View Full Version : School choice:vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools
iris lilies
2-7-17, 9:00pm
The feds needs to,keep,their hands out of education.
I doubt that voucher programs are the answer to poor schools. But let the states figure it out.
flowerseverywhere
2-7-17, 9:44pm
Some people are going to make a lot of money. Not most people here, but you don't get to be a billionaire without figuring out how to profit. I imagine we will be seeing many decisions that will be making the super wealthy wealthier.
My copy of the Constitution seems to lack any text granting the power to the Federal government to be particularly involved in education.
It does have something called "Amendment X" though.
Maybe we'll get to find out sooner than later:
Kentucky lawmaker proposes bill to abolish federal Department of Education
http://www.wcvb.com/article/kentucky-lawmaker-proposes-bill-to-abolish-federal-department-of-education/8690313
If passed, Massie’s bill would effectively dismantle the Department of Education by December 31, 2018.
Among those who are labeled as original co-sponsors of the bill include Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).
ToomuchStuff
2-8-17, 2:27am
Don't worry, the states can also screw things up.
The KC school district and all the desegregation problems, spring to mind. We moved when I was a kid, due to things like Knives in the public schools, etc, to what was a "better district". Economically, yes, but by the time I graduated, I had had a gun pointed at me in school once, and out of school once, as well as a knife to my throat in school.
Money was spent on buildings and tech, didn't seem to change people much.
Somehow my wife and I managed to make it through K-12 in the USA before there was a Department Of Education.
When did this department spring into being, and what is the Constitutional authority for its existence?
flowerseverywhere
2-8-17, 8:00am
Somehow my wife and I managed to make it through K-12 in the USA before there was a Department Of Education.
When did this department spring into being, and what is the Constitutional authority for its existence?
interesting question. Looked it up and it was formed during the Carter administration. For you teachers out there, what are the negatives and positives of the department of education? no child left behind is immensely unpopular with the teachers I know. They do not feel like it has benefitted students
As I understood it, the fed influence comes largely through threatening to withhold funding. That seems to be their primary leverage in enforcing their will on sports programs, bathroom access, due process for rape accusations, etc. To me, education would seem to be an area where you would want to try a lot of different approaches at a lot of different locations rather than enforce monolithic standards from a central bureaucracy.
As a public school teacher for 31 years in a strong county, I see the Dept. of Education as a hindrance, frequently. However, I am concerned with the way individual states use Title 1, Title 1X, Head Start funds. It seems those states where there are many poor families are not always willing to do what is necessary to improve the schools. My hopes for the DOE were, increased funding for the federal mandates (made even before the DOE), increases help for those states with a high poverty rate, strong enforcement of Title 1X, Title 1 and the special ed. Laws. No Child Left Behind was a punishing disaster created by lawmakers who appeared to despise children and know nothing about teaching. I do feel that a political contributor who feels public schools are unnecessary and a monopoly is absolutely the worst person for the job. Our state-Maryland_ has a governor who is chomping at the bit to give public school money to private religious schools under the guise of choice.
Teacher Terry
2-8-17, 6:41pm
Only the public schools should get public $. People should pay for their kids to go to private schools if that is what they want. Devoes is going to be another disaster. Ugh!
iris lilies
2-8-17, 6:57pm
As a public school teacher for 31 years in a strong county, I see the Dept. of Education as a hindrance, frequently. However, I am concerned with the way individual states use Title 1, Title 1X, Head Start funds. It seems those states where there are many poor families are not always willing to do what is necessary to improve the schools. My hopes for the DOE were, increased funding for the federal mandates (made even before the DOE), increases help for those states with a high poverty rate, strong enforcement of Title 1X, Title 1 and the special ed. Laws. No Child Left Behind was a punishing disaster created by lawmakers who appeared to despise children and know nothing about teaching. I do feel that a political contributor who feels public schools are unnecessary and a monopoly is absolutely the worst person for the job. Our state-Maryland_ has a governor who is chomping at the bit to give public school money to private religious schools under the guise of choice.
See bolded.
And therein lies the crux. Does Nanny G. Have the balls and the right to tell Those states what they must do that is "necessary?"
I think it is pretty obvious that some states have more money for schools than other states. Does our Constitution allow Nanny to scold and strong arm state A to pour money it doesnt have into education so as to match the $ spent in state B?
