Headline in the local paper today:
Is MCAS testing fair to special needs students?
My response is, are special needs students fair to the public school system?
No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate a
mainstream student. The public schools should not extend special treatment
to anyone, especially today when the costs are rising and educational
results are failing.
One of the problems with public education is that generally they are "one
size must fit all." Another benefit of vouchers is that private companies
and organizations could specialize in students with different aptitudes. We
would get more of a return on our education buck if vouchers were universal.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> Headline in the local paper today:
> Is MCAS testing fair to special needs students?
>
> My response is, are special needs students fair to the public school
> system?
> No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate a
> mainstream student. The public schools should not extend special treatment
> to anyone, especially today when the costs are rising and educational
> results are failing.
>
"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> One of the problems with public education is that generally they are "one
> size must fit all." Another benefit of vouchers is that private companies
> and organizations could specialize in students with different aptitudes.
> We would get more of a return on our education buck if vouchers were
> universal.
The problem is that public education is not one size fits all. Special needs
students don't fit into that category. Non-english speaking students don't
fit into it either.
Vouchers are a cute idea but they will not, can not work. All they would do
is make less money available to the public school system. Anyone that
desires something other than mainstream public education for their children
is free to go for it at their own expense.
I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper report,
the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate than regular
students and in many of the schools 100% of special needs kids got diplomas
instead of certificates.
NoEd wrote:
>One of the problems with public education is that generally
>they are "one size must fit all."
Then why does it have special, regular, and advanced education classes?
>Another benefit of vouchers is that private companies and
>organizations could specialize in students with different
>aptitudes. We would get more of a return on our education
>buck if vouchers were universal.
I don't believe a voucher system has been implemented yet in my state,
but we have charter schools here, and tests have shown them to be worse
than public schools. The legislature recently proposed vouchers, but
they were to be like Bush's Medicare drug program and impose no tuition
ceilings, meaning they would likely cause tuition inflation just as
Bush's drug program caused prescription cost inflation.
It's been found most private education companies rarely do better than
public schools, Edison corp. being a notorious example, perhaps because
the contract award process is so corrupt.
Ed wrote:
>are special needs students fair to the public school system?
>No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate
>a mainstream student.
>I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper
>report, the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate
>than regular students and in many of the schools 100% of special
>needs kids got diplomas instead of certificates.
In other words throwing extra money at education works, contrary to
what conservatives claim.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>>I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper
>>report, the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate
>>than regular students and in many of the schools 100% of special
>>needs kids got diplomas instead of certificates.
>
> In other words throwing extra money at education works, contrary to
> what conservatives claim.
It might help but in this day and age it isn't practical or even possible.
These special needs kids almost have private tutors. The problem is always
money though, that's what the teachers and school committees claim. I don't
buy it, the money isn't properly allocated. Keep in mind that about 50% of a
property tax bill goes to fund the schools. Based on the average tax bill it
takes almost 5 homeowners to educate 1 child in my town, for a special needs
child it takes about 10 homeowners.
I wish one-size fit all... Our town owns 25 mini-vans for 'special'
students, to drag them off to all kinds of high-priced optional education
opportunities because they don't fit the mold.... I understand the need, but
I didn't create the special need kids, but am footing the bill for
them......
Given I think we have more than enough people, I'm in favor of couples
having more than 2 children paying the entire education bill for their
'extra kids'....... call me old fashioned, but I didn't make them and I
don't want to pay for them. Not when I'm already sitting in traffic jams
from those 'bundles from heaven' that have grown up and clogged the
highways...... and the wars we fight to fuel all of our cars....... and
houses.... and produce electricity....
And though I am not in favor of bumper stickers, after seeing enough of
those stupid, ego-satisfaction, bragging "baby on board" signs, and "I'm the
proud parent of an honor student at some-stupid-school-somewhere", I did
break down an put one on my van.....
It reads, "My Border Collie is Smarter than your Honor Student". And based
on studies, my Border Collie uses a higher percentage of its intelligence
potential and is more obedient. And it does not drink alcohol or use
drugs....
So, save yourself a lot of time and don't tell me how cute and smart your
grandchildren are. I don't care. But, if you have a cute puppy, I'm all
ears.
Arne
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> One of the problems with public education is that generally they are "one
>> size must fit all." Another benefit of vouchers is that private
>> companies and organizations could specialize in students with different
>> aptitudes. We would get more of a return on our education buck if
>> vouchers were universal.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Ed wrote:
>
> >are special needs students fair to the public school system?
> >No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate
> >a mainstream student.
>
> >I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper
> >report, the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate
> >than regular students and in many of the schools 100% of special
> >needs kids got diplomas instead of certificates.
>
> In other words throwing extra money at education works,
Many Catholic schools spend much less per student than public schools;
indeed, Catholic school teachers' salaries are much lower. (Plus, Catholic
schools are required to accommodate "disabled" students.) This is evidence
that throwing extra money at schools does not work.
> contrary to what conservatives claim.
Last I read a majority of blacks favored trying voucher systems. Almost all
blacks are Democrats. Indeed, the first modern voucher system, begun in
Milwaukee in the 1990s, was begun because of the pressure a certain
Democratic black politician applied.
In article <YpXoe.34597$> wrote:
> ....... call me old fashioned, but I didn't make them and I
> don't want to pay for them.
Well, I don't want to pay for your social security, but I'm not really
given a choice about that.
In article <dpYoe.38$>,
Elle <> wrote:
> Many Catholic schools spend much less per student than public schools;
Well, when I went to catholic school about half the teachers were
either nuns or priests, and when half your labor costs are people who
have taken a vow of poverty that sort of skews the cost per student.
As much as it might be nice for your pocket book, there do not exist
large number of people willing to work long hours for little money to
educate your children.
Although there actually exists a larger number of people like this
than I would have expected.
Competition is the only way the education, or anything else for that matter,
will ever be improved, and what is exactly needed is to pull money from the
public schools. They are not set up for special need students. The schools
are so dumbed down it is pathetic.
Vouchers is the only thing that makes sense.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> One of the problems with public education is that generally they are "one
>> size must fit all." Another benefit of vouchers is that private
>> companies and organizations could specialize in students with different
>> aptitudes. We would get more of a return on our education buck if
>> vouchers were universal.
>
> The problem is that public education is not one size fits all. Special
> needs students don't fit into that category. Non-english speaking students
> don't fit into it either.
>
> Vouchers are a cute idea but they will not, can not work. All they would
> do is make less money available to the public school system. Anyone that
> desires something other than mainstream public education for their
> children is free to go for it at their own expense.
>
Charter schools are doing great here in California. People should be able
to send their kids to the school of there choice using tax payer money. The
question is what is best for the children and not what is best for the
public schools and the teacher unions.
I will stick to my statement, public schools are not set up for children
with special needs. They have been dumbed down.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>>One of the problems with public education is that generally
>>they are "one size must fit all."
>
> Then why does it have special, regular, and advanced education classes?
>
>>Another benefit of vouchers is that private companies and
>>organizations could specialize in students with different
>>aptitudes. We would get more of a return on our education
>>buck if vouchers were universal.
>
> I don't believe a voucher system has been implemented yet in my state,
> but we have charter schools here, and tests have shown them to be worse
> than public schools. The legislature recently proposed vouchers, but
> they were to be like Bush's Medicare drug program and impose no tuition
> ceilings, meaning they would likely cause tuition inflation just as
> Bush's drug program caused prescription cost inflation.
>
> It's been found most private education companies rarely do better than
> public schools, Edison corp. being a notorious example, perhaps because
> the contract award process is so corrupt.
>
More money for education doesn't work contrary to what liberals say.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>>are special needs students fair to the public school system?
>>No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate
>>a mainstream student.
>
>>I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper
>>report, the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate
>>than regular students and in many of the schools 100% of special
>>needs kids got diplomas instead of certificates.
>
> In other words throwing extra money at education works, contrary to
> what conservatives claim.
>
Johnny Hageyama wrote:
> I don't believe a voucher system has been implemented yet in my state,
> but we have charter schools here, and tests have shown them to be worse
> than public schools. The legislature recently proposed vouchers, but
> they were to be like Bush's Medicare drug program and impose no tuition
> ceilings, meaning they would likely cause tuition inflation just as
> Bush's drug program caused prescription cost inflation.
>
> It's been found most private education companies rarely do better than
> public schools, Edison corp. being a notorious example, perhaps because
> the contract award process is so corrupt.
Does this mean you wouldn't put your kids in a private school of your
choice even if you could afford it? Given a choice between sending your
kids to a private school of your choice vs. sending them to public
school, which would you *prefer*???
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
"Steven L." <> wrote
> Does this mean you wouldn't put your kids in a private school of your
> choice even if you could afford it? Given a choice between sending your
> kids to a private school of your choice vs. sending them to public school,
> which would you *prefer*???
I think a great deal depends on where you live and which public schools are
available to you.
Ok, you're living proof that not all private schools are better.
What was that you said about gramatical errors a week or two ago?
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Well, when I went to catholic school about half the teachers were
> either nuns or priests, and when half your labor costs are people who
> have taken a vow of poverty that sort of skews the cost per student.
>
> As much as it might be nice for your pocket book, there do not exist
> large number of people willing to work long hours for little money to
> educate your children.
>
> Although there actually exists a larger number of people like this
> than I would have expected.
>
"NoEd" <> wrote
> More money for education doesn't work contrary to what liberals say.
I agree, but it's not because less money is better. It's because most of it
goes to teacher salaries and benefits. The only thing that changes is the
teachers are a little better off, no gain for the students.
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>>
>> Ed wrote:
>>
>>>are special needs students fair to the public school system?
>>>No, they are not. They cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to educate
>>>a mainstream student.
>>
>>>I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the newspaper
>>>report, the special needs students graduated at a much higher rate
>>>than regular students and in many of the schools 100% of special
>>>needs kids got diplomas instead of certificates.
>>
>> In other words throwing extra money at education works, contrary to
>> what conservatives claim.
>>
>
>
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Well, I don't want to pay for your social security, but I'm not really
> given a choice about that.
I have a feeling that Arne paid into the SS system for all of his working
life. Many people have no children in a school system but still pay into it.
Apples and oranges.
"NoEd" <> wrote
> Charter schools are doing great here in California. People should be able
> to send their kids to the school of there choice using tax payer money.
Never happen and it shouldn't. Every family sending their kids to the school
of their choice is border line insane. It can't be funded.
My neighbor has three kids, what if he decided to send them all to Phillips
Acadamy in Andover?
Currently $24,220/yr for day students, $31,160/hr for boarding students.
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Elle <> wrote:
> > Many Catholic schools spend much less per student than public schools;
>
> Well, when I went to catholic school about half the teachers were
> either nuns or priests, and when half your labor costs are people who
> have taken a vow of poverty that sort of skews the cost per student.
I think you're right that there once were many more nuns/brothers teaching
in Catholic school, but from a relative of mine who's been teaching in the
Catholic schools of a large city for the last 20+ years, I understand that
now "civilians" (laypeople) make up the overwhelming majority of Catholic
school teachers. One outcome of this is that there are in fact many Catholic
school teacher unions. Yet many Catholic schools have no such unions. Either
way, their pay is less than public schools.
> As much as it might be nice for your pocket book, there do not exist
> large number of people willing to work long hours for little money to
> educate your children.
I don't know that this accusation exactly follows from what I said. But to
clarify:
First, I feel as another poster said here that there needs to be more
tiering of kids by ability, especially distinguishing much earlier on
between those who are vocationally minded and those who are not. Since this
has in fact been achieved at the post-secondary school level, and in fact by
way of in-state tuition "voucher" system, I think school choice is worth
trying at the lower levels, too.
Second, the reality is that many teachers prefer parochial and/or private
schools. I think this is because the kids (and parents) are more
cooperative, for whatever reason. So these folks CHOOSE to work for less,
because the work itself is more inherently rewarding. They get to actually
teach instead of, say, practice crowd control.
> Although there actually exists a larger number of people like this
> than I would have expected.
I don't want to get into a big brouhaha over this. My position is that,
given the sorry state of so many inner city public schools, not to at least
try a wholly different system is a gross disservice to inner city kids. By
wholly different system, I mean some sort of vouchers and/or more charter
schools. More like the state college and university and community (and/or
vocational) college system.
In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> I have a feeling that Arne paid into the SS system for all of his working
> life. Many people have no children in a school system but still pay into it.
Many people were educated by the government when they were young and
object to paying when they are old. Arne has things he objects to
paying for, I have things I object to paying for.
In article <t50pe.178$>,
Elle <> wrote:
> I think you're right that there once were many more nuns/brothers teaching
> in Catholic school, but from a relative of mine who's been teaching in the
> Catholic schools of a large city for the last 20+ years, I understand that
> now "civilians" (laypeople) make up the overwhelming majority of Catholic
> school teachers.
Well, if you assume 70 percent are lay people making the going rate,
and 30 are nuns/priests who are making salaries compatable with their
vows of poverty, that still gives an economic advantage to catholic
schools. And the number of people going to catholic school is number
probably in the single digits. You can't double the number of people
going to catholic school if you wanted too, the capacity isn't there.
> > As much as it might be nice for your pocket book, there do not exist
> > large number of people willing to work long hours for little money to
> > educate your children.
>
> I don't know that this accusation exactly follows from what I said. But to
> clarify:
I don't know why you think I've made an "accusation", I haven't, I've
disagreed with you on a matter of economics.
> First, I feel as another poster said here that there needs to be more
> tiering of kids by ability
History tells us we need to be very careful about things like this,
it's amasing how all the unpopular minority students end up in the
bottom tier.
> Second, the reality is that many teachers prefer parochial and/or private
> schools.
Well, "many" may be right, but some private schools are better to
teach at because they are allowed to be selective about the students
they accept, and can afford to simply expel trouble students. Public
schools are much less able to do that. Some private schools pay better
than public schools, and obviously many people when given the choice
will take school with better pay.
> I don't want to get into a big brouhaha over this. My position is that,
> given the sorry state of so many inner city public schools, not to at least
> try a wholly different system is a gross disservice to inner city
> kids.
I work in DC, and see the fights about schooling choices often. Very
few bits of politics get as nasty as school board fights. Some people
are firmly opposed to change. Some people are very in favor of
change.
My understanding is that the vouchers are doing no better and no worse
than the non voucher schools here.
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Ed <> wrote:
> > I have a feeling that Arne paid into the SS system for all of his
working
> > life. Many people have no children in a school system but still pay into
it.
>
> Many people were educated by the government when they were young and
> object to paying when they are old. Arne has things he objects to
> paying for, I have things I object to paying for.
Plus, these kids grow up and become people on whom the senior citizens
depend for the economy of the U.S.
In other words, fail to educate others' kids, and one's investments may very
well not increase in value as quickly. (Not to mention it's these kids
paying into social security that will help pay for Arne's and others'
retirement.)
On the other hand, I would be interested in legislating a stronger deterrent
to having more than two kids. Too many families go broke because of their
large families. Too little money ->> more crime, etc. Maybe especially crack
down on divorced or never married people who already have two kids.
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Elle <> wrote:
> > I think you're right that there once were many more nuns/brothers
teaching
> > in Catholic school, but from a relative of mine who's been teaching in
the
> > Catholic schools of a large city for the last 20+ years, I understand
that
> > now "civilians" (laypeople) make up the overwhelming majority of
Catholic
> > school teachers.
>
> Well, if you assume 70 percent are lay people making the going rate,
> and 30 are nuns/priests who are making salaries compatable with their
> vows of poverty, that still gives an economic advantage to catholic
> schools.
I forgot to point out that private school teachers (not just parochial ones)
make less money than public school teachers, too.
> And the number of people going to catholic school is number
> probably in the single digits. You can't double the number of people
> going to catholic school if you wanted too, the capacity isn't there.
Build more private and parochial schools.
That's the American way.
> > > As much as it might be nice for your pocket book, there do not exist
> > > large number of people willing to work long hours for little money to
> > > educate your children.
> >
> > I don't know that this accusation exactly follows from what I said. But
to
> > clarify:
>
> I don't know why you think I've made an "accusation", I haven't, I've
> disagreed with you on a matter of economics.
You accused me, IMO, of only being interested in saving money. That's not my
biggest concern at all. My biggest concern is that money is likely being
wasted WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, kids are not being educated.
> > First, I feel as another poster said here that there needs to be more
> > tiering of kids by ability
>
> History tells us we need to be very careful about things like this,
> it's amasing how all the unpopular minority students end up in the
> bottom tier.
History tells us that tracking works great.
Also, while there is no question that I think, for one, black pupils today
do suffer the effects of discrimination in decades past, that is not an
argument to push an uncapable student (black or hispanic or whatever) into,
say, calculus and set him/her up for failure.
> > Second, the reality is that many teachers prefer parochial and/or
private
> > schools.
>
> Well, "many" may be right, but some private schools are better to
> teach at because they are allowed to be selective about the students
> they accept, and can afford to simply expel trouble students. Public
> schools are much less able to do that. Some private schools pay better
> than public schools,
I strongly suspect that for any geographical location, this is completely
false.
> and obviously many people when given the choice
> will take school with better pay.
