wrong.

 

Look, I've been on panels and volunteer organizations to try to help a bad public school system get better, for decades.  I would fix it for everyone if I could, and so would every other person I've worked with on these projects.  But we have no authority to fire the screwups, or to redirect the sources of funding that are used in unproductive ways.  So we should do nothing?

 

I recommend (again) a book called Marva Collins' Way.  Call her what you like, she did what she could, and that's all you can ask IMO.  It's more than a lot of squawkers do.

[Bluegoat]

Your assumption that only the most "appealing" kids are accepted in charter schools is wrong.

 

Look, I've been on panels and volunteer organizations to try to help a bad public school system get better, for decades.  I would fix it for everyone if I could, and so would every other person I've worked with on these projects.  But we have no authority to fire the screwups, or to redirect the sources of funding that are used in unproductive ways.  So we should do nothing?

 

I recommend (again) a book called Marva Collins' Way.  Call her what you like, she did what she could, and that's all you can ask IMO.  It's more than a lot of squawkers do.

 

The OP specifically described a situation though where that isn't what was going on.  Even in the situation you are describing I'd have to ask - who is it that is left in the schools that are so poor, if the charters can offer something better?  Several posters have described charter school systems that tend to serve kids that are already better off - that is why they do well.  Marva Collins type schools are unusual, that's why there are books about them.

 

If you want to change a failed system, it is so much less likely to happen if there is a way out for people - it takes political will and energy.  In places where the elite send their kids to private elite schools, they have less motivation to really be involved in reforming public schools, and also less interaction with them.  But at least they are typically small group, and if they are socially aware they lose nothing by advocating for good public education as well.  

 

Now if you have the middle class also using an alternate system, you are removing a huge % of the population from the public schools, so less interest in demanding change.  

 

But worse - the money for this system also comes from the public purse, and that means the parents' individual interest lies in maintaining their system even at the expense of other system - but they also still need that system to exist.  They need to keep getting funding, and they need the other system to handle the kids that would swell their class numbers or who have behaviour problems or uninvolved parents.  Otherwise they will have the same problems as the public system they are looking to escape.

 

If you want change, you don't need the power to fire a teacher, you need the whole community to take such strong political action that no candidate can ignore it and remain in power.  But that isn't going to happen if many people have found an escape for their own kids - they look to their own kids interests first and feel morally justified in doing so.  It's the same attitude that prevents forming some kind of functioning health system.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

 

If you want to change a failed system, it is so much less likely to happen if there is a way out for people - it takes political will and energy.

 

You know what?  Forcing kids to remain in a poor school system is the absolute best way to nip "political will and energy" in the bud.  The few people who emerge well-educated enough to make a difference are going to move away to a place where their efforts aren't wasted and their own kids can get a good education.

 

If there are good options in the community, people with a heart to make a difference are much more likely to stay and pool their resources and keep trying.  The remaining problem is also more manageable if it isn't so big.

Edited December 19, 2017 by SKL

[DawnM]

 

If you want change, you don't need the power to fire a teacher, you need the whole community to take such strong political action that no candidate can ignore it and remain in power.  But that isn't going to happen if many people have found an escape for their own kids - they look to their own kids interests first and feel morally justified in doing so.  It's the same attitude that prevents forming some kind of functioning health system.

 

It's the same attitude that has people crossing our border for a better life for their own kids rather than staying in their countries and making that country better......so what?  We ALL (I certainly hope) want better for our children.  That is why many of us homeschool.  

 

But that DOES NOT mean that we don't care or don't have concern for others.  My kids go to excellent schools. I work in the inner-city.  In my last district 95% of our kids were Latino (5400 students in the high school), and most of them from Mexico and Central America.  Trying to make their children's lives better.  Finding an escape for their children.  

[shawthorne44]

But they aren't getting the kids out of the house.  That is the problem.  More like, they take the appealing kid and leave the others.

 

Some kids are able to access an advantage, using public money, while others are left to rot.  Mostly the ones given the advantage access it on the basis of having proactive middle class parents.  

 

This is as if we had a failing public health care system, and so some people managed to create, with public funding, an alternate system that was only available to those who weren't too sick or had no behaviour problems.