Isnt it pretty obvious that education is a priority in some states, and not in others? Why cant we accept that as a fact of living in these United States? Must all states offer the same educational product? Must we all be exactly alike? May Nanny take from Peter to ensure that Paul's public school experience is comparable to a child in another state?
When I moved to Missouri I was shocked to see an entire county close in to St Louis without public library service. shocked! But you know what? those citizens had decided, by their votes, that they did not value public library service. And so be it, that is their right. They get to shape their community and its services.
Back in Texas, they had what was called the Robin Hood plan. Wealthier public school districts have to give their excess property tax revenue to poorer public school districts so that they were equitable. Always caused a lot of teeth gnashing. Does that happen in other states?
early morning
2-8-17, 8:27pm
Does that happen in other states? Not in Ohio, where, 15 years and 4 court decisions after first ruling our school funding system unconstitutional, NOTHING has been done to change the funding or to insure that students in poor areas have the same access to education as do those in wealthy districts. I'm a teacher. Sure, the DOE does some annoying things (NCLB, other unfunded mandates, etc) - but I don't see it as worse than what the states would- and have- have done. Part of the reason for federal intervention in such areas has been the blatant refusal of some - mostly southern - states to treat all students fairly. And I am NOT happy about any of my tax dollars going to fund religious education for any reason whatsoever. It makes me angry enough that religious organizations are tax-exempt.
IL, I do think access to quality education should be roughly equal in all states. Not exactly the same but everyone should have the same basic opportunity to join society as a productive member, and that won't happen where some states could, conceivably, do away with public education all together.
Maybe the thing to do then is just shut down public schools? No public schools, no charter schools, no vouchers - parents can just saddle the cost if they want their kid to attend a school.
Public education is one of the most frustrating areas of public policy for me. Given that we have so much data, and so much experimentation, it seems that public education should be improving over time, not staying stagnant or even worsening.
I would love to send my kids to public school. But for many us, particularly in urban areas, the good public schools are way out in the exurbs. Cookie Cutter houses + Long Commute = Good schools. My neighborhood is perfectly fine and centrally located. I can walk around at night without worry. But send my kids to school in the neighborhood? Not a good option, based on what I've seen (most recent grades from the state were three D's and an F). So they go to private school.
parents can just saddle the cost
One of the main reasons we left Texas was because of our property taxes. Out of 2016's taxes of $8300 on our tiny little house, almost 3/4 went to public schools. I probably could have rented there and sent a kid to private school for less.
I once got in a tedious argument with someone who felt it was immoral to send my kid to a Catholic school rather than the public school. She felt that by doing so I deprived the public school of our support and some kind of balance. I made the usual parents argument that as long as I could afford to I would do what was best for the kid rather than her theory of social justice.
I felt and feel her view was heavy on the public part and short on the education part
My concern is similar to nswef, I want oversight and accountability for the legal protections for students. I could see that not being upheld or it being much more difficult for students with disabilities to get a fair education. I do not want the dept of ed choosing curriculum or increasing testing loads. I would be fine if they had a couple recommended testing programs that they supported but did not require. The reason for that is seeing students all come to college and some who were at the top of their class but from different districts were in remedial classes for a semester or year because their school did not offer anything harder. I think that students ready to graduate should be able to tell how they compare to other students as they prepare for college.
And even the hint that schools are going to a more religious focus just makes me hopping mad, obviously a lot of Americans disagree with me on that and that is how we got where we are.
And even the hint that schools are going to a more religious focus just makes me hopping mad, obviously a lot of Americans disagree with me on that and that is how we got where we are.
How are schools going to a more religious focus? Via vouchers?
I'm happy to pay to send my kid to a parochial school, and feel sorry for families who don't have that option. I like that it's academically a bit more rigorous, she's exposed to values that will help her live a richer and happier life and she's spending her days with kids whose parents care enough to make a similar sacrifice. That's easily worth the several thousand dollars a year it costs (although in my state, we do get a tax deduction, which I appreciate).
The majority of kids will probably always go to public (i.e. government-run) schools; and I think "how we got where we are" reflects the long-term performance of the educational establishment more than the minority who chose to go in a different direction. Other countries seem to accomplish more with less. I have no problem with alternate approaches, even if some are taken by religious organizations. If we don't object to Catholic-run hospitals getting Medicare funds, why should we object to Catholic schools getting public funds?