I agree there is something to your point. However, one should bear in mind
that the Americans with Disabilities Act has tied private/parochial schools'
hands as much as public schools' hands. All schools have to accommodate
special needs students, "within reason."
> > I don't want to get into a big brouhaha over this. My position is that,
> > given the sorry state of so many inner city public schools, not to at
least
> > try a wholly different system is a gross disservice to inner city
> > kids.
>
> I work in DC, and see the fights about schooling choices often. Very
> few bits of politics get as nasty as school board fights. Some people
> are firmly opposed to change. Some people are very in favor of
> change.
This is not some minor political issue that people like to whine about. The
education of our children is the future. These fights should be fought with
passion by both sides. At a minimum, that will get more people involved in
educating students.
> My understanding is that the vouchers are doing no better and no worse
> than the non voucher schools here.
I think the jury will be out for many years on this. It just takes too long,
and there are too many variables, to come to any broad conclusions. On a
case-by-case basis, I do think a number of voucher students today thank God
on a daily basis for being allowed to escape an inner city public school
where violence, class disruptions, and drugs are the rule.
How anyone could not want to help a kid get out of this, but instead want to
force the child to suffer, on the theory that his/her presence helps the
more disruptive kids, is beyond my understanding.
It's a simple fact that there are kids who want to escape but are told they
have to sacrifice for others, because of their impoverished birthright.
"Elle" <> wrote
> On the other hand, I would be interested in legislating a stronger
> deterrent
> to having more than two kids. Too many families go broke because of their
> large families. Too little money ->> more crime, etc. Maybe especially
> crack
> down on divorced or never married people who already have two kids.
A never married couple have two kids and the woman becomes pregnant, what
would you have this legislation do:
1. Kill the baby at birth.
2. Imprison the parents.
3. Impose a $50,000 fine.
4. Forced abortion.
And if you get a divorce:
1. Mandatory 5 year jail sentence.
2. see 3 above.
3. Take the kids away from their parents.
4. Have Rev. Moon of the Unification Church quickly marry them to others.
In article <EB0pe.139$>,
Elle <> wrote:
> I forgot to point out that private school teachers (not just parochial ones)
> make less money than public school teachers, too.
They do? I'd like to see some proof for that. Where I live, the
private schools (after exempting the parochial ones) pay more than the
public schools.
> Build more private and parochial schools.
The catholic church is facing a severe shortage of priests and
nuns. They aren't able to build more.
> > I don't know why you think I've made an "accusation", I haven't, I've
> > disagreed with you on a matter of economics.
>
> You accused me, IMO, of only being interested in saving money.
Well, I didn't, and even if I thought you were "only" interested in
saving money, that isn't an accusation.
> > History tells us we need to be very careful about things like this,
> > it's amasing how all the unpopular minority students end up in the
> > bottom tier.
>
> History tells us that tracking works great.
Well, even if that is true, you've now shifted position.
> Also, while there is no question that I think, for one, black pupils today
> do suffer the effects of discrimination in decades past, that is not an
> argument to push an uncapable student (black or hispanic or whatever) into,
> say, calculus and set him/her up for failure.
Good thing I've never argued that.
> I strongly suspect that for any geographical location, this is completely
> false.
The north virginia area has steady articles about the "brain drain" of
teachers moving to private schools due to higher pay there.
> This is not some minor political issue that people like to whine about. The
> education of our children is the future. These fights should be fought with
> passion by both sides.
I'd much prefer the fights to not be fought at all. And if they must
be fought, I'd much prefer logic over passion.
> I do think a number of voucher students today thank God
> on a daily basis for being allowed to escape an inner city public school
> where violence, class disruptions, and drugs are the rule.
I think it is much better to get the violence, class distruption, and
drugs out of all the schools, rather than have a system of haves and
have nots, depending on if they are lucky enough for a voucher.
> It's a simple fact that there are kids who want to escape but are told they
> have to sacrifice for others, because of their impoverished birthright.
That isn't a fact, that is an opinion. And portrayed in a very
alarmist tone.
"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote
> Elle <> wrote:
> > I forgot to point out that private school teachers (not just parochial
ones)
> > make less money than public school teachers, too.
>
> They do? I'd like to see some proof for that.
Private school teachers earn base salaries, on average, less than two-thirds
of average public school teachers' salaries; and principals earn slightly
more than half of their public school counterparts' salaries (tables 3.7 and
3.12).
"Public school teachers earn 25% to 100% more than private school teachers."
"Salaries for public school teachers average 64 percent higher than those of
all private school teachers, 68 percent above those of Roman Catholic school
teachers... "
> Where I live, the
> private schools (after exempting the parochial ones) pay more than the
> public schools.
I'd like to see proof of that.
> > Build more private and parochial schools.
>
> The catholic church is facing a severe shortage of priests and
> nuns. They aren't able to build more.
I think the construction of parochial schools depends on the people in the
parish and surrounding area far moreso than it does on the recruitment of
clerics.
In any case, then build more private schools.
> > > I don't know why you think I've made an "accusation", I haven't, I've
> > > disagreed with you on a matter of economics.
> >
> > You accused me, IMO, of only being interested in saving money.
>
> Well, I didn't, and even if I thought you were "only" interested in
> saving money, that isn't an accusation.
>
> > > History tells us we need to be very careful about things like this,
> > > it's amasing how all the unpopular minority students end up in the
> > > bottom tier.
> >
> > History tells us that tracking works great.
>
> Well, even if that is true, you've now shifted position.
How so?
> > Also, while there is no question that I think, for one, black pupils
today
> > do suffer the effects of discrimination in decades past, that is not an
> > argument to push an uncapable student (black or hispanic or whatever)
into,
> > say, calculus and set him/her up for failure.
>
> Good thing I've never argued that.
>
> > I strongly suspect that for any geographical location, this is
completely
> > false.
>
> The north virginia area has steady articles about the "brain drain" of
> teachers moving to private schools due to higher pay there.
>
> > This is not some minor political issue that people like to whine about.
The
> > education of our children is the future. These fights should be fought
with
> > passion by both sides.
>
> I'd much prefer the fights to not be fought at all. And if they must
> be fought, I'd much prefer logic over passion.
Both sides' arguments have some merit, as they both rely on some logic, so I
think your accusation is absurd.
Aside: Though one argument of the anti-vouchers crowd that has NO merit is
the ridiculous claim that public school students would somehow have less
money per capita with vouchers' programs.
> > I do think a number of voucher students today thank God
> > on a daily basis for being allowed to escape an inner city public school
> > where violence, class disruptions, and drugs are the rule.
>
> I think it is much better to get the violence, class distruption, and
> drugs out of all the schools, rather than have a system of haves and
> have nots, depending on if they are lucky enough for a voucher.
>
> > It's a simple fact that there are kids who want to escape but are told
they
> > have to sacrifice for others, because of their impoverished birthright.
>
> That isn't a fact, that is an opinion.
It's fact. Read.
snip junk
"Elle" <> wrote
> Aside: Though one argument of the anti-vouchers crowd that has NO merit is
> the ridiculous claim that public school students would somehow have less
> money per capita with vouchers' programs.
Expand please.
In article <_L3pe.211$>,
Elle <> wrote:
> Private school teachers earn base salaries, on average, less than two-thirds
> of average public school teachers' salaries; and principals earn slightly
> more than half of their public school counterparts' salaries (tables 3.7 and
> 3.12).
Well, its important to make sure the statistics are comparing apples
and oranges, the statistics you quote are interesting, but they aren't
clear on how to seperate out the parochial schools in the stats, and
the statistics clearly show the private schools have younger teachers
than private schools. That is a classic fallacy that needs to be
properly accounted for, if you start a new private school with young
teachers, the expenses will be low, when compared to an established
school. It isn't clear this effect is accounted for in the stats you
provide.
> > Where I live, the
> > private schools (after exempting the parochial ones) pay more than the
> > public schools.
>
> I'd like to see proof of that.
I don't have an immediate cite for that. The next time the Wash Post
has an article about it, I will bring it to your attention.
> I think the construction of parochial schools depends on the people in the
> parish and surrounding area far moreso than it does on the recruitment of
> clerics.
It depends on a lot of things, but the capabilities of the parish are
relevant, and in some ways shrinking while the population is
increasing.
> > > > History tells us we need to be very careful about things like this,
> > > > it's amasing how all the unpopular minority students end up in the
> > > > bottom tier.
> > >
> > > History tells us that tracking works great.
> >
> > Well, even if that is true, you've now shifted position.
>
> How so?
You first started talking about tiering, then shifted to
tracking. Those aren't the same, at least as I understand the terms.
> > I'd much prefer the fights to not be fought at all. And if they must
> > be fought, I'd much prefer logic over passion.
>
> Both sides' arguments have some merit, as they both rely on some logic, so I
> think your accusation is absurd.
You again are under the mistaken viewpoint that I'm accusing anyone of
anything.
> Aside: Though one argument of the anti-vouchers crowd that has NO merit is
> the ridiculous claim that public school students would somehow have less
> money per capita with vouchers' programs.
If they have less money per capita depends on many factors, and it may
or may not be true in a specific case. If a public school gets a 10
percent budget cut if 10 percent of its students move to private
school, I don't think the heating costs go down by 10 percent, so
after accounting for fixed costs, it may in fact be true that the
public school has had less money per capital.
NoEd wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote:
> > Ed wrote:
> >>I should mention that in each of the towns listed in the
> >>newspaper report, the special needs students graduated
> >>at a much higher rate than regular students and in many
> >>of the schools 100% of special needs kids got diplomas
> >>instead of certificates.
> > In other words throwing extra money at education works,
> > contrary to what conservatives claim.
> More money for education doesn't work contrary to what liberals say.
Right, it works as liberals say. I'm glad you agree.
Steven L. wrote:
> Johnny Hageyama wrote:
> > It's been found most private education companies rarely do
> > better than public schools, Edison corp. being a notorious
> > example, perhaps because the contract award process is so corrupt.
>
> Does this mean you wouldn't put your kids in a private school of your
> choice even if you could afford it? Given a choice between sending your
> kids to a private school of your choice vs. sending them to public
> school, which would you *prefer*???
I'd prefer public schools, but they and charter schools around here are
among the worst schools in the entire U.S. Our child is currently home
schooled by a PhD and will probably later go to a Catholic school.
Elle wrote:
> First, I feel as another poster said here that there needs to be more
> tiering of kids by ability, especially distinguishing much earlier on
> between those who are vocationally minded and those who are not.
Most kids don't know what they want to do, even by the time they're in
high school, and people bloom at different ages (or not at all). My
father used to teach shop, meaning his students were considered to have
limited futures, but almost every one ended up going to college because
my father was a foreigner and assumed that all Americans went to
college.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > First, I feel as another poster said here that there needs to be more
> > tiering of kids by ability, especially distinguishing much earlier on
> > between those who are vocationally minded and those who are not.
>
> Most kids don't know what they want to do, even by the time they're in
> high school, and people bloom at different ages (or not at all).
I disagree. I think kids have a definite sense of their interests by about
seventh grade. At seventh grade, if a kid finds he loves shop, he should
have the option of a strictly vocational track, with the ability to switch
out if he changes his mind.
> My
> father used to teach shop, meaning his students were considered to have
> limited futures, but almost every one ended up going to college because
> my father was a foreigner and assumed that all Americans went to
> college.
Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old and older
population has a four-year college degree?
If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your head, you
probably should not be posting to this thread (and threads like it).
NoEd wrote:
> Charter schools are doing great here in California.
No, they're not. With few exceptions, they're as bad as public
schools, and the exceptions tend to have large endowments subsidizing
them.
The charter school system is just another bad idea from GW Bush.
Vouchers are better, but laws have to require the vouchers to be
accepted as full payment so they don't end up as mere subsidies to
private schools that don't need them.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
snip
> The charter school system is just another bad idea from GW Bush.
> Vouchers are better, but laws have to require the vouchers to be
> accepted as full payment so they don't end up as mere subsidies to
> private schools that don't need them.
As currently designed, voucher systems in Milwaukee and Cleveland are
subsidies to children who come from poverty. Children from well-to-do
familes are not eligible for them.
Private schools are no more subsidized by vouchers than Microsoft is
subsidized by you and me. Private schools _earn_ their income, be it through
a voucher (plus the difference between that and tuition) or through cash
straight-up.
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> > Most kids don't know what they want to do, even by the time
> > they're in high school, and people bloom at different ages
> > (or not at all).
>
> I disagree. I think kids have a definite sense of their
> interests by about seventh grade. At seventh grade, if a
> kid finds he loves shop, he should have the option of a
> strictly vocational track, with the ability to switch out
> if he changes his mind.
Schools should promote students' special interests better, but having
certain interests isn't necessarily the same as knowing what one's
destiny should be.
> > My father used to teach shop, meaning his students were
> > considered to have limited futures, but almost every one
> > ended up going to college because my father was a foreigner
> > and assumed that all Americans went to college.
>
> Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old
> and older population has a four-year college degree?
Probably 20-30%, or about the same as the proportion of my father's
students who were proficient at card counting. Why couldn't it be much
higher, especially when college was almost free in those days?
> If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your
> head, you probably should not be posting to this thread (and
> threads like it).
And if you miscomprehend messages, then you shouldn't reply to them,
especially with such a condescending lecture.
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> > The charter school system is just another bad idea from GW Bush.
> > Vouchers are better, but laws have to require the vouchers to be
> > accepted as full payment so they don't end up as mere subsidies to
> > private schools that don't need them.
>
> As currently designed, voucher systems in Milwaukee and Cleveland are
> subsidies to children who come from poverty. Children from well-to-do
> familes are not eligible for them.
Every child should be eligible for them, and there would be no need for
income restrictions if vouchers were allowed to be accepted only as
full payment.
> Private schools are no more subsidized by vouchers than
> Microsoft is subsidized by you and me. Private schools _earn_
> their income, be it through a voucher (plus the difference
> between that and tuition) or through cash straight-up.
You don't seem to understand the simple economics involved here. Even
health insurance companies require doctors and hospitals to accept
their compensations as payment in full so they don't pad their bills.
Similarly if school vouchers are allowed as partial payment, then
private school tuition will inflate. Government always has to be
careful with its subsidies.
People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly believe that I
support having tax payers fund the complete cost of all private schools.
Can you?
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Charter schools are doing great here in California. People should be
>> able to send their kids to the school of there choice using tax payer
>> money.
>
> Never happen and it shouldn't. Every family sending their kids to the
> school of their choice is border line insane. It can't be funded.
>
> My neighbor has three kids, what if he decided to send them all to
> Phillips Acadamy in Andover?
> Currently $24,220/yr for day students, $31,160/hr for boarding students.
>
Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> Charter schools are doing great here in California.
>
> No, they're not. With few exceptions, they're as bad as public
> schools, and the exceptions tend to have large endowments subsidizing
> them.
>
> The charter school system is just another bad idea from GW Bush.
> Vouchers are better, but laws have to require the vouchers to be
> accepted as full payment so they don't end up as mere subsidies to
> private schools that don't need them.
>
NoEd wrote:
>
> Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
Headline: Test scores show no advantage for California's charter
students. Results undermine federal policy's claim -- alternative
schools show faster improvement.
Dateline: San Francisco, Sept. 16, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Here's a Rand study:
"Even the statistically significant difference in achievement by charter
status [charter schools underperforming] was less than 1 percentile
point, however, so the main finding of the analysis is that charters are
keeping pace with conventional public schools."
Working? Yes. Working better? No.
I admit to having only briefly skimmed the Rand report - if you find
anything of particular interest, please call it out.
--
Mark Freeland
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > > Most kids don't know what they want to do, even by the time
> > > they're in high school, and people bloom at different ages
> > > (or not at all).
> >
> > I disagree. I think kids have a definite sense of their
> > interests by about seventh grade. At seventh grade, if a
> > kid finds he loves shop, he should have the option of a
> > strictly vocational track, with the ability to switch out
> > if he changes his mind.
>
> Schools should promote students' special interests better, but having
> certain interests isn't necessarily the same as knowing what one's
> destiny should be.
With all due respect, I don't think this point of our discussion is going
anywhere.
I happen to feel an enormous amount of time is wasted in high school,
forcing kids to learn subjects that, even by mere exposure, will not open
their minds more but instead will simply never have any value to them.
You force a kid to read some abstract piece of literature, then have him/her
write about it. S/he has zero interest in figuring out all the symbols;
loathes most fiction; and would much rather be learning how to write a good
research paper to help him/her be a better medical doctor.
That's two cents.
> > > My father used to teach shop, meaning his students were
> > > considered to have limited futures, but almost every one
> > > ended up going to college because my father was a foreigner
> > > and assumed that all Americans went to college.
> >
> > Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old
> > and older population has a four-year college degree?
>
> Probably 20-30%, or about the same as the proportion of my father's
> students who were proficient at card counting. Why couldn't it be much
> higher, especially when college was almost free in those days?
I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive without a
technically skilled labor force that includes plumbers, auto technicians,
dental hygienists, etc.?
I don't have a strong opinion on this point at the moment, but my rough
sense is that not only do the vast majority of people not see value or joy
in college, but it's also reasonable to _have_ a passion for, say, auto
mechanics, and realize it's a very valuable profession to society. Others
don't want to be leaders per se but rather want to be followers, like the
dental hygienist. And teams do need followers.
