What is going to happen to schools in trouble?

[flowerseverywhere]

Well everyone has raised great points. I know when we left ny and bought a house for the same amount of money our property taxes went down $6000 a year. We also have no state income tax like n.y. does. We picked this area on purpose, as it was all part of ourearly retirement plan The schools rank close to what they do in ny, poorer urban areas doing poorly, wealthier areas doing better.
I have a hard time with the notion that the educators are in it for the money, As several of my friends who are educators or school nurses work mighty hard, spent a lot of time outsideit just seems to of school hours working, and are not primarily in it for the pay and pension. A school nurse can make much more in many other capacities with less liability. I don't know about the administrators. There still seem to be a lot of them

I used to go to our school board meetings. You learn a lot as the months go by, including some ridiculous state guidelines and some ridiculous decisions. I thought our board needed an overhaul, that was for sure. Many nights, in my district of 4,000+ students, there would be me, a few concerned teachers and a couple crabby people who took issue with everything. Even as they discussed budget cutting, practically no one was there to give suggestions, ( unless it was people trying to savetheir jobs) and few negative and positive opinions. A shame really as everyone complained about it after the fact. I am just so unsure where we are headed and what the outcome will be.

[Lainey]

. .. We've also seen that many private or charter schools do a much better job educating students than their public brethren do, while operating under tighter budgets. .

Actually not true according to latest studies: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/31-9

But sadly, I foresee education in this country becoming totally for-profit because companies are salivating at the sheer amount of money involved (rivaling jail/prisons/courts for biggest slice of the taxpayer's dollars) and they will convince taxpayers they can do it better.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Actually not true according to latest studies: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/31-9

Is this the best we can expect from charters after billions poured into this new hole in the ground that is being mined by ideologues, tax-evaders, corporate welfare schemers, profiteers, sold-out politicians, and hedge fund operators?

Yea I've heard that too, and wonder how it is possible since charter schools are supposed to be non-profit. The scams going on if such are subtle ...

But sadly, I foresee education in this country becoming totally for-profit because companies are salivating at the sheer amount of money involved (rivaling jail/prisons/courts for biggest slice of the taxpayer's dollars) and they will convince taxpayers they can do it better.

Of course that's not "totally for profit", not if it's government money. I'm not saying totally for profit would be ideal, just that corporatism (public-private partnership/public funding and private profits/crony capitalism) is the worst of all possible worlds. States and localities should experiment - yes, so far so good. P.S. - does this extend to teacher empowerment as opposed to teaching to test? However if the experiments are with a model as badly flawed as public-private partnership the chances of that working are almost non-existent. I would hope for experiments with a model less obviously broken.

[peggy]

OK, well, the right-wing on going war against women's rights was a bit of a stretch, but I'm feeling particularly antsy today. I guess what i was really alluding to was the ridiculous disconnect of right-wing complaining of the state of education, and their constant fight to dumb down the educational standards of schools.
Yeah, let's complain about the lack of science, yet demand that schools be allowed to teach creationism in science class! Or let's applaud the charge that president Obama is a 'snob' when he says he wants everyone to have the opportunity to go to college if they want.
Do you think these mixed messages MAY just be adding to the societal problems we have in valuing education? How about the recent vote by the republican congress to raise the rate on college loans? What do you think that says to young people on how much we value an education?

It is a societal issue. Mainly being, we, as a society, don't value education. When we do, then the kids , schools and communities will. Ask yourself..why do the 'rich' schools do better than the 'poor' schools? If it isn't money, as most of you decided/agreed on, then what? Could it be the 'rich' schools are populated by those who value education more? Why is it that wealthy folks, whose kids really will step into the 'family' business and not need to struggle, still insist their kids go on to university and beyond? Could it be they value education? Could it be that all those republicans who guffaw at 'liberal educations'...the ones who themselves hold several degrees, know the power of education? (cough..Rick Santorum...cough) ...cause, you know, an educated voting public is largely a democratic voting public...

Now, go back to that vote to raise the loan rate for college kids. Go back to all those pushes to teach creationism. Go back to the anti-science, anti-women, anti-information, let's pray to pass our math test voices that scream the loudest. As long as we pretend that Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/fox News are 'real' journalist, creationism is the 'other' side of the evolution coin, and science is just a liberal conspiracy, the kids will remain dumb, and the schools won't be able to do a thing, no matter how much money we throw at them.

[Alan]

Do you think these mixed messages MAY just be adding to the societal problems we have in valuing education? How about the recent vote by the republican congress to raise the rate on college loans? What do you think that says to young people on how much we value an education?

In large part, it IS government interference that is responsible for education inflation, which is higher than healthcare, food, and energy inflation. The cost of a college education has been increasing ever since the government got involved in the student loan business. The schools can jack up tuition knowing that they will get their money. The government knows that it will get repaid (or the banks know when we are talking about private student loans) because school loans ARE NOT DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.
It is a vicious cycle and holding down interest rates artificially won’t really solve the problem. If you have to pay 7% interest on an education that costs you only $50,000, you are still getting a better deal than a $200,000 education at 3%.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Government interference greater than the GI Bill though? When vast sections of the population had massively subsidized college education? Government interference greater than the days when state colleges were free or nearly so? It's really hard to say we have any more government interference than we had then (which is basically anytime within anyone that is alive lifetime including 90 year olds) - yea the "good old days". That it is done through credit rather than directly well - perhaps adds a layer of corruption is all - banksterism and a profit stream to lenders.