Public education is one of the most frustrating areas of public policy for me. Given that we have so much data, and so much experimentation, it seems that public education should be improving over time, not staying stagnant or even worsening.
The only proof one can provide to show they actually know how to do something is by being able to replicate results. So either (assuming the people involved are competent, which is another issue) they really don't know how to successfully provide an education - or they don't want to/can't do what is necessary to replicate results. Or - there are conditions that preclude the possibility of being successful. I expect it's variations of all of these depending on where you are. But no one wants to admit to any of these.
Teacher Terry
2-9-17, 2:08pm
We sent our kids to a Catholic school for grade school even though we were not Catholic because our local public school was terrible. We sacrificed to do it at the time. However, I still do not feel that public funds should be used for private schools. Ldahl: I don't understand why your friend was upset because you were still paying for the public schools through property taxes.
However, I still do not feel that public funds should be used for private schools. Do we have a duty to pay for the school or for the child's education?
We sent our kids to a Catholic school for grade school even though we were not Catholic because our local public school was terrible. We sacrificed to do it at the time. However, I still do not feel that public funds should be used for private schools. Ldahl: I don't understand why your friend was upset because you were still paying for the public schools through property taxes.
She felt that by pulling out of the public system I was depriving them not of tax support but of "other forms of support and advocacy for public education". She wasn't wrong about that. I do have less of a personal stake than I would if my daughter was a sort of hostage to the system's success. We've put in a lot of volunteer time, for instance. She seemed to believe that by focusing on my kid's best interests I was somehow shortchanging everybody else's kids' best interests. Guilty as charged: my kid is my priority. It was a sort of grand social ideal versus sordid reality discussion.
iris lilies
2-9-17, 4:00pm
She felt that by pulling out of the public system I was depriving them not of tax support but of "other forms of support and advocacy for public education". She wasn't wrong about that. I do have less of a personal stake than I would if my daughter was a sort of hostage to the system's success. We've put in a lot of volunteer time, for instance. She seemed to believe that by focusing on my kid's best interests I was somehow shortchanging everybody else's kids' best interests. Guilty as charged: my kid is my priority. It was a sort of grand social ideal versus sordid reality discussion.
Oh you arent alone, I've heard wails about how can we expect our public schools to get better when all of the parents who care about their child's education do not participate in the public schools.
Others expect my [theoretical] child to be the magic ingrediant in the grand social experiment to balance the social experiment of the fair and equal public school. I wouldnt want my kid to act as guinea pig.
I look at it this way: the super crappy city schools here already get one of the highest per-pupil funding in our state. They get the money. They get the laws in their favor. They get the constant attention. The taxpayers have done their part. That the students coming into their schools are problematic in educating is not my responsibility. I guess they would have to move in with me to adopt our values about education and that will not happen.
flowerseverywhere
2-10-17, 6:56am
When my kids were in the public school system I joined the PTA, went to the school board meetings, and would volunteer in the class rooms about once a month. I was working part time, but at that time many were stay at home or part time working moms (far cry from today.). However, I would often go to a school board meeting and there would be five or six parents there in districts with thousands of students for most meetings. One or two would be there for a specific issue and the rest of us were just interested. I was amazed at some of the things that were voted on with only a few of us asking questions or commenting. It was fascinating. People always said they would go with me but I almost always ended up going alone.
Unless parents are engaged aged little will change in the schools. To be honest, I think many people think the bus should pick their kid up in the morning, give them free breakfast and lunch, provide education, civic training, sports, moral training and drop them back at their front door. I don't know how that culture will be changed. I think this is one area where the liberal view of taking care of everyone has backfired, and I am way more liberal in a lot of my beliefs.
However in areas where both parents are working crappy jobs and not well educated, the ability to be engaged is very difficult. When I look at my grandkids, all in excellent districts,and many engaged parents who read to their kids, limit screen time and so on their educations is so far superior to poorer schools. When the first one went to kindergarten I spent a morning in the classroom and most of the kids were very familiar with alphabet, numbers and so on and understood how to follow commands, had good attention spans and were well fed. Some basic concepts, like the US is made up of states, there are planets, how to build things with legos, putting letters together to write your name for instance, seemed to be common knowledge. Contrast that with the kids who went to a district one of my friends just retired from where the kids had no clue of the basic building blocks of education, like letters, numbers and name writing, were not read to, not fed well and used to spending hours in front of the TV. I don't know if any amount of money or time can make up the deficit. Especially as the years go by and the gap gets larger as the well prepared are able to build on the base with support from parents.