> > If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your
> > head, you probably should not be posting to this thread (and
> > threads like it).
>
> And if you miscomprehend messages, then you shouldn't reply to them,
> especially with such a condescending lecture.
I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > > The charter school system is just another bad idea from GW Bush.
> > > Vouchers are better, but laws have to require the vouchers to be
> > > accepted as full payment so they don't end up as mere subsidies to
> > > private schools that don't need them.
> >
> > As currently designed, voucher systems in Milwaukee and Cleveland are
> > subsidies to children who come from poverty. Children from well-to-do
> > familes are not eligible for them.
>
> Every child should be eligible for them, and there would be no need for
> income restrictions if vouchers were allowed to be accepted only as
> full payment.
Why should every child be eligible?
I won't support such a system right now.
> > Private schools are no more subsidized by vouchers than
> > Microsoft is subsidized by you and me. Private schools _earn_
> > their income, be it through a voucher (plus the difference
> > between that and tuition) or through cash straight-up.
>
> You don't seem to understand the simple economics involved here. Even
> health insurance companies require doctors and hospitals to accept
> their compensations as payment in full so they don't pad their bills.
You don't seem to understand that the hospitals et al. sign a contract with
the insurers (and through agency, the clients of the insurers). By contract
law, hospitals et al. can't charge the clients or insurers more.
> Similarly if school vouchers are allowed as partial payment, then
> private school tuition will inflate. Government always has to be
> careful with its subsidies.
Darling, the reason health care costs have inflated is (1) because the
client is insulated from his/her costs by the insurance company and so
accepts every procedure and drug the doctor orders, regardless of the proven
efficacy; (2) the insurance company doesn't necessarily mind the doctor
prescribing everything s/he can, because that justifies charging higher
rates to clients; (3) the heavy bureaucracy involved in dealing with so many
different insurers and so many different solutions to the same medical
problem (cost estimated at about 30% of all medical costs); (4) possibly
costs related to preventing litigation. This goes for the Medicare and
Medicaid systems as well as private insurance systems.
As long as vouchers are restricted to low income parents, private schools
will have to cater largely to non-voucher families. Tuition will go up only
as long as these families permit it. They pay directly. There is no
insulation from costs. Natural market action will occur, unlike with the
stinking U.S. health care "system."
And lest you want to push your argument about subsidies above, note that
public school teachers are paid more than private school teachers, and
they're paid out of goverment funds. You're condemning such uncontrolled
subsidy by the government, aren't you?
If you truly are, then you'd want to ditch the current public school system.
"Elle" <> wrote
>> My
>> father used to teach shop, meaning his students were considered to have
>> limited futures, but almost every one ended up going to college because
>> my father was a foreigner and assumed that all Americans went to
>> college.
>
> Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old and older
> population has a four-year college degree?
What difference does it make? Some of them are liars and claim to have a
phd.
> If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your head, you
> probably should not be posting to this thread (and threads like it).
You're an idiot.
"NoEd" <> wrote
> People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly believe that I
> support having tax payers fund the complete cost of all private schools.
> Can you?
I hope not, but they shouldn't pay for any of it. In many cases if the
voucher didn't cover the cost then there may just as well be no voucher
system. Poorer families couldn't afford to make up the difference and these
would be the same people that would benefit most. Wealthier families wouln't
need a voucher but would accept it.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Darling, the reason health care costs have inflated is (1) because the
> client is insulated from his/her costs by the insurance company and so
> accepts every procedure and drug the doctor orders, regardless of the
> proven
> efficacy;
WRONG. The prices have risen because there are large numbers of people that
can neither pay for or be denied services. Someone has to pay.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> I'd prefer public schools, but they and charter schools around here are
> among the worst schools in the entire U.S. Our child is currently home
> schooled by a PhD and will probably later go to a Catholic school.
I hope you have prooj of the PhD, some people lie about it.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly believe that I
>> support having tax payers fund the complete cost of all private schools.
>> Can you?
>
> I hope not, but they shouldn't pay for any of it. In many cases if the
> voucher didn't cover the cost then there may just as well be no voucher
> system. Poorer families couldn't afford to make up the difference and
> these would be the same people that would benefit most. Wealthier families
> wouln't need a voucher but would accept it.
So at least you admit your prior statement was illogical. These statements
also make no sense and are factually wrong. In Florida, the poor families
are sending their kids to private schools and these schools are proving to
be more effective than the publics schools these kids no longer attend.
Keeping poor kids in the multitudes of bad schools is immoral. The teacher
union's and the public school's interests are minuscule compared to the
interests of the kids in these bad schools. Milton Friedman was right.
Mark,
Being a teacher want-to-be at one time, I came to realize that a study
exists to prove just about any position related to education. I found the
following recent study that found charter schools in California generally
outperformed non charter schools:
These studies are thick and not exactly fun reading.
"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>>
>> Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
>
> Headline: Test scores show no advantage for California's charter
> students. Results undermine federal policy's claim -- alternative
> schools show faster improvement.
>
> Dateline: San Francisco, Sept. 16, 2004.
>
> San Francisco Chronicle
>
>
> Here's a Rand study:
>
>
> "Even the statistically significant difference in achievement by charter
> status [charter schools underperforming] was less than 1 percentile
> point, however, so the main finding of the analysis is that charters are
> keeping pace with conventional public schools."
>
> Working? Yes. Working better? No.
>
> I admit to having only briefly skimmed the Rand report - if you find
> anything of particular interest, please call it out.
>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>
"NoEd" <> wrote
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly believe that I
>>> support having tax payers fund the complete cost of all private schools.
>>> Can you?
>>
>> I hope not, but they shouldn't pay for any of it. In many cases if the
>> voucher didn't cover the cost then there may just as well be no voucher
>> system. Poorer families couldn't afford to make up the difference and
>> these would be the same people that would benefit most. Wealthier
>> families wouln't need a voucher but would accept it.
>
> So at least you admit your prior statement was illogical.
Absolutely not.
> In Florida, the poor families are sending their kids to private schools
> and these schools are proving to be more effective than the publics
> schools these kids no longer attend. Keeping poor kids in the multitudes
> of bad schools is immoral. The teacher union's and the public school's
> interests are minuscule compared to the interests of the kids in these bad
> schools. Milton Friedman was right.
You make no mention of costs or funding. You are avoiding my main objection
to vouchers.
Poor kids are what make schools bad. They often come from an apartment in a
slum, no parent at home, gangs for them to look up to, drugs, booze, etc.
Take these undisciplined kids, toss in some non-english speaking foreigners,
a hand full of special needs kids, now you have the recipe for a "bad"
school.
"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Mark,
>
> Being a teacher want-to-be at one time, I came to realize that a study
> exists to prove just about any position related to education. I found the
> following recent study that found charter schools in California generally
> outperformed non charter schools:
>
>
>
> These studies are thick and not exactly fun reading.
Ok, so the charterassociation.org has no conflict of interest. I think I'll
pass on your link.
Here in Massachusetts the Governor, Weld I think it was at the time, wanted
to do away with the Turnpike Authority and the tolls that were collected on
the Massachusetts Turnpike. It was written into their agreement that as long
as the TA had debt it could not be dissolved. They keep issuing bonds so
they will always be in debt.
NoEd wrote:
> People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly
> believe that I support having tax payers fund the complete
> cost of all private schools. Can you?
Then the vouchers would be used mostly for subsidizing expensive
schools that don't need the money.
I say use vouchers to pay in full for all public education, including
at public schools, but most of the traditional advocates of vouchers
dislike this because they know public schools have huge cost advantages.
NoEd wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > NoEd wrote:
> >> Charter schools are doing great here in California.
> >
> > No, they're not. With few exceptions, they're as bad as public
> > schools, and the exceptions tend to have large endowments subsidizing
> > them.
> Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that charter
schools are not "doing great," overall. They usually don't pay their
teachers as well or have as much money per student, yet their teaching
practices and curricula don't differ much from those of public schools.
They're rarely anywhere close to Catholic schools in quality, and most
of their teachers aren't educated very well. So it's unlikely charter
schools will be superior.
The charter school program is just another example of kneejerk
privatization that assumes any alternative to government is a solution.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:T7bpe.418$
[snip]
> I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
>
>
You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective tests
have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the potential
of 12 year-olds.
Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks. Such decisions are most
often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to bring
their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way people
who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want more
for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their real
incomes would be rising.
The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
(teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the interests
of the average student.
-herb
PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> I disagree. I think kids have a definite sense of their
> interests by about seventh grade. At seventh grade, if a
> kid finds he loves shop, he should have the option of a
> strictly vocational track, with the ability to switch out
> if he changes his mind.
> > Schools should promote students' special interests better,
> > but having certain interests isn't necessarily the same
> > as knowing what one's destiny should be.
> I happen to feel an enormous amount of time is wasted in
> high school, forcing kids to learn subjects that, even by
> mere exposure, will not open their minds more but instead
> will simply never have any value to them.
> You force a kid to read some abstract piece of literature, then
> have him/her write about it. S/he has zero interest in figuring
> out all the symbols; loathes most fiction; and would much rather
> be learning how to write a good research paper to help him/her
> be a better medical doctor.
I agree with you about those subjects, but they're dull mostly because
their teachers are dull people who assume their students are dumb.
> Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old
> and older population has a four-year college degree?
> > Probably 20-30%, or about the same as the proportion of my
> > father's students who were proficient at card counting. Why
> > couldn't it be much higher, especially when college was
> > almost free in those days?
> I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
And why can't those people have college degrees? Cal Tech and MIT are
actually trade schools, after all. Click & Clack graduated from the
latter. OK, so they're bad examples, but...
> If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your
> head, you probably should not be posting to this thread (and
> threads like it).
> > And if you miscomprehend messages, then you shouldn't reply to them,
> > especially with such a condescending lecture.
> I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
You got me only thinking, "Why can't this person understand the
obvious?"
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> As currently designed, voucher systems in Milwaukee and
> Cleveland are subsidies to children who come from poverty.
> Children from well-to-do familes are not eligible for them.
> > Every child should be eligible for them, and there would
> > be no need for income restrictions if vouchers were allowed
> > to be accepted only as full payment.
>
> Why should every child be eligible?
So the average person doesn't consider it a welfare program and cause
it to be run as badly as the typical welfare program. If the general
public feels it has a stake in something, it's more likely to be run
well.
> Private schools are no more subsidized by vouchers than
> Microsoft is subsidized by you and me. Private schools _earn_
> their income, be it through a voucher (plus the difference
> between that and tuition) or through cash straight-up.
>
> > You don't seem to understand the simple economics involved here.
> > Even health insurance companies require doctors and hospitals
> > to accept their compensations as payment in full so they don't
> > pad their bills.
>
> You don't seem to understand that the hospitals et al. sign a
> contract with the insurers (and through agency, the clients of
> the insurers). By contract law, hospitals et al. can't charge
> the clients or insurers more.
Why do you think they're required to sign such contracts? So they
don't use the insurance payments simply as extra income to private
payments. Also I've never heard of a problem with hospitals charging
insured patients more; if anything they charge cash patients the most,
sometimes 300% more.
> > Similarly if school vouchers are allowed as partial payment,
> > then private school tuition will inflate. Government always
> > has to be careful with its subsidies.
>
> Darling, the reason health care costs have inflated is (1) because the
> client is insulated from his/her costs by the insurance company and so
> accepts every procedure and drug the doctor orders, regardless of the proven
> efficacy; (2) the insurance company doesn't necessarily mind the doctor
> prescribing everything s/he can, because that justifies charging higher
> rates to clients; (3) the heavy bureaucracy involved in dealing with so many
> different insurers and so many different solutions to the same medical
> problem (cost estimated at about 30% of all medical costs); (4) possibly
> costs related to preventing litigation. This goes for the Medicare and
> Medicaid systems as well as private insurance systems.
(1) Zsa Zsa, people in other developed nations are even more insulated
from medical costs, but their health care systems are cheaper than
ours. That's not to say patients shouldn't have to pay a large,
income-related deductibles, and I feel medical savings plans can help
reduce medical inflation, although they have to be designed to handle
people who don't have any savings in their accounts.
(2) Insurance companies quit paying for every service rendered in he
1970s and began setting compensation according to standards copied from
Medicare, like DRGs (diagnostic related group)
(3) The U.S. has the heaviest medical bureacracy because we blindly
believe in freedom of choice, and a change to a Candadian style system
is the most practical solution to this.
(4) Litigation costs as a percentage of billing have actually gone down
in the past few years, and while there is no crisis as far as the costs
themselves go, there is one with certain risky specialities, where
practitioners are leaving because of litigation.
> As long as vouchers are restricted to low income parents, private schools
> will have to cater largely to non-voucher families. Tuition will go up only
> as long as these families permit it. They pay directly. There is no
> insulation from costs. Natural market action will occur, unlike with the
> stinking U.S. health care "system."
Costs always go up when government simply hands out money for
something.
> And lest you want to push your argument about subsidies above,
> note that public school teachers are paid more than private school
> teachers, and they're paid out of goverment funds. You're
> condemning such uncontrolled subsidy by the government, aren't you?
I would, if the public schools compared unfavorably to voucher-funded
schools, but surveys have found public schools being better, supporting
the argument that more money helps. I was surprised at this result
because I couldn't imagine anything being worse than public schools,
but all the charter schools around here have proved otherwise.
Ed wrote:
> And if you get a divorce:
> 1. Mandatory 5 year jail sentence.
How is that different from staying married?
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> NoEd wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> > > NoEd wrote:
> > >> Charter schools are doing great here in California.
> > >
> > > No, they're not. With few exceptions, they're as bad as public
> > > schools, and the exceptions tend to have large endowments subsidizing
> > > them.
>
> > Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
>
> You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that charter
> schools are not "doing great," overall. They usually don't pay their
> teachers as well or have as much money per student, yet their teaching
> practices and curricula don't differ much from those of public schools.
> They're rarely anywhere close to Catholic schools in quality, and most
> of their teachers aren't educated very well. So it's unlikely charter
> schools will be superior.
>
> The charter school program is just another example of kneejerk
> privatization that assumes any alternative to government is a solution.
Charter schools are government-funded and run, but independent of the local
school board. For your edification, from dictionary.com :
charter school
n.
A public school operated independently of the local school board, often with
a curriculum and educational philosophy different from the other schools in
the system.
You don't seem to have a command of any of the basics here, Johnny.
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> Where I live, the private schools (after exempting the
> parochial ones) pay more than the public schools.
But you live in a fancy neighborhood where the double-wides outnumber
the Airstreams and the Trans Ams sit in the front yards up on jack
stands rather than milk crates.
"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective
tests
> have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the potential
> of 12 year-olds.
Stay on point. My comment above was with regard to only about 20% of the
age-eligible population having a four-year degree. It raises many questions.
I am not actually sure about the answers. For example, would it be best for
everyone and for society if every kid went to college (disregarding, for the
moment, whether the kid has any say in the matter)? Do you have a ready
answer for this?
I believe it's a subject more than a few economists have treated in the
past.
Re how to place kids: Please cite where I asserted that "objective tests" be
used to determine the potential of 12-year-olds. Or stop wasting my time
with stuff I did not say, and just ask me what my plan is. Or set aside past
grudges, for starters.
Getting off of your Mars and back to earth though, the fact is testing is
currently used to determine who gets into certain math and science courses
in middle school and high school, as well as college.
One can certainly debate their objectivity. The problem is that no one has
come up with a way that does not at least in part use such tests, to ensure
some degree of at least perceived fairness.
Or shall we throw out grades, too?
> Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks.
Here on earth, I'm pretty sure we have also found that admitting every kid
to Harvard will not work.
> Such decisions are most
> often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to bring
> their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way
people
> who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want more
> for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
> would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
I'm curious: Are you condemning the tracking of kids in math and science
courses that currently, typically takes place in most public schools?
> If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their
real
> incomes would be rising.
Society does lack sufficient technical workers in many areas. Pay prospects
are good in those areas, considering the worker doesn't have college or grad
school loans to repay. The reason real incomes are not rising is because
CEOs, among other self-described "professionals," can get away with
increasing their incomes at a faster rate than the hired help.
> The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
> (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
interests
> of the average student.
>
> -herb
>
> PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
I don't comment on where I live. I do know some areas have vocational,
public high schools. I think they're great. I want more. I want the tracking
to start earlier.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > I disagree. I think kids have a definite sense of their
> > interests by about seventh grade. At seventh grade, if a
> > kid finds he loves shop, he should have the option of a
> > strictly vocational track, with the ability to switch out
> > if he changes his mind.
>
> > > Schools should promote students' special interests better,
> > > but having certain interests isn't necessarily the same
> > > as knowing what one's destiny should be.
>
> > I happen to feel an enormous amount of time is wasted in
> > high school, forcing kids to learn subjects that, even by
> > mere exposure, will not open their minds more but instead
> > will simply never have any value to them.
>
> > You force a kid to read some abstract piece of literature, then
> > have him/her write about it. S/he has zero interest in figuring
> > out all the symbols; loathes most fiction; and would much rather
> > be learning how to write a good research paper to help him/her
> > be a better medical doctor.