 

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and used to functioning public healthcare and functioning public education that I find this a problem, yea, that is a possibility.  That's why I think it's completely counter-productive, you cannot build a functioning system on the basis of an escape for some, especially the ones who are already privileged in terms of birth.

 

You assume that it is the privileged that access school choice.  In America, the group most supportive of school choice is the black population.  

[shawthorne44]

You know what?  Forcing kids to remain in a poor school system is the absolute best way to nip "political will and energy" in the bud.  The few people who emerge well-educated enough to make a difference are going to move away to a place where their efforts aren't wasted and their own kids can get a good education.

 

If there are good options in the community, people with a heart to make a difference are much more likely to stay and pool their resources and keep trying.  The remaining problem is also more manageable if it isn't so big.

 

 

And, also the schools know that the kids/parents will age out of their school in a few years.  So, they are used to just waiting out any fuss.    It is like when my dad had 'musical managers' because they never lasted a year.    So, he learned to just do what needed doing and ignoring the manager.    That is what the public schools do. 

 Whereas say there is a Waldorf Charter Elementary School.   The parents that send their kids to that school are saying as a group that they like Waldorf education.   This group doesn't age out, because more parents/kids join the group.   

[luuknam]

Countries with relatively successful school systems don't generally seem to have school choice as a fundamental or important component.

 

 

NL has school choice, including the choice to send your kids to publicly funded schools of a particular religion* (and, if the only school of your minority religion is super far away, the state will even pay for transportation - this is very rare, since most kids walk or bicycle to schools within, well, walking/bicycling distance, but anyway). For secondary school, often the student decides which school to attend, rather than the parent (though of course the parent is the final decision-maker... but many parents let their kids choose). 

 

*Religious schools have two options - either only take kids of that religion, or take everybody. They can't just make some exceptions but not others. The vast, vast, vast majority take everyone, and they're generally also quite secular. 

[Bluegoat]

You assume that it is the privileged that access school choice.  In America, the group most supportive of school choice is the black population.  

 

Have you read the description in the OP, or what nitpicx is describing in her community?  It sure isn't the privileged that are being left in their failing public schools.  It's kids whose parents can't get them to the charter schools, or won't be accepted, or don't have the support even to apply.  Those things are all privileges not all share, and the alternative is a system others are desperate to flee.  

 

If the black population had actual good schools in their community, maybe they'd be less likely to want to get their kids out of those schools.

 

It's the same attitude that has people crossing our border for a better life for their own kids rather than staying in their countries and making that country better......so what?  We ALL (I certainly hope) want better for our children.  That is why many of us homeschool.  

 

But that DOES NOT mean that we don't care or don't have concern for others.  My kids go to excellent schools. I work in the inner-city.  In my last district 95% of our kids were Latino (5400 students in the high school), and most of them from Mexico and Central America.  Trying to make their children's lives better.  Finding an escape for their children.  

 

It's not really anything to do with caring or not caring.   It's about ways to solve an institutional problem, about how you vote.  Setting up a charter school system is not just a bunch people getting together to teach their kids.  It's setting up new political social institutions, regulations, laws, that will have an effect on the entire education system.

 

It's not just an act of individuals - which is why we don't stop people from opening or using private schools - that is a private action.  With charter schools people are harnessing the power and funds of the state, and creating a public institution.  Like all institutions it will have a life of its own, it will affect everyone in the community and uses the government of the community to function.  You can't justify actions taken by the state on grounds of individuals choices.

 

As several people have said - once you have something institutionalized, it is difficult to change it.  Once you have a second educational system institutionalized, it will not be something that is easy to change when you try and improve the main system - it will tend to fight for its own advantage.  We see this kind of tension between institutions of the state all the time.

 

You know what?  Forcing kids to remain in a poor school system is the absolute best way to nip "political will and energy" in the bud.  The few people who emerge well-educated enough to make a difference are going to move away to a place where their efforts aren't wasted and their own kids can get a good education.

 

If there are good options in the community, people with a heart to make a difference are much more likely to stay and pool their resources and keep trying.  The remaining problem is also more manageable if it isn't so big.

 

 

Do you have an example of a country where people improved a poor school system by creating alternatives that will only work for some kids?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bluegoat