When my kids were in the public school system I joined the PTA, went to the school board meetings, and would volunteer in the class rooms about once a month. I was working part time, but at that time many were stay at home or part time working moms (far cry from today.). However, I would often go to a school board meeting and there would be five or six parents there in districts with thousands of students for most meetings. One or two would be there for a specific issue and the rest of us were just interested. I was amazed at some of the things that were voted on with only a few of us asking questions or commenting. It was fascinating. People always said they would go with me but I almost always ended up going alone.
Unless parents are engaged aged little will change in the schools. To be honest, I think many people think the bus should pick their kid up in the morning, give them free breakfast and lunch, provide education, civic training, sports, moral training and drop them back at their front door. I don't know how that culture will be changed. I think this is one area where the liberal view of taking care of everyone has backfired, and I am way more liberal in a lot of my beliefs.
However in areas where both parents are working crappy jobs and not well educated, the ability to be engaged is very difficult. When I look at my grandkids, all in excellent districts,and many engaged parents who read to their kids, limit screen time and so on their educations is so far superior to poorer schools. When the first one went to kindergarten I spent a morning in the classroom and most of the kids were very familiar with alphabet, numbers and so on and understood how to follow commands, had good attention spans and were well fed. Some basic concepts, like the US is made up of states, there are planets, how to build things with legos, putting letters together to write your name for instance, seemed to be common knowledge. Contrast that with the kids who went to a district one of my friends just retired from where the kids had no clue of the basic building blocks of education, like letters, numbers and name writing, were not read to, not fed well and used to spending hours in front of the TV. I don't know if any amount of money or time can make up the deficit. Especially as the years go by and the gap gets larger as the well prepared are able to build on the base with support from parents.
There's a sense in that sort of accrued family effort is a form of capital. Others may call it privilege, but I consider it earned.
early morning
2-10-17, 9:54am
There's a sense in that sort of accrued family effort is a form of capital. Others may call it privilege, but I consider it earned.
I understand what you're saying - but let's be clear that the CHILDREN did not "earn" it, the parents or grandparents did. It seems to me that IF we want to continue with our 250 yr experiment with democratic government, we have to consider more than just our little family islands. The natural conclusion of the thinking noted by LDAHL leads to a highly stratified society or class system with very little chance of upward mobility for the vast majority of people. Do we want a society where the sole determinate of economic class is birth? As my parents are, so will I be? I thought the whole point of public education was to give all people, even those born in poverty, a chance to improve their chances, economically and socially, if they want to do so. And I believe one of the jobs of the Feds, under the good and welfare clause, is to extend that chance to people. Publicly funded education makes sense to me. It's never going to be a perfect fix, and there are always going to be programs that work for some kids and not others, arguments over the fairness of funding, access, and so on. That is not an excuse to turn your back and say "I'll educate my kids as I please, and if those "other people" don't want to educate theirs, so be it". Long term, how will that benefit us as a society? By having more hordes of well-armed (yay 2nd amendment folks!), unemployed, hungry people in the streets?
I understand what you're saying - but let's be clear that the CHILDREN did not "earn" it, the parents or grandparents did. It seems to me that IF we want to continue with our 250 yr experiment with democratic government, we have to consider more than just our little family islands. The natural conclusion of the thinking noted by LDAHL leads to a highly stratified society or class system with very little chance of upward mobility for the vast majority of people. Do we want a society where the sole determinate of economic class is birth? As my parents are, so will I be? I thought the whole point of public education was to give all people, even those born in poverty, a chance to improve their chances, economically and socially, if they want to do so. And I believe one of the jobs of the Feds, under the good and welfare clause, is to extend that chance to people. Publicly funded education makes sense to me. It's never going to be a perfect fix, and there are always going to be programs that work for some kids and not others, arguments over the fairness of funding, access, and so on. That is not an excuse to turn your back and say "I'll educate my kids as I please, and if those "other people" don't want to educate theirs, so be it". Long term, how will that benefit us as a society? By having more hordes of well-armed (yay 2nd amendment folks!), unemployed, hungry people in the streets?