>
> I agree with you about those subjects, but they're dull mostly because
> their teachers are dull people who assume their students are dumb.
Probably true in many cases, okay.
> > Do you have any idea what percentage of the roughly 24-year-old
> > and older population has a four-year college degree?
>
> > > Probably 20-30%, or about the same as the proportion of my
> > > father's students who were proficient at card counting. Why
> > > couldn't it be much higher, especially when college was
> > > almost free in those days?
>
> > I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> > without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> > plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
>
> And why can't those people have college degrees?
Because four years of study are not necessary to their trade. Because
college is expensive and much of what they'd learn to meet the official
accreditation requirements of a college would not be sufficiently useful to
them. Yet they'd take out loans to pay for this insufficiently useful study.
As I wrote earlier, and again a moment ago to Herb, whether everyone should
get a bachelors and so pursue (ordinarily) white collar employment is an
interesting question that I hope we all might explore with civility here.
I thought there was some tenet of economics that says this of course is
quite impossible. So-called "worker bees" are vital to society, at least
modern society.
Note: To be clear, I loathe any MD or lawyer or other white collar person
who does not have the brains to admit his/her auto mechanic is in fact much
smarter in some important areas compared to him/her. In other words, the
trades are often under appreciated, for a few reasons.
> Cal Tech and MIT are
> actually trade schools, after all.
I guess bottom line you're trying to say 4-year college degreed engineers
don't understand literature the way a 4-year college degreed liberal arts
major does, so oh aren't they stupid.
Yet the 4-year degreed liberal arts major can't design a nuclear power
plant.
Yada yada.
> Click & Clack graduated from the
> latter. OK, so they're bad examples, but...
They're interesting people but, as you imply, are atypical. Their
articulateness is amazing and of course reflects IMO their family upbringing
but also the MIT/PhD (for one of them, IIRC) experience.
Bill Gates is atypical too, speaking of examples that would fail to make a
point here.
> > If you don't know this little statistic off the top of your
> > head, you probably should not be posting to this thread (and
> > threads like it).
>
> > > And if you miscomprehend messages, then you shouldn't reply to them,
> > > especially with such a condescending lecture.
>
> > I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
>
> You got me only thinking, "Why can't this person understand the
> obvious?"
What is it you think should be obvious to me?
You haven't even given a solution to the inner city public school problem.
What's your solution?
(God forbid you say throw more money at them. If you're going to be fair
here, you have to at least wonder why private schools do it better for less
money; why private school teachers say they'd rather have a much lower pay
than work in public schools; etc.)
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > As currently designed, voucher systems in Milwaukee and
> > Cleveland are subsidies to children who come from poverty.
> > Children from well-to-do familes are not eligible for them.
>
> > > Every child should be eligible for them, and there would
> > > be no need for income restrictions if vouchers were allowed
> > > to be accepted only as full payment.
> >
> > Why should every child be eligible?
>
> So the average person doesn't consider it a welfare program and cause
> it to be run as badly as the typical welfare program. If the general
> public feels it has a stake in something, it's more likely to be run
> well.
We do fine with our current Medicaid, Aid-to-Families-w-Dependent-Children,
need-based scholarships, Social Security, progressive income tax, etc.
programs.
There will always be whiners about having to take care of those in society
who were born disadvantaged. Until they become one of the disadvantaged,
anyway.
So we disagree, but the facts tend to back up my claim that need-based
voucher programs can succeed, insofar as people don't object to their
need-based feature.
> > Private schools are no more subsidized by vouchers than
> > Microsoft is subsidized by you and me. Private schools _earn_
> > their income, be it through a voucher (plus the difference
> > between that and tuition) or through cash straight-up.
> >
> > > You don't seem to understand the simple economics involved here.
> > > Even health insurance companies require doctors and hospitals
> > > to accept their compensations as payment in full so they don't
> > > pad their bills.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand that the hospitals et al. sign a
> > contract with the insurers (and through agency, the clients of
> > the insurers). By contract law, hospitals et al. can't charge
> > the clients or insurers more.
>
> Why do you think they're required to sign such contracts?
No one is forcing anyone to sign a contract here. Both insurance company and
hospital are in this for the money. For crying out loud, you seem to have no
grasp of what denotes natural market action and what does not.
So they
> don't use the insurance payments simply as extra income to private
> payments. Also I've never heard of a problem with hospitals charging
> insured patients more; if anything they charge cash patients the most,
> sometimes 300% more.
>
> > > Similarly if school vouchers are allowed as partial payment,
> > > then private school tuition will inflate. Government always
> > > has to be careful with its subsidies.
> >
> > Darling, the reason health care costs have inflated is (1) because the
> > client is insulated from his/her costs by the insurance company and so
> > accepts every procedure and drug the doctor orders, regardless of the
proven
> > efficacy; (2) the insurance company doesn't necessarily mind the doctor
> > prescribing everything s/he can, because that justifies charging higher
> > rates to clients; (3) the heavy bureaucracy involved in dealing with so
many
> > different insurers and so many different solutions to the same medical
> > problem (cost estimated at about 30% of all medical costs); (4) possibly
> > costs related to preventing litigation. This goes for the Medicare and
> > Medicaid systems as well as private insurance systems.
>
> (1) Zsa Zsa, people in other developed nations are even more insulated
> from medical costs, but their health care systems are cheaper than
> ours.
Doh, why is that?
The government tells the doctors what they can and cannot prescribe.
snip because I don't think you have a handle on basic economic systems
> I would, if the public schools compared unfavorably to voucher-funded
> schools, but surveys have found public schools being better, supporting
> the argument that more money helps. I was surprised at this result
> because I couldn't imagine anything being worse than public schools,
> but all the charter schools around here have proved otherwise.
I'd like to see a citation showing that charter schools are always worse
than non-charter schools.
And again, for god's sake, charter schools ARE part of the public school
system.
That you don't know this is just more evidence that you should not be
attempting these discussions.
"Norm De Plume" <> wrote
> Ed wrote:
>
>> And if you get a divorce:
>
>> 1. Mandatory 5 year jail sentence.
>
> How is that different from staying married?
In many cases jail is probably a better option, thinking of
Elle/Caliban/Caroline here.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Charter schools are government-funded and run, but independent of the
> local
> school board. For your edification, from dictionary.com :
>
> charter school
> n.
> A public school operated independently of the local school board, often
> with
> a curriculum and educational philosophy different from the other schools
> in
> the system.
I can't speak for all 50 states but in Massachusetts that's pretty much the
way it works.
As a matter of fact, for profit companies and private schools can't even
apply for a charter here.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Stay on point.
You never do.
> I am not actually sure about the answers.
Finally, the truth from Elle.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Note: To be clear, I loathe any MD or lawyer or other white collar person
> who does not have the brains to admit his/her auto mechanic is in fact
> much
> smarter in some important areas compared to him/her. In other words, the
> trades are often under appreciated, for a few reasons.
Not so much anymore. When is the last time you got a bill from your plumber
or electrician?
> Yet the 4-year degreed liberal arts major can't design a nuclear power
> plant.
Talk about wasting 4 years and a bunch of money.
> You haven't even given a solution to the inner city public school problem.
> What's your solution?
Let the little punks (both sexes) that don't want to be there leave. End
special needs classes.
> (God forbid you say throw more money at them. If you're going to be fair
> here, you have to at least wonder why private schools do it better for
> less
> money; why private school teachers say they'd rather have a much lower pay
> than work in public schools; etc.)
See above.
"Elle" <> wrote
> We do fine with our current Medicaid,
That's why aspirin is $10/tablet and hospitals are closing. Yup, it's a big
success.
> Aid-to-Families-w-Dependent-Children
A large percentage of the recipiants can work but would rather not, many are
living with a working partner and could do quite well without the aid.
> So we disagree, but the facts tend to back up my claim that need-based
> voucher programs can succeed, insofar as people don't object to their
> need-based feature.
You haven't explained why it won't/doesn't cost any more.
> No one is forcing anyone to sign a contract here. Both insurance company
> and
> hospital are in this for the money. For crying out loud, you seem to have
> no
> grasp of what denotes natural market action and what does not.
You can't have "natural market action" with a public charity. For crying out
loud, don't you realize that most hospitals are public charities?
Herb wrote:
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:T7bpe.418$
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
> You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective tests
> have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the potential
> of 12 year-olds.
>
> Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks. Such decisions are most
> often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to bring
> their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way people
> who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want more
> for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
> would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
>
> If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their real
> incomes would be rising.
>
They are in the UK. If you are a qualified plumber here you can
reputedly make £70,000 a year. That's about $126,000 a year to you.
Would-be students queue overnight to register for plumbing courses.
There have been reports of molecular biologists working on cures for
cancer in Universities , frustrated by lack of tenure, security and
funding, going into plumbing instead.
One of my next door neighbours is a plumber and he drives a Jaguar and
has rebuilt and extended his house and garden several times.
A knowledge of French Literature won't do that for you and might even
get you insulted by US government officials :-)
> The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
> (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the interests
> of the average student.
>
> -herb
>
> PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
>
>
Ed wrote:
> "Norm De Plume" <> wrote
>
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And if you get a divorce:
>>
>>>1. Mandatory 5 year jail sentence.
>>
>>How is that different from staying married?
>
>
> In many cases jail is probably a better option, thinking of
> Elle/Caliban/Caroline here.
>
>
Do you remember that spoof on the Rambo films called, I think, Hotshots
part deux, where Martin Sheen was the Rambo character? His old Colonel
was captured and tortured by the enemy, Vietnamese probably, and his
torturer says something like "wow, you can stand pain" in admiration and
the Colonel replies "Yes, I've been married, twice".
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> Do you remember that spoof on the Rambo films called, I think, Hotshots
> part deux, where Martin Sheen was the Rambo character? His old Colonel was
> captured and tortured by the enemy, Vietnamese probably, and his torturer
> says something like "wow, you can stand pain" in admiration and the
> Colonel replies "Yes, I've been married, twice".
Yes, I saw that movie on television.
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> They are in the UK. If you are a qualified plumber here you can reputedly
> make £70,000 a year. That's about $126,000 a year to you. Would-be
> students queue overnight to register for plumbing courses. There have been
> reports of molecular biologists working on cures for cancer in
> Universities , frustrated by lack of tenure, security and funding, going
> into plumbing instead.
>
> One of my next door neighbours is a plumber and he drives a Jaguar and has
> rebuilt and extended his house and garden several times.
>
> A knowledge of French Literature won't do that for you and might even get
> you insulted by US government officials :-)
My next door neighbor is Greek (from Greece) and his wife is French (from
France). He started as an automobile mechanic and worked his way up to
becoming a gas station owner. Now he has an Exxon station with a convenience
store inside, even has mini versions of some of the fast food places.
Anyway, he's doing great, beautiful home, building a house in the Sarasota
area of Forida, has his sons running the station. Cars, Harley D motorcycle,
boat, not hurting next door.
No college.
Another neighbor is a plumber, he's so busy that he won't take any new
customers. Not hurting there. No college.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:7xlpe.583$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective
> tests
> > have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the
potential
> > of 12 year-olds.
>
> Stay on point. My comment above was with regard to only about 20% of the
> age-eligible population having a four-year degree. It raises many
questions.
> I am not actually sure about the answers. For example, would it be best
for
> everyone and for society if every kid went to college (disregarding, for
the
> moment, whether the kid has any say in the matter)? Do you have a ready
> answer for this?
No I don't. It's too complicated for ready answers like vouchers or
tracking.
>
> I believe it's a subject more than a few economists have treated in the
> past.
>
> Re how to place kids: Please cite where I asserted that "objective tests"
be
> used to determine the potential of 12-year-olds. Or stop wasting my time
> with stuff I did not say, and just ask me what my plan is. Or set aside
past
> grudges, for starters.
I am not aware of any past grudges.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "tracking?" Usually it means
deciding which 7th graders will take algebra next year and thus qualify for
honors and AP subjects later, in high school. Have you ever tried to get a
kid into honors English if she hasn't taken algebra in the 8th grade?
I was in a heavily tracked system and got a wonderful education that led to
a scholarship to an elite college and an Ivy League graduate school. Many
of my friends got 4 years of baby-sitting by alcoholic political appointees.
Is it fair that some kids have families that take an interest in them and
raise them to strive? Is there nothing we can do for the rest except
consign them to a life of blue-collar blues?
>
> Getting off of your Mars and back to earth though, the fact is testing is
> currently used to determine who gets into certain math and science courses
> in middle school and high school, as well as college.
Are you sure of that? Have you ever participated in this process? In an
ideal world, yes, objective tests could determine who gets into what high
school course. In the real world, the decisions are made on other bases
(girls aren't good at math, parent override, teachers picking who they like,
etc.). Do you really think school administrators have the power to tell
parents "tough s**t, your kid's too dumb for honors English." It's much
easier to just call another section "honors English." Do you really think
teachers have the time and ability to do a comprehensive evaluation of each
student's potential in every possible field of endeavor?
>
> One can certainly debate their objectivity. The problem is that no one has
> come up with a way that does not at least in part use such tests, to
ensure
> some degree of at least perceived fairness.
Who, besides you, thinks tracking is fair? At least you seem to know that
the fairness is only a perception. Many people have come up with more
complicated ways to do evaluation but it is frankly, beyond the intellectual
wherewithall of most public school teachers. If testing is so objective,
didn't you ever wonder why teachers squeal like pigs when people suggest
that they be evaluated by testing?
>
> Or shall we throw out grades, too?
Now you think grades are objectively awarded? If that were so, kids would
be a lot smarter than we were becuase, on average, they are getting much
better grades.
>
> > Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks.
>
> Here on earth, I'm pretty sure we have also found that admitting every kid
> to Harvard will not work.
It might bring down the percentage who graduate with honors (currenly 90%, I
beleive).
>
> > Such decisions are most
> > often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to
bring
> > their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way
> people
> > who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want
more
> > for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
> > would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
>
> I'm curious: Are you condemning the tracking of kids in math and science
> courses that currently, typically takes place in most public schools?
I think "condemn" is a bit harsh. I just don't think simple solutions like
labeling kids as teachable and not teachable will give the desired results.
Every kid should have a right to an education that responds to her needs and
abilities as these evolve throughout childhood. What we need is teachrs who
are capable of teaching to more than one level at a time.
>
> > If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their
> real
> > incomes would be rising.
>
> Society does lack sufficient technical workers in many areas. Pay
prospects
> are good in those areas, considering the worker doesn't have college or
grad
> school loans to repay. The reason real incomes are not rising is because
> CEOs, among other self-described "professionals," can get away with
> increasing their incomes at a faster rate than the hired help.
I see: the reason plumbers don't make as much in real terms as they did in
the 60s is because of CEO pay. I did not know that.
>
> > The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
> > (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
> interests
> > of the average student.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> > PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
>
> I don't comment on where I live. I do know some areas have vocational,
> public high schools. I think they're great. I want more. I want the
tracking
> to start earlier.
You will have to first find a way to shove it down parents' throats. Do you
really want your imaginary children to live under the tyranny of decisions
made by 12-year-olds under the professional guidance of people who graduated
in the bottom 20% of their state college class? Or would you like to have a
say in the matter? Would you really let a smart kid study body shop because
that is what she thinks the cool kids are doing? Would you really accept
someone else's decision that your child was too female for math and science?
>
>
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d84r0f$1g7$
> Herb wrote:
> > "Elle" <> wrote in message
> > news:T7bpe.418$
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective
tests
> > have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the
potential
> > of 12 year-olds.
> >
> > Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks. Such decisions are
most
> > often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to
bring
> > their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way
people
> > who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want
more
> > for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
> > would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
> >
> > If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their
real
> > incomes would be rising.
> >
> They are in the UK. If you are a qualified plumber here you can
> reputedly make £70,000 a year. That's about $126,000 a year to you.
> Would-be students queue overnight to register for plumbing courses.
> There have been reports of molecular biologists working on cures for
> cancer in Universities , frustrated by lack of tenure, security and
> funding, going into plumbing instead.
>
> One of my next door neighbours is a plumber and he drives a Jaguar and
> has rebuilt and extended his house and garden several times.
>
> A knowledge of French Literature won't do that for you and might even
> get you insulted by US government officials :-)
>
> > The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
> > (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
interests
> > of the average student.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> > PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
David:
Let me understand your argument: you know a rich plumber therefore all
plumbers in the UK are rich? The richest man in the world dropped out of
his polytechnic institute therefore those of you who finished are chumps?
-herb
> >
> >
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
> And why can't those people have college degrees?
>
> Because four years of study are not necessary to their trade.
What about to their desires?
> > Cal Tech and MIT are actually trade schools, after all.
>
> I guess bottom line you're trying to say 4-year college degreed
> engineers don't understand literature the way a 4-year college
> degreed liberal arts major does, so oh aren't they stupid.
I'd never say anything like that, and my father is an engineer.
> > Click & Clack graduated from the latter. OK, so they're
> > bad examples, but...
>
> They're interesting people but, as you imply, are atypical.
I'm implying they're bad mechanics.
