Wow. Some common sense from the Washington Post, in an editorial about a proposal in the U.S. House to re-establish a voucher program for D.C. schools, a proposal strongly opposed by the Obama administration:
There are, we believe, other benefits to a program that expands educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. The program, which provides vouchers of $7,500 to low-income, mainly minority students to attend private schools, is highly regarded by parents, who often feel it allows their children to attend safer schools or ones that strongly promote achievement. Our view has never been that this voucher program is a substitute for public school or public school reform. But while that reform proceeds, scholarships allow a few thousand poor children to escape failing schools and exercise a right that middle-class parents take for granted — the right, and dignity, of choice.
We understand the argument against using public funds for private, and especially parochial, schools. But it is parents, not government, choosing where to spend the vouchers. Given that this program takes no money away from public or public charter schools; that the administration does not object to parents directing Pell grants to Notre Dame or Georgetown; and that members of the administration would never accept having to send their own children to failing schools, we don't think the argument is very persuasive. Maybe that's why an administration that promised never to let ideology trump evidence is making an exception in this case.
And after all the noise made by protesters on behalf of unions and public education, it's good to see there's going to be a rally in Indy today for school choice.
Comments
"And after all the noise made by protesters on behalf of unions and public education, it
Nonsense. It is preposterous to suggest that giving tax money to parochial schools will not deprive public schools of funds.
Furthermore, since parochial schools engage in religious indoctrination, such a scheme would never pass constitutional muster. It is clearly banned by the First Amendment.
Why not take that money and use it to raise public schoolteachers' salaries? With higher pay, better qualilfied college graduates would go into teaching.
Currently, about half our public schoolteachers come from the bottom third of their graduating classes, based on SAT scores. Make prospective teacher pass a really tough qualilfication exam.
Oh, and we really ought to require teachers to have a degree in the field they will teach, not just a degree in "education," which is a crock.
BTW, my wife teaches, but she doesn't have an education degree. She has a bunch of other degrees, but only a few credit hours in education - necessary for her to teach -which she considers a waste. I read her course materials in ed, and I couldn't agree more. Just a bunch of gibberish and untested theories which will be out of date in a couple of years.
Hey LJ, Your theory is always "pay them more", so....If teachers make roughly 3 times the starting salary as they did when I graduated high school in 1976 ($12k aprox) then please explain to me why GPA's, test scores, and graduation rates have gone down?
In 1976, that $12K was 5 times the base sticker price of a new Mustang ($2461). These days, the base sticker price of a new Mustang sells for $22,145. The price of a newspaper has gone from 10c to 50c - also 5-fold. The price of a Pepsi at a lunch counter has gone from 10c to $1.50 - a 15-fold increase.
In 1967, you could buy a 3-bedroom all-electric ranch home with attached garage on 1/2 lot for $15,500. What's something like that sell for now, Tim?
Pay for teachers hasn't gone up, it's gone *down*.
Of the students who graduated from high school in 2009, 70.1% went on to college the next year. In 1976, only 38% went on to college. It seems reasonable to expect that if you administer a standardized test to everybody, instead of just the top students, you'll get lower scores.
Harl:
The really disturbing thing about education is the incredible rise in per pupil costs, which is the direct result of undue influence by public teachers unions in electing their own cronies to school boards. Try out this sentence from "The Changing Face of the
Teachers Force."
"Over the past 20 years, total K-12 student enrollment (public, private, and charter schools combined) went up by 19 percent. In comparison, during the same period the teaching force increased at over 2.5 times that rate
Gadfly, a couple of paragraphs later on, that same report notes that the number of special ed teachers has not increased by 48 percent, but by 102 percent.
We're trying to educate special-ed students these days, instead of simply warehousing them.
We're also mainstreaming special-ed students. The purpose of that isn't to improve reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to improve the self-esteem of the SE students and improve the sensitivity of other students to SE issues.
Those things aren't things traditionally measured as "scholastic performance," but they might be things we want to do. There's an ad running on TV here, though, that has someone saying that some kids aren't good at anything else, and so it's important to have exercise as a part of the school day, in order to give those kids a reason to look forward to school.
I can think of kids I went to school with who weren't much good at anything except spitwads and other bullying.... Should those be a mandatory part of the school day as well? Not everything that CAN be done SHOULD be done.
Harl:
Somehow, I do not think that the overburdened taxpayer has been asked about the extent to which we want to finance special ed programs -- I know that I did not get to vote on school curricula.
Also, we have to be careful in comparing a 102% gain of a much smaller sub-group to a 48% gain in the entire population of 3.5 million or so teachers.
As for spit-wads and bullying, you and I seemed to have adapted well and avoided permanent physical, mental and emotional damage that will somehow bring down every living, breathing "child" under 27 (the new standard of when a kid leaves Mom and Dad under Obamacare). I taught my kids that bullying ends when the bully gets hurt.
But you have been involved in the discussion, or lack of it, about financing special ed programs even if you don't vote on school curriculum. You do so by the school board members you vote in; they are your voice. If they aren't saying what you want to hear, vote for someone who will.
AJ
Gadfly: "I taught my kids that bullying ends when the bully gets hurt."
It worked that way when I was a kid, but not when I became a father.
A kid kept knocking Jasper's pencil off the desk. When he'd reach down to get the pencil, the other kid would step on his hand.
Jasper carefully hid his compass in his hand, and when he reached down for his pencil and the other kid tried to step on his hand, he quickly jabbed the other kid with the compass.
The teacher admitted to me that he'd turned a blind eye to the bullying, but when Jasper retaliated, he decided that it was intolerable, and Jasper got sent to juvenile court, charged with assault.
How come the bullies are allowed to bully, but the victims aren't allowed to fight back?
"How come the bullies are allowed to bully, but the victims aren
A bully is a tough nut to crack. My father had a bully pick on him back in the 20's and his father from Norway tought hims to fight. My father fought back and that was the end of it.
I was picked on bullies when in school as did most of my class mates in gym. We survived. Some of us fought back and it ended. Those who did not fight back, well it continued.
Today the schools system takes a zero tolerance view. The bully will be disciplined as well as the person who is being bullied who attempt to defend him.
How did it get this way? I believe parents of bullies were not threatened by parents of kids who were beat up with law suits. It used to be that way and it stopped. In some cases principals were told that if the bully was not gone, the principal would be. Lawyers work both sides.
I have told my son, if you cannot walk away and a kid begins to whale on you, defend yourself until help arrives. When I get there we settle the matter with the school.
Harl, the first time it happened, you the parent need to take action. I have had to step in a few times as a parent when the school fails to act. Doing so prevents not only your kid from being bullied but a lot of others.