I have no problem with the concept of public education. I just want the freedom to opt out if I think my "little family island" can do better. I think people get fixated on the funding part. I have no problem being taxed to educate other people's kids, within reason. But I make no apology for using whatever resources I have to give my kid the very best start in life I can. If you feel that is somehow unfair to the kids whose parents can't or won't do the same for them, I can only respond that I don't regard my child as a pawn in anybody's social justice strategy.
I agree with flowerseverywhere that no amount of money can make up for parents who don't make education a priority for their kids. If it's some kind of unfair advantage to be born to caring parents, I can't think of any "cure" government could impose that wouldn't do more harm than good.
early morning
2-10-17, 10:51am
I just want the option to opt out if I think my "little family island" can do better. I think people get fixated on the funding part. I have no problem being taxed to educate other people's kids, within reason. Oh, I have no problem with people who send their kids to private schools as long as public dollars aren't being used. It's extrapolating the "I earned it" to an inherited right that I have a problem with, and I'm not saying that's your take on it, but it is one I hear often.
iris lilies
2-10-17, 10:56am
I understand what you're saying - but let's be clear that the CHILDREN did not "earn" it, the parents or grandparents did. It seems to me that IF we want to continue with our 250 yr experiment with democratic government, we have to consider more than just our little family islands. The natural conclusion of the thinking noted by LDAHL leads to a highly stratified society or class system with very little chance of upward mobility for the vast majority of people. Do we want a society where the sole determinate of economic class is birth? As my parents are, so will I be? I thought the whole point of public education was to give all people, even those born in poverty, a chance to improve their chances, economically and socially, if they want to do so. And I believe one of the jobs of the Feds, under the good and welfare clause, is to extend that chance to people. Publicly funded education makes sense to me. It's never going to be a perfect fix, and there are always going to be programs that work for some kids and not others, arguments over the fairness of funding, access, and so on. That is not an excuse to turn your back and say "I'll educate my kids as I please, and if those "other people" don't want to educate theirs, so be it". Long term, how will that benefit us as a society? By having more hordes of well-armed (yay 2nd amendment folks!), unemployed, hungry people in the streets?
I think publicly funded education is one of three major things that made this country great. I'm not casual about it as a driver of societal health, and I absolutely believe that a merit based education system that supports intelligence and academic success rather than sheer "birth" status is of utmost importance. In our young country, sons of gentlemen were not the only children beng educated, and that is gold for capitalism because those with innovative ideas had intellectual tools to debelop those ideas.
But I also recognize the fact many of today's citizens do not value education. I can't change their hearts and minds. I think it's a shame that the segment of people that does not value education is growing. Our little "family islands" as you put it come from once larger communities with shared values, and we supported schools with our shared vision.
And if you say I am "turning my back" I will point to the tax bill I receive every year and say "hmm, so this isnt enough, eh? Just how much DO I have to give before ya'll stop coming to me with your hands out? Is there a limit? " I think there probably is no limit and that problem seems insurmountable to me. Until some fundamental changes come from within the public schools, we will all continue on this path. All parents need to put their skin in the game of educating their children. That isnt happening. It seems to me that educators and their funders want everyone to do for the families who dont value education. i suggest they do more for themselves, and understand and value gift that is the fully financed education of their children.
Oh, I have no problem with people who send their kids to private schools as long as public dollars aren't being used. It's extrapolating the "I earned it" to an inherited right that I have a problem with, and I'm not saying that's your take on it, but it is one I hear often.
I guess I don't see it as particularly evil for me to pass along any tangible or cultural wealth my family can accumulate to the next generation. In fact, I see that as an important element in how civilizations progress: we build on what came before. I feel my child does have a right to anything I can give her, financial or otherwise. Applying the "you didn't build that" mentality to a kid's attitude toward learning and education seems to me to be an excellent way to promote ignorance. I don't see how you can make parental involvement an entitlement like this person does: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_se nd_their_kids_to_private.html
Nor do I have a problem with tax dollars funding any number of different public or private approaches. Making education a single publicly funded monolith may feel more fair, but only in the way a bureaucracy can be fair.
early morning
2-10-17, 11:37am
Isnt it pretty obvious that education is a priority in some states, and not in others? Why cant we accept that as a fact of living in these United States? Must all states offer the same educational product? Must we all be exactly alike? May Nanny take from Peter to ensure that Paul's public school experience is comparable to a child in another state?