> You haven't even given a solution to the inner city public
> school problem. What's your solution?
> (God forbid you say throw more money at them. If you're going to be fair
> here, you have to at least wonder why private schools do it better for less
> money; why private school teachers say they'd rather have a much lower pay
> than work in public schools; etc.)
I'm not necesarily against publicly funded private schools, but so far
those private schools haven't done it better for less money.
Public school bureacracy is the worst, dominated by Richard Bolton
types with useless doctorates of education.
"Herb" <> wrote
> I am not aware of any past grudges.
You are a male, she is not. Grudge, and she will never put that one aside.
"Herb" <> wrote
> Let me understand your argument: you know a rich plumber therefore all
> plumbers in the UK are rich? The richest man in the world dropped out of
> his polytechnic institute therefore those of you who finished are chumps?
I thought Bates was a liberal arts college. According to Elle, you should
have more understanding.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> > without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> > plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
>
> > And why can't those people have college degrees?
> >
> > Because four years of study are not necessary to their trade.
>
> What about to their desires?
What about them?
What are you assuming here?
> > > Cal Tech and MIT are actually trade schools, after all.
> >
> > I guess bottom line you're trying to say 4-year college degreed
> > engineers don't understand literature the way a 4-year college
> > degreed liberal arts major does, so oh aren't they stupid.
>
> I'd never say anything like that, and my father is an engineer.
>
> > > Click & Clack graduated from the latter. OK, so they're
> > > bad examples, but...
> >
> > They're interesting people but, as you imply, are atypical.
>
> I'm implying they're bad mechanics.
They've had a successful auto shop for over three decades, IIRC.
> > You haven't even given a solution to the inner city public
> > school problem. What's your solution?
>
> > (God forbid you say throw more money at them. If you're going to be fair
> > here, you have to at least wonder why private schools do it better for
less
> > money; why private school teachers say they'd rather have a much lower
pay
> > than work in public schools; etc.)
>
> I'm not necesarily against publicly funded private schools, but so far
> those private schools haven't done it better for less money.
That's patently false. Many private and parochial schools spend far less per
capita and turn out a far more academically sound student body.
> Public school bureacracy is the worst, dominated by Richard Bolton
> types with useless doctorates of education.
I happen to think that the differences between public and private school
outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students' lives.
"Herb" <> wrote
Elle wrote
> > would it be best for
> > everyone and for society if every kid went to college (disregarding, for
> > the
> > moment, whether the kid has any say in the matter)? Do you have a ready
> > answer for this?
>
> No I don't.
Noted for future reference. This may have relevance subsequently.
> It's too complicated for ready answers like vouchers or
> tracking.
>
> >
> > I believe it's a subject more than a few economists have treated in the
> > past.
> >
> > Re how to place kids: Please cite where I asserted that "objective
tests"
> be
> > used to determine the potential of 12-year-olds. Or stop wasting my time
> > with stuff I did not say, and just ask me what my plan is. Or set aside
> past
> > grudges, for starters.
>
> I am not aware of any past grudges.
>
> Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "tracking?" Usually it means
> deciding which 7th graders will take algebra next year
I agree with this.
> and thus qualify for
> honors and AP subjects later,
My impression is it tends do lead to qualification for honors math and AP
math courses.
> in high school. Have you ever tried to get a
> kid into honors English if she hasn't taken algebra in the 8th grade?
I've never heard of such a requirement. In fact, I was in AP math and
science courses in high school but not English courses. Which I blame on one
of those English teacher losers to which Johnny alluded: Utterly
uninspirational, and so I saw no point in even trying to get into an AP
English course.
> I was in a heavily tracked system and got a wonderful education that led
to
> a scholarship to an elite college and an Ivy League graduate school. Many
> of my friends got 4 years of baby-sitting by alcoholic political
appointees.
I'm not sure what your point is.
> Is it fair that some kids have families that take an interest in them and
> raise them to strive?
No way is that fair.
> Is there nothing we can do for the rest except
> consign them to a life of blue-collar blues?
So I think this is where we're disagreeing: I see kids in inner city public
schools from these blue collar (or worse: cyclically welfare) families and
want to get those with the wherewithal out (of the drugs, the violence, the
disrupted classrooms). The alternative is to keep them in, so their presence
will help the kids with far less ambition. (So it's argued.)
I think it takes only a small critical mass of ambitionless kids (no more
than 20%, say) to destroy the leaning environment for the rest. Save those
whom one can with vouchers. As for the others, track them into learning
environments that will serve their needs, which at the moment are
discipline-oriented; they "simply" haven't been parented properly.
That doesn't mean we give up on them. It means make school immediately
relevant to them by making it trades-oriented; vocational. If they find they
don't like this after a few years, then they have the option of seeking the
college track.
> > Getting off of your Mars and back to earth though, the fact is testing
is
> > currently used to determine who gets into certain math and science
courses
> > in middle school and high school, as well as college.
>
> Are you sure of that? Have you ever participated in this process?
Yes, I have, as a private school teacher for a few years. Tracking has
received a lot of attention over the years. My understanding is it serves
both groups better: The kids in the "lower" levels feel more confident
speaking out in class. The pace is something they can handle, etc.
> In an
> ideal world, yes, objective tests could determine who gets into what high
> school course. In the real world, the decisions are made on other bases
> (girls aren't good at math, parent override, teachers picking who they
like,
> etc.).
With the exception of the parental override, typically based on what a kid
says he/she wants, I do not think this is at all true. I happen to approve
of a kid who doesn't make the grade or test cut for an advanced class, but
says he/she will do this or that in the following year to succeed in the
advanced class. Warn him/her how hard it is (being specific) and that he/she
might see a lower grade, but if he/she really wants it, let him/her try.
> Do you really think school administrators have the power to tell
> parents "tough s**t, your kid's too dumb for honors English." It's much
> easier to just call another section "honors English." Do you really think
> teachers have the time and ability to do a comprehensive evaluation of
each
> student's potential in every possible field of endeavor?
I don't know what you're saying at this point.
Should we eliminate tracking?
> > One can certainly debate their objectivity. The problem is that no one
has
> > come up with a way that does not at least in part use such tests, to
> ensure
> > some degree of at least perceived fairness.
>
> Who, besides you, thinks tracking is fair? At least you seem to know that
> the fairness is only a perception. Many people have come up with more
> complicated ways to do evaluation but it is frankly, beyond the
intellectual
> wherewithall of most public school teachers. If testing is so objective,
> didn't you ever wonder why teachers squeal like pigs when people suggest
> that they be evaluated by testing?
>
>
> >
> > Or shall we throw out grades, too?
>
> Now you think grades are objectively awarded? If that were so, kids would
> be a lot smarter than we were becuase, on average, they are getting much
> better grades.
I'm asking you a question, Herb. Do you want to throw out grades, because
they can't be perfectly objective?
How about we throw out yearly job evaluations, too?
And why not admit people to Harvard by a completely random lottery, then,
since there is no perfectly objective measure?
> > > Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks.
> >
> > Here on earth, I'm pretty sure we have also found that admitting every
kid
> > to Harvard will not work.
>
> It might bring down the percentage who graduate with honors (currenly 90%,
I
> beleive).
<guffaw>
Indeed. :-)
> > > Such decisions are most
> > > often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to
> bring
> > > their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way
> > people
> > > who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want
> more
> > > for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent
children
> > > would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
> >
> > I'm curious: Are you condemning the tracking of kids in math and science
> > courses that currently, typically takes place in most public schools?
>
> I think "condemn" is a bit harsh. I just don't think simple solutions
like
> labeling kids as teachable and not teachable will give the desired
results.
Labeling a person as "not teachable" is indeed unacceptable. But to call
kids who choose the vocational track the "not teachable" group is obscene!
> Every kid should have a right to an education that responds to her needs
and
> abilities as these evolve throughout childhood. What we need is teachrs
who
> are capable of teaching to more than one level at a time.
IMO, that is completely unfair to the students and the teachers.
> > > If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their
> > real
> > > incomes would be rising.
> >
> > Society does lack sufficient technical workers in many areas. Pay
> prospects
> > are good in those areas, considering the worker doesn't have college or
> grad
> > school loans to repay. The reason real incomes are not rising is because
> > CEOs, among other self-described "professionals," can get away with
> > increasing their incomes at a faster rate than the hired help.
>
> I see: the reason plumbers don't make as much in real terms as they did in
> the 60s is because of CEO pay. I did not know that.
I trust this is sarcasm.
Are you truly unaware of how the income gap between rich and poor is a
parameter watched by economists and noted for having deleterious effects on
society when it becomes too large?
The Reagan years, Herb? Remember how in the 1990s people looked back on this
and noted how this gap grew?
> > > The education system operates to serve the needs of many
constituencies
> > > (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
> > interests
> > > of the average student.
> > >
> > > -herb
> > >
> > > PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
> >
> > I don't comment on where I live. I do know some areas have vocational,
> > public high schools. I think they're great. I want more. I want the
> tracking
> > to start earlier.
>
> You will have to first find a way to shove it down parents' throats. Do
you
> really want your imaginary children to live under the tyranny of decisions
> made by 12-year-olds under the professional guidance of people who
graduated
> in the bottom 20% of their state college class?
You're saying vocational school teachers are dummies?
I think that's not only false but grossly insulting.
> Or would you like to have a
> say in the matter? Would you really let a smart kid study body shop
because
> that is what she thinks the cool kids are doing? Would you really accept
> someone else's decision that your child was too female for math and
science?
The gender gap at the high school and lower levels closed about a decade
ago. The NCES statistics on girls in calculus and AP physics prove it.
You're out of date on this one, though about a decade ago, I admit I was
surprised to read this.
Of course, women are still underrepresented in hard science and engineering
majors (not really math majors, though) in college. It's much worse at the
grad school level.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:d8ppe.809$
[snip]
> I happen to think that the differences between public and private school
> outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students' lives.
Well, there's something we can agree on but do you really think those
private school parents want their kids to mix with inner-city kids on
vouchers? A few, perhaps, but not enough to make a dime's worth of
difference.
-herb
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:7tppe.818$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
> Elle wrote
> > > would it be best for
> > > everyone and for society if every kid went to college (disregarding,
for
> > > the
> > > moment, whether the kid has any say in the matter)? Do you have a
ready
> > > answer for this?
> >
> > No I don't.
>
> Noted for future reference. This may have relevance subsequently.
>
> > It's too complicated for ready answers like vouchers or
> > tracking.
> >
> > >
> > > I believe it's a subject more than a few economists have treated in
the
> > > past.
> > >
> > > Re how to place kids: Please cite where I asserted that "objective
> tests"
> > be
> > > used to determine the potential of 12-year-olds. Or stop wasting my
time
> > > with stuff I did not say, and just ask me what my plan is. Or set
aside
> > past
> > > grudges, for starters.
> >
> > I am not aware of any past grudges.
> >
> > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "tracking?" Usually it
means
> > deciding which 7th graders will take algebra next year
>
> I agree with this.
>
> > and thus qualify for
> > honors and AP subjects later,
>
> My impression is it tends do lead to qualification for honors math and AP
> math courses.
>
> > in high school. Have you ever tried to get a
> > kid into honors English if she hasn't taken algebra in the 8th grade?
>
> I've never heard of such a requirement. In fact, I was in AP math and
> science courses in high school but not English courses. Which I blame on
one
> of those English teacher losers to which Johnny alluded: Utterly
> uninspirational, and so I saw no point in even trying to get into an AP
> English course.
The real trick would be getting into honors English if you weren't in
advanced math. The schedule is built around the math tracking.
>
> > I was in a heavily tracked system and got a wonderful education that led
> to
> > a scholarship to an elite college and an Ivy League graduate school.
Many
> > of my friends got 4 years of baby-sitting by alcoholic political
> appointees.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is.
>
The evil of tracking is that it endorses giving some kids a good education
and leaving the rest to rot.
> > Is it fair that some kids have families that take an interest in them
and
> > raise them to strive?
>
> No way is that fair.
>
> > Is there nothing we can do for the rest except
> > consign them to a life of blue-collar blues?
>
> So I think this is where we're disagreeing: I see kids in inner city
public
> schools from these blue collar (or worse: cyclically welfare) families and
> want to get those with the wherewithal out (of the drugs, the violence,
the
> disrupted classrooms). The alternative is to keep them in, so their
presence
> will help the kids with far less ambition. (So it's argued.)
I think we want the same things for these kids but only one of us thinks
taking money out of the public schools will lead to an answer.
>
> I think it takes only a small critical mass of ambitionless kids (no more
> than 20%, say)
Say one kid.
to destroy the leaning environment for the rest. Save those
> whom one can with vouchers. As for the others, track them into learning
> environments that will serve their needs, which at the moment are
> discipline-oriented; they "simply" haven't been parented properly.
What if the parents don't agree with your tracking decisions? Don't forget
school boards are usually elected.
>
> That doesn't mean we give up on them. It means make school immediately
> relevant to them by making it trades-oriented; vocational. If they find
they
> don't like this after a few years, then they have the option of seeking
the
> college track.
An excellent goal on which we agree but you never answer my doubts about who
makes this decision (as opposed to those making it now) and how do you force
people to accept the decisions made?
>
> > > Getting off of your Mars and back to earth though, the fact is testing
> is
> > > currently used to determine who gets into certain math and science
> courses
> > > in middle school and high school, as well as college.
> >
> > Are you sure of that? Have you ever participated in this process?
>
> Yes, I have, as a private school teacher for a few years. Tracking has
> received a lot of attention over the years. My understanding is it serves
> both groups better: The kids in the "lower" levels feel more confident
> speaking out in class. The pace is something they can handle, etc.
I don't think you can apply your experience in a private school to
inner-city public shools. For starters, I think they have different ideas
about what "lower level" means.
>
> > In an
> > ideal world, yes, objective tests could determine who gets into what
high
> > school course. In the real world, the decisions are made on other bases
> > (girls aren't good at math, parent override, teachers picking who they
> like,
> > etc.).
>
> With the exception of the parental override, typically based on what a kid
> says he/she wants, I do not think this is at all true. I happen to approve
> of a kid who doesn't make the grade or test cut for an advanced class, but
> says he/she will do this or that in the following year to succeed in the
> advanced class. Warn him/her how hard it is (being specific) and that
he/she
> might see a lower grade, but if he/she really wants it, let him/her try.
What is this test that we all agree can fairly decide the fate of children?
Here in Massachusetts the state is trying to impose a 10th grade literacy
test as a graduation requirement. You should hear the howls and not all of
the criticism of the test in invalid.
>
> > Do you really think school administrators have the power to tell
> > parents "tough s**t, your kid's too dumb for honors English." It's much
> > easier to just call another section "honors English." Do you really
think
> > teachers have the time and ability to do a comprehensive evaluation of
> each
> > student's potential in every possible field of endeavor?
>
> I don't know what you're saying at this point.
>
> Should we eliminate tracking?
Tracking might be part of an overall program of reform but as a centerpiece
it typically leads to injustice. I know you want simple answers but the
problems of education are not simple and not easy to get agreement on. That
is what I'm saying.
>
> > > One can certainly debate their objectivity. The problem is that no one
> has
> > > come up with a way that does not at least in part use such tests, to
> > ensure
> > > some degree of at least perceived fairness.
> >
> > Who, besides you, thinks tracking is fair? At least you seem to know
that
> > the fairness is only a perception. Many people have come up with more
> > complicated ways to do evaluation but it is frankly, beyond the
> intellectual
> > wherewithall of most public school teachers. If testing is so
objective,
> > didn't you ever wonder why teachers squeal like pigs when people suggest
> > that they be evaluated by testing?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Or shall we throw out grades, too?
> >
> > Now you think grades are objectively awarded? If that were so, kids
would
> > be a lot smarter than we were becuase, on average, they are getting much
> > better grades.
>
> I'm asking you a question, Herb. Do you want to throw out grades, because
> they can't be perfectly objective?
No, there are many better reasons to throw out grades as the sole criteria
for educational evaluation.
>
> How about we throw out yearly job evaluations, too?
I have almost never had a yearly job evaluation. If you are doing a good
job and making money for your company, what do you need that for.
Renegotiation if salary is another question.
>
> And why not admit people to Harvard by a completely random lottery, then,
> since there is no perfectly objective measure?
What is your obsession with Harvard? Harvard is a private corporation that
can (and does) accept anyone it pleases based on criteria that is none of
your business. I thought we were talking about public education.
>
> > > > Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks.
> > >
> > > Here on earth, I'm pretty sure we have also found that admitting every
> kid
> > > to Harvard will not work.
> >
> > It might bring down the percentage who graduate with honors (currenly
90%,
> I
> > beleive).
>
> <guffaw>
>
> Indeed. :-)
>
> > > > Such decisions are most
> > > > often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to
> > bring
> > > > their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the
way
> > > people
> > > > who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want
> > more
> > > > for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent
> children
> > > > would rather play with cars or computers than study French
literature.
> > >
> > > I'm curious: Are you condemning the tracking of kids in math and
science
> > > courses that currently, typically takes place in most public schools?
> >
> > I think "condemn" is a bit harsh. I just don't think simple solutions
> like
> > labeling kids as teachable and not teachable will give the desired
> results.