Maybe bidding up education isn't purely about government but also has something to do with the utter disaster that is the economy for most people! It is true that some of the same jobs that didn't require a college education several decades ago do now. But it is ALSO true that many of the jobs that didn't require education several decades ago are *GONE* (the latter of which probably makes the former possibly - flooded labor market means employers can ask for the moon). Now education won't bring the old jobs back or necessarily provide enough jobs to replace them (yea I know we're told it will - and how is that working out?). But it will make people more and more desperate to go to college as the alternative *individually* for not doing so is much more dire than it was in the "good old days".

Agree that holding down interest rates almost certainly won't work. In fact interest rates are kept low pricisely to RAISE the costs of housing. They say as much but somehow think this is a good thing ...

[peggy]

In large part, it IS government interference that is responsible for education inflation, which is higher than healthcare, food, and energy inflation. The cost of a college education has been increasing ever since the government got involved in the student loan business. The schools can jack up tuition knowing that they will get their money. The government knows that it will get repaid (or the banks know when we are talking about private student loans) because school loans ARE NOT DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.
It is a vicious cycle and holding down interest rates artificially won’t really solve the problem. If you have to pay 7% interest on an education that costs you only $50,000, you are still getting a better deal than a $200,000 education at 3%.

On this we agree. Universities demand ridiculous prices while wasting money on football stadiums and sports complexes. But raising the rates on the students won't fix that. it will simply put a larger burden on the strapped student, and cause many more to fall out simply because they can't justify paying 50,000 for a career that pays 30,000.
And that speaks to ANM's point. Raising the rates won't bring down the college costs. It will just make it impossible for so many to 'pull themselves up' because the jobs will still demand a degree for what used to be OJT or a tech school at best. The gap will grow between the haves and the have nots even wider than it is now.

So what is the solution? I don't know. As ANM pointed out, getting a degree isn't just a luxury anymore. Trade school jobs are demanding liberal arts degrees. And the universities are drunk with the money, stuffing ridiculous requirements into basic knowledge degrees to get four years (or more) worth of credits. (I could tell you about my daughters 'required' American Folk lore class that was literally her going to a theater once a week to watch slasher movies. I'm talking Freddie Kruger...Really!)
Maybe MORE government interference should be tried. Limits on state universities tuition, or requirements, and a little bit more oversight on the degrees. But many would balk at that sort of interference, and it wouldn't address the issue of degree demanding careers.

Personally, I think there should be way more oversight on public universities, and I mean heavy oversight, and more trade schools for the vast majority of degrees. Get them in, teach them the trade/career, and get them out. With only a reasonable debt for the education.
I'm afraid raising this debt now to 'fix' the problem will be about as useful as expecting people to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' by removing food stamps and WIC.

[Gregg]

Regarding pre-secondary education, our district is very highly rated and DD2 just graduated from the highest ranked high school in the district last weekend. The teachers were dedicated and involved. The resources available at the school are quite complete. Despite all that her education, had she relied solely on the curriculum and just gone with the flow, would have been pathetic. Luckily she was pretty motivated, had parents who were involved and most of her friends have similar goals. I don't know the exact numbers when it comes to measuring success with vs. without parental involvement, but in my experience there are very few kids who make it on their own. My own cynical POV is that our schools have become a giant, expensive baby sitting service that we, as a society, expect to take over all parental roles. IMO that is a miserable failure.

[Gregg]

There was a ratio that used to be tossed around regarding NASA and the space program. Basically it said that every dollar spent on space returned $14 to the economy through innovation that was integrated into life on Earth. I'm not sure if that's exactly accurate, but the point is that innovation isn't possible without education. Even if the figure were only $2 instead of $14 it would still be a compelling reason to get our education system back on track.

[JaneV2.0]

Regarding pre-secondary education, our district is very highly rated and DD2 just graduated from the highest ranked high school in the district last weekend. The teachers were dedicated and involved. The resources available at the school are quite complete. Despite all that her education, had she relied solely on the curriculum and just gone with the flow, would have been pathetic. Luckily she was pretty motivated, had parents who were involved and most of her friends have similar goals. I don't know the exact numbers when it comes to measuring success with vs. without parental involvement, but in my experience there are very few kids who make it on their own. My own cynical POV is that our schools have become a giant, expensive baby sitting service that we, as a society, expect to take over all parental roles. IMO that is a miserable failure.

I've been thinking along those lines as I read this thread. Parents who are enthusiastically involved with their children's education produce the best outcomes--whether through outright homeschooling, supplemental lessons, or unschooling-type exploration of individual interests. Children whose parents model a love for and a pursuit of learning for its own sake are lucky indeed.