When I moved to Missouri I was shocked to see an entire county close in to St Louis without public library service. shocked! But you know what? those citizens had decided, by their votes, that they did not value public library service. And so be it, that is their right. They get to shape their community and its services.
I have never advocated limitless funds be poured into schools, just that the money set aside for public education should not be given to those who send their kids to private schools. I also don't think communities who don't value education should be able to "opt out" of it. I do agree that all parents SHOULD put skin in the game of their kids' educations. We NEED that. Believe me, I work with a population whose parents DON'T always put their money where their mouth is re: education. But those kids need MORE school system involvement, not less. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that as a society, we need to do what we can, educationally, even if the parents AREN'T supportive of educating their kids. Look, I have a student right now who would prefer to remain in jail and attend school than go back to his family, where he knows he has no support. And he has enough self-awareness to know that he probably can't maintain in the community without support. We are desperately trying to hook him up with services and mentors to help, but his father has custody, iron-clad, and does not appreciate our assistance for his son, after all, it's HIS kid. So, yesterday, the kid starts a fight so as to get new charges, so maybe he can stay in our facility until he's 18. YES - parents need to step up!! But if we can't make them do that, what can the schools do except keep trying to help the kids in all ways possible??
iris lilies
2-10-17, 11:51am
I have never advocated limitless funds be poured into schools, just that the money set aside for public education should not be given to those who send their kids to private schools. I also don't think communities who don't value education should be able to "opt out" of it. I do agree that all parents SHOULD put skin in the game of their kids' educations. We NEED that. Believe me, I work with a population whose parents DON'T always put their money where their mouth is re: education. But those kids need MORE school system involvement, not less. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that as a society, we need to do what we can, educationally, even if the parents AREN'T supportive of educating their kids. Look, I have a student right now who would prefer to remain in jail and attend school than go back to his family, where he knows he has no support. And he has enough self-awareness to know that he probably can't maintain in the community without support. We are desperately trying to hook him up with services and mentors to help, but his father has custody, iron-clad, and does not appreciate our assistance for his son, after all, it's HIS kid. So, yesterday, the kid starts a fight so as to get new charges, so maybe he can stay in our facility until he's 18. YES - parents need to step up!! But if we can't make them do that, what can the schools do except keep trying to help the kids in all ways possible??
Yes, it is tragic when a parent's idea of best for his child is not really the best thing, but then, those are our own values. But in our real world, parental agency trumps government interference in matters that do not rise to the level of abuse and neglect.
There are a fair number of programs here that support exceptional children in our poor neighborhoods. Like your example, if the children are smart and interested in school, there are programs to help them, and it is a huge bonus if they have support at home.
But in the end parents have the ultimate authority to determine the path for their children, a double edged sword. It costs something to constantly be double checking parents, taking on the support role of parents, doing the parental thing and instilling a different set of values.
Are there other countries where the money follows the kids rather than slotting the kids into schools based on geography? I would be curious how the outcomes differed.
Teacher Terry
2-10-17, 2:57pm
When we bought our house it was in a good school district. Then within a year they changed the boundaries and threw us into a poor, bad school. We sent the oldest there for 1 year and the school psychologist, teacher and principal told us to either move to a better district or enroll him in the Catholic school since it was the best of the private schools. Our home was underwater and we were young without a lot of $ and we sacrificed to send 3 boys there but it was worth it. By 7th grade they went to public school and were ahead of many of their peers. I also did a lot of volunteer work at the school as did many other parents. Some of the teachers were nuns but most were not but they really cared about education, the kids, etc. I never regretted the decision. One of my friends was in a good school district but her oldest had severe ADHD. The kindergarten teacher locked him in the closet. She then transferred him to the same Catholic school and they worked with him. I think your friend Lhahl was a jerk and I doubt I would have remained friends with someone that said that to me. The problem with the poor schools is not a lack of $ but a lack of value for education that parents must pass down to their kids. I am all for free meals at school to help poor parents but as IL said they aren't moving in with me.
I sacrificed to send my twins to Catholic school at one time when the public schools failed them.
I think it was actually unfair that my tax money did not translate into a voucher for them at the Catholic schools.