>
> Labeling a person as "not teachable" is indeed unacceptable. But to call
> kids who choose the vocational track the "not teachable" group is obscene!
So by tracking you mean school choice? I'm for that. Most people think of
tracking as a decsion made by educators on a student's behalf.
>
> > Every kid should have a right to an education that responds to her needs
> and
> > abilities as these evolve throughout childhood. What we need is teachrs
> who
> > are capable of teaching to more than one level at a time.
>
> IMO, that is completely unfair to the students and the teachers.
IMVHO it is fair and accurate.
>
> > > > If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that
their
> > > real
> > > > incomes would be rising.
> > >
> > > Society does lack sufficient technical workers in many areas. Pay
> > prospects
> > > are good in those areas, considering the worker doesn't have college
or
> > grad
> > > school loans to repay. The reason real incomes are not rising is
because
> > > CEOs, among other self-described "professionals," can get away with
> > > increasing their incomes at a faster rate than the hired help.
> >
> > I see: the reason plumbers don't make as much in real terms as they did
in
> > the 60s is because of CEO pay. I did not know that.
>
> I trust this is sarcasm.
>
> Are you truly unaware of how the income gap between rich and poor is a
> parameter watched by economists and noted for having deleterious effects
on
> society when it becomes too large?
>
> The Reagan years, Herb? Remember how in the 1990s people looked back on
this
> and noted how this gap grew?
Is this a red-herring? Are you seriously saying that the maldistribution of
wealth is due to differentials in educational achievement? Have you ever
met any rich people? They are no smarter than you or me.
The Reagan era is over. For those of us on the working end of the wealth
distribution there is a new gap between those whose real wages are rising
and those whose real wages are falling and the dividing line is
approximately a college education.
I agree that not everyone is cut out for college and a lot of effort and
money is wasted trying to deny this truth. I just don't agree that giving
school administrators the power to track kids toward or away from college is
an answer that you will get anyone to agree with.
Are you really suggesting that we give kids a test and then tell the other
80% to pick a trade?
>
> > > > The education system operates to serve the needs of many
> constituencies
> > > > (teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
> > > interests
> > > > of the average student.
> > > >
> > > > -herb
> > > >
> > > > PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
> > >
> > > I don't comment on where I live. I do know some areas have vocational,
> > > public high schools. I think they're great. I want more. I want the
> > tracking
> > > to start earlier.
> >
> > You will have to first find a way to shove it down parents' throats. Do
> you
> > really want your imaginary children to live under the tyranny of
decisions
> > made by 12-year-olds under the professional guidance of people who
> graduated
> > in the bottom 20% of their state college class?
>
> You're saying vocational school teachers are dummies?
No, I'm saying most public school teachers are education majors from state
colleges who graduated in the bottom quintile.
>
> I think that's not only false but grossly insulting.
To whom: the teachers, the kids or the taxpayers?
>
> > Or would you like to have a
> > say in the matter? Would you really let a smart kid study body shop
> because
> > that is what she thinks the cool kids are doing? Would you really
accept
> > someone else's decision that your child was too female for math and
> science?
>
> The gender gap at the high school and lower levels closed about a decade
> ago. The NCES statistics on girls in calculus and AP physics prove it.
> You're out of date on this one, though about a decade ago, I admit I was
> surprised to read this.
>
> Of course, women are still underrepresented in hard science and
engineering
> majors (not really math majors, though) in college. It's much worse at the
> grad school level.
How can both of these statement be true. I happen to know from firsthand
experience that girls are as good at math as boys (if not better, they're
certainly more intuitive). My point is that if you let someone track kids,
you get decisions based on perceptions not reality.
Again: what is this test that everyone will agree is fair and all parents
will accept as determining their children's fates?
-herb
The organization the produced the study is Edsource. See this link:
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> Mark,
>>
>> Being a teacher want-to-be at one time, I came to realize that a study
>> exists to prove just about any position related to education. I found
>> the following recent study that found charter schools in California
>> generally outperformed non charter schools:
>>
>>
>>
>> These studies are thick and not exactly fun reading.
>
> Ok, so the charterassociation.org has no conflict of interest. I think
> I'll pass on your link.
>
> Here in Massachusetts the Governor, Weld I think it was at the time,
> wanted to do away with the Turnpike Authority and the tolls that were
> collected on the Massachusetts Turnpike. It was written into their
> agreement that as long as the TA had debt it could not be dissolved. They
> keep issuing bonds so they will always be in debt.
>
Who says paying teachers equates to educational success? The study cite
differs from your opinion. So you support vouchers since Catholic schools
are doing so well?
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>> > NoEd wrote:
>> >> Charter schools are doing great here in California.
>> >
>> > No, they're not. With few exceptions, they're as bad as public
>> > schools, and the exceptions tend to have large endowments subsidizing
>> > them.
>
>> Sorry. Charter schools are working here in California.
>
> You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that charter
> schools are not "doing great," overall. They usually don't pay their
> teachers as well or have as much money per student, yet their teaching
> practices and curricula don't differ much from those of public schools.
> They're rarely anywhere close to Catholic schools in quality, and most
> of their teachers aren't educated very well. So it's unlikely charter
> schools will be superior.
>
> The charter school program is just another example of kneejerk
> privatization that assumes any alternative to government is a solution.
>
The do? By the way, see what Arnold just qualified for the ballot:
TEACHER TENURE MEASURE
QUALIFIES FOR BALLOT
Governor's Reform Package of Three Ballot Measures Gains Momentum
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pleased that the "Put the Kids First Act,"
which reforms the current tenure system to improve education in California,
qualified Monday for the next statewide ballot. This proposal is the first
of three ballot initiatives supported by Governor Schwarzenegger to be
qualified by the Secretary of State.
California law requires 373,816 valid signatures are collected to qualify a
statutory amendment for the ballot. Supporters of the "Put the Kids First
Act" collected more than 600,000 signatures -- 225,000 more signatures than
required by the Secretary of State for qualification.
"Our education system is in desperate need of reform with the current tenure
system locking problem teachers into our schools, and making it nearly
impossible for principals to make employment decisions based on the needs of
students," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "This proposal will help ensure
that our kids get the best education and the best teachers possible by
making sure our tax dollars are being used to pay for dedicated, involved
and qualified teachers."
Reforming California's education system will require rewarding good teachers
for good performance. Today, once California public school teachers have
completed just two years on the job, they are guaranteed a job for life
regardless of performance. This initiative promotes teachers based on
performance, not just length of employment. Under this proposal, teachers
must have satisfactory reviews for five consecutive years, as opposed to the
current system of two years, before receiving tenure. In addition, more
authority will be given to local principals and school districts to decide
whether a teacher is performing well, allowing them to take a longer look at
teachers before granting them tenure.
In a recent statewide survey of 800 California voters, 68% supported teacher
tenure reform. For more information on the poll, please visit
"Education leaders applaud Governor Schwarzenegger for his commitment to
students and their future. The Governor is focused on giving students the
very best instruction and improving public schools by focusing on the needs
of students," said Dr. Peter Mehas, Superintendent of the Fresno County
Office of Education.
The California Recovery Team (CRT) is a ballot measure, grassroots and
legislative advocacy organization that provides the monetary and public
support for the Governor's reform agenda. The CRT plays an important role
in helping Governor Schwarzenegger accomplish his reform plans through
either legislative means or, should the legislature refuse to act, at the
ballot box with a special election. The CRT also assists the Governor in
opposing measures that are harmful to California's economy. For more
information on the CRT or the initiatives, please visit www.joinarnold.com.
Don't Forget to Forward this Email to a Friend!
Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team
310 Main Street, Suite 225, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Not sent at Government Expense
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> People could supplement the voucher. You can't honestly
>> believe that I support having tax payers fund the complete
>> cost of all private schools. Can you?
>
> Then the vouchers would be used mostly for subsidizing expensive
> schools that don't need the money.
>
> I say use vouchers to pay in full for all public education, including
> at public schools, but most of the traditional advocates of vouchers
> dislike this because they know public schools have huge cost advantages.
>
"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> The organization the produced the study
You talk funny.
"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> The do?
You talk REAL funny!
Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d84r0f$1g7$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"Elle" <> wrote in message
>>>news:T7bpe.418$
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am sure I got you thinking, though. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You've got me thinking that you live on another planet where objective
>
> tests
>
>>>have been developed that can fairly and accurately determine the
>
> potential
>
>>>of 12 year-olds.
>>>
>>>Back here on Earth, there are no such yardsticks. Such decisions are
>
> most
>
>>>often made by unmotivated city workers who are more than willing to
>
> bring
>
>>>their prejudices to the process. We have parents who look at the way
>
> people
>
>>>who lack college educations are falling increasingly behind and want
>
> more
>
>>>for their children. They don't much care that their adolescent children
>>>would rather play with cars or computers than study French literature.
>>>
>>>If society lacked sufficient technical workers, you'd think that their
>
> real
>
>>>incomes would be rising.
>>>
>>
>>They are in the UK. If you are a qualified plumber here you can
>>reputedly make £70,000 a year. That's about $126,000 a year to you.
>>Would-be students queue overnight to register for plumbing courses.
>>There have been reports of molecular biologists working on cures for
>>cancer in Universities , frustrated by lack of tenure, security and
>>funding, going into plumbing instead.
>>
>>One of my next door neighbours is a plumber and he drives a Jaguar and
>>has rebuilt and extended his house and garden several times.
>>
>>A knowledge of French Literature won't do that for you and might even
>>get you insulted by US government officials :-)
>>
>>
>>>The education system operates to serve the needs of many constituencies
>>>(teachers, politicians, parents, e.g.) that are put far before the
>
> interests
>
>>>of the average student.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>PS: Don't you have vocational high schools in Arizona?
>
>
> David:
>
> Let me understand your argument: you know a rich plumber therefore all
> plumbers in the UK are rich? The richest man in the world dropped out of
> his polytechnic institute therefore those of you who finished are chumps?
>
> -herb
>
>>>
>
>
Read the words again Herb. That's not what I said.
Most plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers and tradesmen in general in the
UK are doing very well. Try and get one to come and do a job for you and
you will find how busy they are, and when you get the bill how well
paid! See how much a car service costs at the garage, as another example.
In contrast many people with degrees and PhDs in Universities are
struggling to make a living with little or no security in a hand to
mouth existence of annual grants, even in apparently useful subjects
like molecular biology. This is understandable for liberal arts
graduates who have no useful role but scientists might expect to do better.
This is the capitalist system at work, rewarding knowledge and skills by
supply and demand. It is rewarding short term skills that serve a real
need over long term science that may or may not come to anything and
arcane subjects like French literature that never will be of any use.
As usual one can see the dead hand of political interference in the
education system where the object is to send up to 50% of all school
leavers to University. This is only being achieved by dumbing down
courses so that merely average people can take them who are unsuitable
for real academic studies. They spend years acquiring totally valueless
degrees in daft subjects and getting deep into debt to pay for it and
are then virtually unemployable. In earlier days they would have been
judged as non-academic and diverted into vocational courses within their
capacity and ended up doing a useful and well-paid job.
"Elle" <> wrote
> I've never heard of such a requirement. In fact, I was in AP math and
> science courses in high school but not English courses. Which I blame on
> one
> of those English teacher losers to which Johnny alluded: Utterly
> uninspirational, and so I saw no point in even trying to get into an AP
> English course.
Then don't blame the teacher.
>> I was in a heavily tracked system and got a wonderful education that led
> to
>> a scholarship to an elite college and an Ivy League graduate school.
You're probably not being truthful here.
Exactly!.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Steven L." <> wrote
>
>> Does this mean you wouldn't put your kids in a private school of your
>> choice even if you could afford it? Given a choice between sending your
>> kids to a private school of your choice vs. sending them to public
>> school, which would you *prefer*???
>
> I think a great deal depends on where you live and which public schools
> are available to you.
>
And you defend the public schools?
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> Steven L. wrote:
>> Johnny Hageyama wrote:
>
>> > It's been found most private education companies rarely do
>> > better than public schools, Edison corp. being a notorious
>> > example, perhaps because the contract award process is so corrupt.
>>
>> Does this mean you wouldn't put your kids in a private school of your
>> choice even if you could afford it? Given a choice between sending your
>> kids to a private school of your choice vs. sending them to public
>> school, which would you *prefer*???
>
> I'd prefer public schools, but they and charter schools around here are
> among the worst schools in the entire U.S. Our child is currently home
> schooled by a PhD and will probably later go to a Catholic school.
>
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
> > And why can't those people have college degrees?
> >
> > Because four years of study are not necessary to their trade.
> >
> > What about to their desires?
>
> What about them?
>
> What are you assuming here?
Obviously that education isn't just for needs but also for desires.
> > Cal Tech and MIT are actually trade schools, after all.
> > Click & Clack graduated from the latter. OK, so they're
> > bad examples, but...
> They're interesting people but, as you imply, are atypical.
> > I'm implying they're bad mechanics.
>
> They've had a successful auto shop for over three decades, IIRC.
Many bad garages have been in business at least that long.
> > I'm not necesarily against publicly funded private schools, but so far
> > those private schools haven't done it better for less money.
>
> That's patently false. Many private and parochial schools spend far
> less per capita and turn out a far more academically sound student body.
Then why do the better private schools, such as Catholic schools, cost
$12,000 a year if the parents have enough money? I haven't seen any
evidence that the typical voucher-paid or charter schools give
outstanding education.
> > Public school bureacracy is the worst, dominated by Richard Bolton
> > types with useless doctorates of education.
> I happen to think that the differences between public and private school
> outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students' lives.
Many public schools have this as well, but the parents mostly criticize
the school for punishing their children or for giving them low grades.
Those schools consider the parents the enemy.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
>
> > I don't know for sure, but can our economy really survive
> > without a technically skilled labor force that includes
> > plumbers, auto technicians, dental hygienists, etc.?
>
> > > And why can't those people have college degrees?
> > >
> > > Because four years of study are not necessary to their trade.
> > >
> > > What about to their desires?
> >
> > What about them?
> >
> > What are you assuming here?
>
> Obviously that education isn't just for needs but also for desires.
I am still not clear on what you are saying. Satisfying "desires" to me
implies satisfying a need for some kind of 'recreation.'
To clarify:
Should every kid _want_ to go to college? If yes, why?
Is a kid who does _not _ wantto go to college simply misguided and in need
of re-programming?
How many of those folks who choose plumbing, auto repairs, dental hygiene,
etc. would, if they had access to a college scholarship, choose college over
making a living almost immediately?
> > > Cal Tech and MIT are actually trade schools, after all.
>
> > > Click & Clack graduated from the latter. OK, so they're
> > > bad examples, but...
>
> > They're interesting people but, as you imply, are atypical.
>
> > > I'm implying they're bad mechanics.
> >
> > They've had a successful auto shop for over three decades, IIRC.
>
> Many bad garages have been in business at least that long.
They're not bad mechanics. And truly bad garages do not stay in business.
> > > I'm not necesarily against publicly funded private schools, but so far
> > > those private schools haven't done it better for less money.
> >
> > That's patently false. Many private and parochial schools spend far
> > less per capita and turn out a far more academically sound student body.
>
> Then why do the better private schools, such as Catholic schools, cost
> $12,000 a year if the parents have enough money?
I don't agree with your $12k statistic, or at least it's a generalization
that I don't think fairly portrays the cost of private and parochial schools
vs. public schools. Many public schools do in fact spend more than $12k per
child and turn out a worse product.
> I haven't seen any
> evidence that the typical voucher-paid or charter schools give
> outstanding education.
You haven't gone looking for statistics on either. This is especially
obvious because you didn't even know charter schools ARE public schools.
> > > Public school bureacracy is the worst, dominated by Richard Bolton
> > > types with useless doctorates of education.
>
> > I happen to think that the differences between public and private school
> > outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students'
lives.
>
> Many public schools have this as well, but the parents mostly criticize
> the school for punishing their children or for giving them low grades.
> Those schools consider the parents the enemy.
IMO a cultural shift has transpired in the last few decades: The parent has
become a customer expecting the school to do everything. Our society has
become more litigatious. The Americans with Disability Act has helped feed
this, by abetting parents seeking to give their little darlings the easiest
way through school and into a "top" college.
"Herb" <> wrote
snip
> The real trick would be getting into honors English if you weren't in
> advanced math. The schedule is built around the math tracking.
I think you're referring to a single school with which you've had some
experience.
I don't think this is the rule.
> The evil of tracking is that it endorses giving some kids a good education
> and leaving the rest to rot.
It is my understanding that academic studies of tracking indicate it serves
both the kids in the advanced classes and in the non-advanced classes
better than not tracking.
You can google. Or not. I'm telling others this is my understanding.
> I think we want the same things for these kids but only one of us thinks
> taking money out of the public schools will lead to an answer.
A prime indicator of a lack of study on this topic is the claim that public
school students will somehow have less money per capita if vouchers are
used. This is false.
The reality is that the typical voucher used today has a value far lower
than the average cost per public school student. It is far more reasonable
to conclude that voucher systems in fact increase the per capita money
available to public school students.
> What if the parents don't agree with your tracking decisions?
I responded to this: Let them have what they want, with the caveats I
listed.