I think your friend Lhahl was a jerk and I doubt I would have remained friends with someone that said that to me. The problem with the poor schools is not a lack of $ but a lack of value for education that parents must pass down to their kids. I am all for free meals at school to help poor parents but as IL said they aren't moving in with me.
She's a pretty good friend, and I try to take the view that a good friend has a right, and possibly a duty, to call you out if they think you're wrong. In fairness, I've told her I think her view on abortion is immoral. Love the sinner and hate the sin. I think that in this country right now we may be taking politics too personally, which may indicate that too many of us are using politics to fill up other voids in our lives. In any case, at my age solid friendships are too precious to discard over anything but mortally serious issues.
I think you're absolutely right on the schools thing. The public policy problems seem less important than the cultural problems. It probably takes multiple generations to solve the cultural problems, no matter how much you're prepared to spend.
Teacher Terry
2-10-17, 6:23pm
Since she was a really close friend I can see that the friendship can survive this. YOu can't agree with everything even with your close friends. My DH and I don;t talk politics because we don't agree at all. I talk about it with my friends. Right now NV decided to give parents 5k/year to send their kids to private schools or for homeschooling. However, they were challenged in court. The court upheld the right to do this but said it could not start until they put in place a dedicated funding source. The legislature only meets every 2 years and I am sure they will try to do this during this session. I hope they can block the funding. Our schools are already at the bottom of the entire country so taking $ away won't help.
Teacher Terry
2-10-17, 6:26pm
I was a social worker and it is not the amount of $ a family has but the values they were raised with that determine if school is important or not. Also sometimes you have a few parents in a poverty neighborhood where no one values school but a few parents do and instill that in their children. Then those people are fighting against their culture and it can be hard to maintain, their kid gets shot by a drive by anyways or targeted by other kids for not being in a gang, etc. It can be a vicious cycle to break even when people want to.
I am grateful that DD had a mostly positive public school education. She shifted to math/science magnet schools in middle and high school but they were always "housed" in poorer school districts. It was she who had to get on a school bus every morning while it was still dark and travel to the other side of town. She learned a lot of life lessons by being thrown into that cultural mix where the non-magnet kids were from poor households and education was not a priority. I always get a chuckle out of reading city data forums where people write and ask where the "good schools" are. Translation - schools with upper middle-class high achieving white or Asian kids. Where I live now, there are a lot of home schoolers and I sort of think I might go that route were I raising kids again.
Since she was a really close friend I can see that the friendship can survive this. YOu can't agree with everything even with your close friends. My DH and I don;t talk politics because we don't agree at all.
I think its possible to like, and even love someone even if you cordially despise some of each other's ideas and beliefs. I think that in this country right now there are too many people who seem to be threatened by contrary opinion. We segregate ourselves physically in different neighborhoods. We segregate ourselves intellectually in the media and internet sites we select. There are college campuses, of all places, where people react with mindless violence or infantile regression to the idea that there may be someone in the general vicinity who may disagree with them.
Too many of us seem to lack an appreciation of the pleasures of arguing with a worthy opponent. I blame a certain failure of our educational system in pushing feel-good orthodoxy over critical thinking, an increasing dread of competition of all sorts in our everybody-gets-a-trophy culture, and a certain laziness on the public and our governing elites who prefer slogans and talking points to thinking. We don't debate ideas anymore. We attack motives and character. "Diversity" seems to mean we should look different but think alike.
Teacher Terry
2-12-17, 2:35pm
Sometimes people grow apart through the years and no longer have anything in common. This happened to a couple of long term friendships but we have other friends and have also made some new friends. I felt relief after we cut 2 couples loose.
I once got in a tedious argument with someone who felt it was immoral to send my kid to a Catholic school rather than the public school. She felt that by doing so I deprived the public school of our support and some kind of balance.
I have gotten a couple different versions of this as well, though never had it couched in moral terms. Their points are fair and I don't disagree with them. But I still send the kids to private school.
Our school (Catholic as well) had the DA and the lead detective over Cyber Crimes come to the PTC (like PTA) meeting and give a talk. Both speakers said the attendance was very large and lamented that this wasn't the case with the public schools they speak to. My mother, who thinks her grandkids are getting a sanitized and thus inaccurate version of the world by attending private school, is amazed by the depth of community in the school. Ideally, this would be the case in the public school, but......
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.