> An excellent goal on which we agree but you never answer my doubts about
who
> makes this decision (as opposed to those making it now) and how do you
force
> people to accept the decisions made?
I did comment on who makes this decision: Input from the kid and parents,
along with academic indicators, should be used. As flawed as you may think
such indicators, I think they have some value.
If a kid feels strongly he/she wants to be in an advanced class for which
he/she does not seem to have the abilities, you caution him/her, and then,
if she/he still wants to try the advanced class, you let him/her do so.
> I don't think you can apply your experience in a private school to
> inner-city public shools.
Aside: Why not? You apply your apparently one experience with contemporary
public school tracking to all schools...
> For starters, I think they have different ideas
> about what "lower level" means.
What I saw in the private school was identical to what transpired in the
public schools when I was a kid.
Otherwise, I think the distinction you are trying to draw is simply that
many inner city public schools are such a mess (e.g. lack of parental
support; violence; drugs) that nothing that works in suburban public schools
or private schools is going to work there.
> What is this test that we all agree can fairly decide the fate of
children?
> Here in Massachusetts the state is trying to impose a 10th grade literacy
> test as a graduation requirement. You should hear the howls and not all
of
> the criticism of the test in invalid.
You are so not answering my question: Shall we do away with grades and
testing? Yearly job evaluations?
Then how we will get the most astute people into, say, medicine?
Engineering? Creative writing programs?
Grading systems of some kind are absolutely necessary unless one wants some
kind of completely communist, carefree society.
> > Should we eliminate tracking?
>
> Tracking might be part of an overall program of reform but as a
centerpiece
> it typically leads to injustice. I know you want simple answers but the
> problems of education are not simple and not easy to get agreement on.
That
> is what I'm saying.
That's the easy way out of trying to make progress on these issues.
The fact is academia has studied tracking and found it to be desirable.
I do not think the answers are simple, but I sure as hell reject your not
even trying to make progess on the solutions. Jesus, Herb. All you're doing
here is whining.
> > I'm asking you a question, Herb. Do you want to throw out grades,
because
> > they can't be perfectly objective?
>
> No, there are many better reasons to throw out grades as the sole criteria
> for educational evaluation.
They're not the sole criteria. Kids have to have recommendations for
college, for example.
(Though given the murderers it seems even Harvard and the U.S. Naval Academy
have "accidentally" admitted in recent years... Still, it boils down to:
Terrible system, but can you think of a better one?)
> > How about we throw out yearly job evaluations, too?
>
> I have almost never had a yearly job evaluation. If you are doing a good
> job and making money for your company, what do you need that for.
> Renegotiation if salary is another question.
I believe every single Fortune 500 company has yearly job evaluations. Every
teacher in public or private school of any significant reputation has a
yearly evaluation.
> > And why not admit people to Harvard by a completely random lottery,
then,
> > since there is no perfectly objective measure?
>
> What is your obsession with Harvard?
Answer my question.
You seem to think we should not have any meritocracy whatsoever. That's
crazy.
> Harvard is a private corporation that
> can (and does) accept anyone it pleases based on criteria that is none of
> your business.
You're just talking hyperbole now.
> > Are you truly unaware of how the income gap between rich and poor is a
> > parameter watched by economists and noted for having deleterious effects
> on
> > society when it becomes too large?
> >
> > The Reagan years, Herb? Remember how in the 1990s people looked back on
> this
> > and noted how this gap grew?
>
> Is this a red-herring?
You are effing not answering my questions above.
I am finding your posts bereft of any serious thoughts on these subjects.
You offer no solutions; you won't respond when I ask you how we should
decide who advances to the next grade or college or next rung on the job
ladder.
The thread speaks for itself.
"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > I happen to think that the differences between public and private school
> > outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students'
lives.
>
> Well, there's something we can agree on but do you really think those
> private school parents want their kids to mix with inner-city kids on
> vouchers?
Now you're getting it. This is in fact one reason I am hugely behind at
least experimenting with vouchers. They will help reduce the woefully
elitist attitude that the typical prep/parochial school grad possesses.
> A few, perhaps, but not enough to make a dime's worth of
> difference.
You and Sam Grey are so eager to give up on everything.
As a seemingly educated person, you (and Sam) have an effing responsibility
to help look out for those less advantaged who the Bush-ites would have in
chains on plantations if they could (though de facto one way or another they
do), all to help the U.S. economy.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:xpEpe.1191$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > I happen to think that the differences between public and private
school
> > > outcomes are due to difference in parental involvement in students'
> lives.
> >
> > Well, there's something we can agree on but do you really think those
> > private school parents want their kids to mix with inner-city kids on
> > vouchers?
>
> Now you're getting it. This is in fact one reason I am hugely behind at
> least experimenting with vouchers. They will help reduce the woefully
> elitist attitude that the typical prep/parochial school grad possesses.
>
> > A few, perhaps, but not enough to make a dime's worth of
> > difference.
>
> You and Sam Grey are so eager to give up on everything.
>
> As a seemingly educated person, you (and Sam) have an effing
responsibility
> to help look out for those less advantaged who the Bush-ites would have in
> chains on plantations if they could (though de facto one way or another
they
> do), all to help the U.S. economy.
What the "Bush-ites" want to do is erode financial support for public
education. Vouchers are a good first step in this process.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:FmEpe.1188$
[snip]
> I am finding your posts bereft of any serious thoughts on these subjects.
> You offer no solutions; you won't respond when I ask you how we should
> decide who advances to the next grade or college or next rung on the job
> ladder.
>
> The thread speaks for itself.
Are you saying that everyone doesn't advance to the next grade? Do you
really believe that it is some objective evaluation of "merit" (whatever
that means) that determines who advances up to the next rung on the job
ladder?
You are correct that I am not going into the myriad details of my opinions
about education and the need for reform. This is hardly the forum for such
a complicated and technical issue. I am simply objecting to simplistic,
Republican answers like vouchers and tracking. It would be nice to find a
magic bullet that would fix all that is wrong with public education. There
isn't one. What is needed is complex and comprehensive reform from top to
bottom as well as real change in people's attitudes and expectations.
My opinions are the result of a lot more than my experience with one high
school. Believe me, I have done more than Google this question.
-herb
"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > I am finding your posts bereft of any serious thoughts on these
subjects.
> > You offer no solutions; you won't respond when I ask you how we should
> > decide who advances to the next grade or college or next rung on the job
> > ladder.
> >
> > The thread speaks for itself.
>
> Are you saying that everyone doesn't advance to the next grade? Do you
> really believe that it is some objective evaluation of "merit" (whatever
> that means) that determines who advances up to the next rung on the job
> ladder?
It is an imperfect system of merit that generally determines merit. Call it
horrible, but you can't think of a better one, can you? (I've sure asked you
enough times to cough up one and/or explain what happens without some sort
of measure of merit. That you won't respond to these queries makes my
point.)
> You are correct that I am not going into the myriad details of my opinions
> about education and the need for reform. This is hardly the forum for
such
> a complicated and technical issue. I am simply objecting to simplistic,
> Republican answers like vouchers and tracking.
What's simplistic is --
-- Your assertion that this is a Republican answer, which ignores the fact
that a majority of blacks support trying voucher systems. It is they who are
suffering the most in inner city public schools. To ignore their voice is
completely anti-Democratic.
-- Your ignoring the success of voucher programs at the college level, which
in fact have led to some of the most competitive and cost-effective
universities in the country being those that are _public_, as well as
providing excellent opportunities for the blue-collar work force to
gradually attain their four-year bachelor's later in life, if they are so
inclined.
"Herb" <> wrote
> What the "Bush-ites" want to do is erode financial support for public
> education. Vouchers are a good first step in this process.
That you can't do the math that indicates that vouchers actually would tend
to increase public education per capita funding is indicative of the need
for better education via such programs as vouchers.
Ed wrote:
> Then don't blame the teacher.
Had to - teacher was hot, and I as hot for teacher.
There have been a fair number of articles discrediting that 70k figure.
Really that is more the contractors employing other contractors (ie
small businessmen).
40k was a more reasonable estimate. Doubtless some people work 24/7
and get 70k (or 100k) but an average of c 40k was more realistic.
Because of the building collapse at the end of the 80s/ earlly 90s, and
the end of apprenticeship systems under Thatcher, there is a massive
shortage of all skilled building trades in the UK (also a lot of the
older builders have gone back to Ireland with the boom there).
Fortunately the Poles have arrived and they tend to have very high
skill levels and a lot of dedication-- a number of my London friends
are being saved by Polish builders.
Elle wrote:
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > What the "Bush-ites" want to do is erode financial support
> > for public education. Vouchers are a good first step in
> > this process.
>
> That you can't do the math that indicates that vouchers
> actually would tend to increase public education per capita
> funding is indicative of the need for better education via
> such programs as vouchers.
How, unless funding for vouchers is in addition to regular spending on
public education or the private schools are much more efficient? Here
in AZ, any voucher or charter school spending means less spending on
public schools because the legislature is run by anti-education,
anti-government fanatics.
Elle wrote:
> Many public schools do in fact spend more than $12k per child
> and turn out a worse product.
What public schools spend more than $12K/student? That is, what public
schools outside of Beverly Hills spend more than $12K/student?
> > I haven't seen any evidence that the typical voucher-paid or
> > charter schools give outstanding education.
>
> You haven't gone looking for statistics on either. This is especially
> obvious because you didn't even know charter schools ARE public schools.
Maybe in your state, but here in AZ the 250+ charter schools are almost
all privately owned (the few exceptions being failed ones taken over by
the state) and are all are on private property, often in strip malls
(one a few miles from me is conveniently located next to shops for
tattoos, massage, and Chinese food). Charter schools here get about
$3500 per pupil (tattoo, massage, and Chinese food not included), which
is slightly less than public schools get, and I believe that they're
required to accept every child (but I don't know if they have to retain
every child). The best ones have been shown to be about equal to the
average public schools, not better, and keep in mind the bar isn't very
high here because Arizona traditionally ranks in the bottom five in the
nation for education (but we're #1 in teen pregnancy, #1 in teen drug
use).
"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
> anti-government fanatics.
These are always superior to pro-government fanatics.
"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Herb" <> wrote
>
> > > What the "Bush-ites" want to do is erode financial support
> > > for public education. Vouchers are a good first step in
> > > this process.
> >
> > That you can't do the math that indicates that vouchers
> > actually would tend to increase public education per capita
> > funding is indicative of the need for better education via
> > such programs as vouchers.
>
> How, unless funding for vouchers is in addition to regular spending on
> public education or the private schools are much more efficient?
I don't feel like googling for the exact Cleveland and Milwaukee numbers,
but I assure you the value of a voucher in these communities is X, whereas
the cost of educating a student in the public schools in these cities is Y,
where X << Y.
Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the public
school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
E wrote
> > You haven't gone looking for statistics on either. This is especially
> > obvious because you didn't even know charter schools ARE public schools.
>
> Maybe in your state, but here in AZ the 250+ charter schools are almost
> all privately owned (the few exceptions being failed ones taken over by
> the state) and are all are on private property,
Then they're private schools, not charter schools, unless AZ has some sort
of weird hybrid.
Look up the definition of "charter school."
"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > Many public schools do in fact spend more than $12k per child
> > and turn out a worse product.
>
> What public schools spend more than $12K/student?
Washington D.C. public schools.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:mk7qe.2142$
[snip]
> Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the public
> school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while others cost
10Y or more. And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were
true all the disabled kids would be in private school.
-herb
"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> [snip]
No, do not snip. You removed the premise of my argument, and it is key to
the next statement.
> > Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the
public
> > school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
>
> It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while others
cost
> 10Y or more.
You do not know that it's "most" kids.
Mine was a hypothetical example that is quite possible and that is supported
to a large extent by Milwaukee and Cleveland numbers, IIRC. It disproves the
claim that vouchers necessarily deplete dollars spent on public school
students. Vouchers do not at all necessarily do this. They may in fact
enrich public schools. Since both Milwaukee and Cleveland's systems are
MEANS-TESTED, there is a good probability that these low income kids taking
vouchers are in fact among the more expensive to educate. Income does
correlate to academic performance, after all.
> And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were
> true all the disabled kids would be in private school.
This claim is also without merit: It may be that public schools serve
disabled kids better than private schools. For one thing, the mere size of
public schools, and the nature of public accommodation law, means they are
more likely to have, say, wheelchair ramps. Economy of scale.
You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb. You just whine about proposed
solutions and don't come up with any of your own. Stop sitting on your hands
while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that voucher
systems can be very successful.
Or be an old curmudgeon. Just do not call yourself a Democrat.
"Elle" <> wrote
> You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb.
It's called not agreeing with you, not vicious. That's just the way you've
developed over the years. Herb's name could be anyone's, especially any
male's name.
> You just whine about proposed
> solutions and don't come up with any of your own.
I haven't seen you put forth a solution yet.
> Stop sitting on your hands
> while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
> chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that
> voucher
> systems can be very successful.
At college level, and at U. Michigan in particular, they claim that
'diversity' is so important that they accept lesser qualified minorities
over whites with superior scores. Yet, public schools claim that it's this
same 'diversity' that makes public education less than what it can be for
all of the obvious reasons. Go figure.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:ET8qe.1741$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > [snip]
>
> No, do not snip. You removed the premise of my argument, and it is key to
> the next statement.
>
> > > Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the
> public
> > > school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
> >
> > It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while others
> cost
> > 10Y or more.
>
> You do not know that it's "most" kids.
>
> Mine was a hypothetical example that is quite possible and that is
supported
> to a large extent by Milwaukee and Cleveland numbers, IIRC. It disproves
the
> claim that vouchers necessarily deplete dollars spent on public school
> students. Vouchers do not at all necessarily do this. They may in fact
> enrich public schools. Since both Milwaukee and Cleveland's systems are
> MEANS-TESTED, there is a good probability that these low income kids
taking
> vouchers are in fact among the more expensive to educate. Income does
> correlate to academic performance, after all.
>
> > And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were
> > true all the disabled kids would be in private school.
>
> This claim is also without merit: It may be that public schools serve
> disabled kids better than private schools. For one thing, the mere size of
> public schools, and the nature of public accommodation law, means they are
> more likely to have, say, wheelchair ramps. Economy of scale.
>
> You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb. You just whine about
proposed
> solutions and don't come up with any of your own. Stop sitting on your
hands
> while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
> chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that
voucher
> systems can be very successful.
>
> Or be an old curmudgeon. Just do not call yourself a Democrat.
Elle:
I'm not feeling vicious at all. I happen to have studied these questions in
a lot more detail than I think is appropriate for a mutual funds newsgroup.
I hold a Master's degree in education from a university that you seem to
feel is the holy grail of American education. Others would say that we are
the ones who ruined public education in America.
A friend of mine who is a tenured teacher in my hometown claims that his
system spends half of its budget on 10% of the kids due to mandated special
education plans (this has nothing to do with wheelchair ramps). I don't
believe him but I think the point is valid that a few kids require an
inordinate share of the cost. If you allow vouchers and charter schools to
siphon off kids who do not have mandated special education requirements but
still give them the average per student cost, then you are decreasing the
resources available to the public schools.
If you required these schools to accept students with education plans but
only paid them the average they could not afford to pay the special
education teachers, aides etc. Also, I am cynical enough to think that the
public school systems would dump these students if they could.
You seem to think that it is poverty that makes kids hard to educate. It
does, but it doesn't hold a candle to attention deficit and behavioral
deficiencies when it comes to running up the cost of educating a particular
child. There are unfunded federal and state mandates that require that such
students have extra teachers and support services.
If anything, poor students are less likely to receive these services since
their parents are less likely to demand them. Most school systems will bend
over backward to avoid evaluating another child to see if they need to be on
such an education plan. They simply don't have the money.
Although special education is not unheard of in private schools, I think you
will find that it represents a much lower percentage of faculty positions
than in public schools. They are simply not required, by law, to provide it
and if a student becomes too hard to teach, they have the ability to dismiss
that student and replace him with one waiting for the position to open up.
I understand that you are advocating a means tested, fair and limited system
of vouchers but that is not what all supporters of vouchers feel. Many are
already sending their kids to private school (try to find a public
schoolteacher that doesn't) and just want a rebate.
Please don't project your emotionalism onto me. I am capable of accepting
that people disagree with me without questioning their motives. Just
becasue I think you are oversimplifying a complicated question does not mean
that I think you are evil (Republican). I just think you are getting into
bed with those who are.
-herb
PS: You do know that most poor people aren't black and that most black
people aren't poor, don't you?
>
>
Herb wrote:
>
The problem with the private school system is the same as the problem
with private medical insurance.
There is every incentive to select, or dump, the difficult or expensive
cases and patients (or students).
Here in the UK if your child is not academically up to the standard
that will maintain or increase the school's ranking (number of A grades
at GCSE and A Level, percentage who go on to the 'old' universities)
you are 'counselled' that he or she would be better off at another
school-- effectively your child gets the sack. It is completely
Darwinian (and the better state aka public schools now practice this as
well).
Similarly if you have an inherited or chronic medical condition, the
medical insurer has every incentive to price you out of insuring with
them.
The mechanism of Adverse Selection in insurance is well understood in
economics, and is a common cause of market failure.
"Herb" <> wrote
> Many are
> already sending their kids to private school (try to find a public
> schoolteacher that doesn't) and just want a rebate.
If this isn't hitting the nail on the head then nothing is.
NoEd, this was a good post. Herb has your number.
"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > [snip]
> >
> > No, do not snip. You removed the premise of my argument, and it is key
to
> > the next statement.
> >
> > > > Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the
> > public
> > > > school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
> > >
> > > It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while others
> > cost
> > > 10Y or more.
> >
> > You do not know that it's "most" kids.
> >
> > Mine was a hypothetical example that is quite possible and that is
> supported
> > to a large extent by Milwaukee and Cleveland numbers, IIRC. It disproves
> the
> > claim that vouchers necessarily deplete dollars spent on public school
> > students. Vouchers do not at all necessarily do this. They may in fact
> > enrich public schools. Since both Milwaukee and Cleveland's systems are
> > MEANS-TESTED, there is a good probability that these low income kids
> taking
> > vouchers are in fact among the more expensive to educate. Income does
> > correlate to academic performance, after all.
> >
> > > And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were
> > > true all the disabled kids would be in private school.
> >
> > This claim is also without merit: It may be that public schools serve
> > disabled kids better than private schools. For one thing, the mere size
of
> > public schools, and the nature of public accommodation law, means they
are
> > more likely to have, say, wheelchair ramps. Economy of scale.
> >
> > You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb. You just whine about
> proposed
> > solutions and don't come up with any of your own. Stop sitting on your
> hands
> > while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
> > chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that
> voucher
> > systems can be very successful.
> >
> > Or be an old curmudgeon. Just do not call yourself a Democrat.
>
> Elle:
>
> I'm not feeling vicious at all. I happen to have studied these questions
in
> a lot more detail than I think is appropriate for a mutual funds
newsgroup.
> I hold a Master's degree in education from a university that you seem to
> feel is the holy grail of American education.
I'd say with this comment _you_ feel it is.
My comments IMO merely reflect the typical American prep school parent's
view of Harvard and the other Ivies, though. Thus I use it to illustrate
extremes.
> Others would say that we are
> the ones who ruined public education in America.
Come on. If you're so damned smart, you should qualify statements like this.
Suburban public schools tend to produce a better product than parochial
schools, but not as good a product as private schools.
Inner city schools produce the worst product.
Hence, public education is NOT ruined in America, only in parts of America.
> A friend of mine who is a tenured teacher in my hometown claims that his
> system spends half of its budget on 10% of the kids due to mandated
special
> education plans (this has nothing to do with wheelchair ramps).
I understand your point, re wheelchair ramps vs. something more like
specialized tutoring or a teacher's aide being required in the classroom.
> I don't
> believe him
I suspect, from general reading and what I hear from parents, that his
numbers are quite close to the mark.
> but I think the point is valid that a few kids require an
> inordinate share of the cost.
Okay.
> If you allow vouchers and charter schools to
> siphon off kids who do not have mandated special education requirements
This presumption has no support whatsoever.
snip
> You seem to think that it is poverty that makes kids hard to educate.
The _effects_ of poverty unquestionably have an extraordinary effect on
kids' ability to become educated.
> It
> does, but it doesn't hold a candle to attention deficit and behavioral
> deficiencies
My understanding is that poverty, attention deficit and behavioral problems
go hand-in-hand.
Like I see you say below: Of course, wealthy families may have kids with ADD
and behavioral problems. But since ADD was introduced as a concept, the
wealthy families have the knowledge and wherewithal to get their kids
treated, including special assistance from the public schools. The kids from
poor families tend not to get this much needed attention.
> when it comes to running up the cost of educating a particular
> child. There are unfunded federal and state mandates that require that
such
> students have extra teachers and support services.
>
> If anything, poor students are less likely to receive these services since
> their parents are less likely to demand them. Most school systems will
bend
> over backward to avoid evaluating another child to see if they need to be
on
> such an education plan. They simply don't have the money.
> Although special education is not unheard of in private schools, I think
you
> will find that it represents a much lower percentage of faculty positions
> than in public schools. They are simply not required, by law,
You are dead wrong. Embarrassingly so. Good lord.
I have a relative in the parochial school system. Her work these days is
STRICTLY special education kids. The school is required by law to
accommodate these kids. When the parochial school can't accommodate the kid
in house, she with others coordinates with the public schools to acquire the
needed testing, assistance, etc. This is no fly-by-night operation. It is an
entire system within the parochial school system.
I saw similar at the private school where I taught.
Google.
Proof positive of how mediocre Harvard is is your posts on this topic,
AFAIC.
> to provide it
> and if a student becomes too hard to teach, they have the ability to
dismiss
> that student and replace him with one waiting for the position to open up.
>
> I understand that you are advocating a means tested, fair and limited
system
> of vouchers but that is not what all supporters of vouchers feel. Many
are
> already sending their kids to private school (try to find a public
> schoolteacher that doesn't) and just want a rebate.
You are so completely, radically out of touch. Did you know that kids
already in private school are not allowed to receive vouchers in Milwaukee?
(This excludes kids who originally never went to private schools then
started a few years ago, using vouchers.)
You can check yourself on Cleveland. You really need to do SOME homework
here. I am doing you a disservice by letting you know all these things,
since, as you know, education is more effective if one puts in SOME effort
by one's self.
> Please don't project your emotionalism onto me.
The feeling is mutual.
snip junk
"darkness39" <> wrote
> The problem with the private school system is the same as the problem
> with private medical insurance.
Nobody cares about the problems with the private school system. Taxpayers
don't fund these schools with their property tax bills. They are, however,
starting to creep into our wallets. Private school students in my town are
riding on the public school buses. Soon students will have to pay to use the
school buses but that's ok with me.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Inner city schools produce the worst product.
Shit in, shit out. It will never change.
> I understand your point, re wheelchair ramps vs. something more like
> specialized tutoring or a teacher's aide being required in the classroom.
Duh!
> My understanding is that poverty, attention deficit and behavioral
> problems
> go hand-in-hand.
Who would know better than you.
>> Although special education is not unheard of in private schools, I think
> you
>> will find that it represents a much lower percentage of faculty positions
>> than in public schools. They are simply not required, by law,
>
> You are dead wrong. Embarrassingly so. Good lord.
Can you prove that?
> I have a relative in the parochial school system. Her work these days is
> STRICTLY special education kids. The school is required by law to
> accommodate these kids. When the parochial school can't accommodate the
> kid
> in house, she with others coordinates with the public schools to acquire
> the
> needed testing, assistance, etc. This is no fly-by-night operation. It is
> an
> entire system within the parochial school system.
You mean the state is screwing with the church? And Cardinal Law is in jail.
> I saw similar at the private school where I taught.
Those poor kids.
> You are so completely, radically out of touch. Did you know that kids
> already in private school are not allowed to receive vouchers in
> Milwaukee?
They brewed Knickerbocker Beer in Milwakee, Shlitz too, the both suck.
Imaginge a city that was made famous by Shlitz Beer.
> You can check yourself on Cleveland. You really need to do SOME homework
> here.
Elle is getting mad and I'm really glad.
> I am doing you a disservice by letting you know all these things,
> since, as you know, education is more effective if one puts in SOME effort
> by one's self.
Elle is getting pissed. She hates to be WRONG. She hates to lose ANYTHING to
a male. She has lost and she is wrong.
>> Please don't project your emotionalism onto me.
>
> The feeling is mutual.
Sorry, it was you Elle, not Herb. You are such a bitch. I'm so happy that
you have been put in your place yet again. Especially happy that it was done
by a member of the superior sex.
> snip junk
You are making my weekend, we'll have to do something special to celebrate
your:
1. Hate for males.
2. Your stupidity.
3. Your ego, WOW.
Screw college, want a PhD? Just say you have one. Have a nice weekend,
Little Bitch.
>
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:abkqe.2099$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > No, do not snip. You removed the premise of my argument, and it is key
> to
> > > the next statement.
> > >
> > > > > Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the
> > > public
> > > > > school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
> > > >
> > > > It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while
others
> > > cost
> > > > 10Y or more.
> > >
> > > You do not know that it's "most" kids.
> > >
> > > Mine was a hypothetical example that is quite possible and that is
> > supported
> > > to a large extent by Milwaukee and Cleveland numbers, IIRC. It
disproves
> > the
> > > claim that vouchers necessarily deplete dollars spent on public school
> > > students. Vouchers do not at all necessarily do this. They may in fact
> > > enrich public schools. Since both Milwaukee and Cleveland's systems
are
> > > MEANS-TESTED, there is a good probability that these low income kids
> > taking
> > > vouchers are in fact among the more expensive to educate. Income does
> > > correlate to academic performance, after all.
> > >
> > > > And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were
> > > > true all the disabled kids would be in private school.
> > >
> > > This claim is also without merit: It may be that public schools serve
> > > disabled kids better than private schools. For one thing, the mere
size
> of
> > > public schools, and the nature of public accommodation law, means they
> are
> > > more likely to have, say, wheelchair ramps. Economy of scale.
> > >
> > > You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb. You just whine about
> > proposed
> > > solutions and don't come up with any of your own. Stop sitting on your
> > hands
> > > while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
> > > chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that
> > voucher
> > > systems can be very successful.
> > >
> > > Or be an old curmudgeon. Just do not call yourself a Democrat.
> >
> > Elle:
> >
> > I'm not feeling vicious at all. I happen to have studied these
questions
> in
> > a lot more detail than I think is appropriate for a mutual funds
> newsgroup.
> > I hold a Master's degree in education from a university that you seem to
> > feel is the holy grail of American education.
>
> I'd say with this comment _you_ feel it is.
>
> My comments IMO merely reflect the typical American prep school parent's
> view of Harvard and the other Ivies, though. Thus I use it to illustrate
> extremes.
>
> > Others would say that we are
> > the ones who ruined public education in America.
>
> Come on. If you're so damned smart, you should qualify statements like
this.
Others have said this to me (new math, eg). What more do you want?
>
> Suburban public schools tend to produce a better product than parochial
> schools, but not as good a product as private schools.
Says you.
>
> Inner city schools produce the worst product.
All of them? Boston Latin for instance?
>
> Hence, public education is NOT ruined in America, only in parts of
America.
I never said it was ruined, I said others accuse HGSE or ruining it. I'm
beginning to think you are the one with ADD.
>
> > A friend of mine who is a tenured teacher in my hometown claims that his
> > system spends half of its budget on 10% of the kids due to mandated
> special
> > education plans (this has nothing to do with wheelchair ramps).
>
> I understand your point, re wheelchair ramps vs. something more like
> specialized tutoring or a teacher's aide being required in the classroom.
>
> > I don't
> > believe him
>
> I suspect, from general reading and what I hear from parents, that his
> numbers are quite close to the mark.
>
> > but I think the point is valid that a few kids require an
> > inordinate share of the cost.
>
> Okay.
>
> > If you allow vouchers and charter schools to
> > siphon off kids who do not have mandated special education requirements
>
> This presumption has no support whatsoever.
>
> snip
I thought you didn't want to snip! I think you snipped the part where I
pointed out how vouchers take money away from the kids left behind.
> > You seem to think that it is poverty that makes kids hard to educate.
>
> The _effects_ of poverty unquestionably have an extraordinary effect on
> kids' ability to become educated.
>
> > It
> > does, but it doesn't hold a candle to attention deficit and behavioral
> > deficiencies
>
> My understanding is that poverty, attention deficit and behavioral
problems
> go hand-in-hand.
Your understanding is wrong.
>
> Like I see you say below: Of course, wealthy families may have kids with
ADD
ADD is an adult problem. I guess you would say that the very fact that you
confuse this with ADHD and other childhood learning disabilities is proof
positive that you don't begin to understand what you are talking about.
> and behavioral problems. But since ADD was introduced as a concept, the
> wealthy families have the knowledge and wherewithal to get their kids
> treated, including special assistance from the public schools. The kids
from
> poor families tend not to get this much needed attention.
>
> > when it comes to running up the cost of educating a particular
> > child. There are unfunded federal and state mandates that require that
> such
> > students have extra teachers and support services.
> >
> > If anything, poor students are less likely to receive these services
since
> > their parents are less likely to demand them. Most school systems will
> bend
> > over backward to avoid evaluating another child to see if they need to
be
> on
> > such an education plan. They simply don't have the money.
>
> > Although special education is not unheard of in private schools, I think
> you
> > will find that it represents a much lower percentage of faculty
positions
> > than in public schools. They are simply not required, by law,
>
> You are dead wrong. Embarrassingly so. Good lord.
No I'm not and your using colorful phrases to express your assertion doesn't
alter the fact that you are only making assertions.
>
> I have a relative in the parochial school system. Her work these days is
> STRICTLY special education kids. The school is required by law to
> accommodate these kids. When the parochial school can't accommodate the
kid
> in house, she with others coordinates with the public schools to acquire
the
> needed testing, assistance, etc. This is no fly-by-night operation. It is
an
> entire system within the parochial school system.
What are you saying? Your relative works in a parochial school that has to
accept any student that comes along with ADHD, blindness, cerebral palsy,
etc.? In what sense would it be a private school if there were the case.
The public school system really is required by law to deal with all of this
and more. Yes, some find it more cost effective to pay full boat for these
kids to attend private institutions.
>
> I saw similar at the private school where I taught.
You were required by law to accept special ed students?
>
> Google.
It that is where you get your information, then no thanks.
>
> Proof positive of how mediocre Harvard is is your posts on this topic,
> AFAIC.
And yet, it's the best Ed School in the country. Google that!
>
> > to provide it
> > and if a student becomes too hard to teach, they have the ability to
> dismiss
> > that student and replace him with one waiting for the position to open
up.
> >
> > I understand that you are advocating a means tested, fair and limited
> system
> > of vouchers but that is not what all supporters of vouchers feel. Many
> are
> > already sending their kids to private school (try to find a public
> > schoolteacher that doesn't) and just want a rebate.
>
> You are so completely, radically out of touch. Did you know that kids
> already in private school are not allowed to receive vouchers in
Milwaukee?
> (This excludes kids who originally never went to private schools then
> started a few years ago, using vouchers.)
I did not know that. Does this cover all of their siblings as well?
>
> You can check yourself on Cleveland. You really need to do SOME homework
> here. I am doing you a disservice by letting you know all these things,
> since, as you know, education is more effective if one puts in SOME effort
> by one's self.
>
> > Please don't project your emotionalism onto me.
>
> The feeling is mutual.
>
> snip junk
Again with the snipping that you demanded I stop.
This is a mutual funds newsgroup. If you are really intersted in improving
public education for poor kids, I suggest you Google alternatives to sending
all 15 million or so to private schools. Get a grip.
Do you even know who represents you on your local school board? Are they
doing a good job? If not, why don't you run.
-herb
>
>
Here, I'll do what others seem incapable of... this is what it says without
all the >....
Arne
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:abkqe.2099$ "Herb"
<> wrote "Herb"
<> wrote [snip]
No, do not snip. You removed the premise of my argument, and it is key to
the next statement.
Switch a kid from the public school to the private school, and the public
school system is AHEAD by about Y - X dollars.
It depends on the kid. Most kids cost some fraction of Y while others cost
10Y or more.
You do not know that it's "most" kids.
Mine was a hypothetical example that is quite possible and that is supported
to a large extent by Milwaukee and Cleveland numbers, IIRC. It disproves the
claim that vouchers necessarily deplete dollars spent on public school
students. Vouchers do not at all necessarily do this. They may in fact
enrich public schools. Since both Milwaukee and Cleveland's systems are
MEANS-TESTED, there is a good probability that these low income kids taking
vouchers are in fact among the more expensive to educate. Income does
correlate to academic performance, after all.
And don't tell me they have to accept any kid. If that were true all the
disabled kids would be in private school.
This claim is also without merit: It may be that public schools serve
disabled kids better than private schools. For one thing, the mere size of
public schools, and the nature of public accommodation law, means they are
more likely to have, say, wheelchair ramps. Economy of scale.
You really have a vicious tone, lately, Herb. You just whine about proposed
solutions and don't come up with any of your own. Stop sitting on your hands
while many inner city kids are beat up. Give some of these proposals a
chance, particularly when the evidence at the college level is that voucher
systems can be very successful.
Or be an old curmudgeon. Just do not call yourself a Democrat.
Elle:
I'm not feeling vicious at all. I happen to have studied these questions in
a lot more detail than I think is appropriate for a mutual funds newsgroup.
I hold a Master's degree in education from a university that you seem to
feel is the holy grail of American education.
I'd say with this comment _you_ feel it is.
My comments IMO merely reflect the typical American prep school parent's
view of Harvard and the other Ivies, though. Thus I use it to illustrate
extremes.
Others would say that we are the ones who ruined public education in
America.
Come on. If you're so damned smart, you should qualify statements like this.
Others have said this to me (new math, eg). What more do you want?
Suburban public schools tend to produce a better product than parochial
schools, but not as good a product as private schools.
Says you.
Inner city schools produce the worst product.
All of them? Boston Latin for instance?
Hence, public education is NOT ruined in America, only in parts of America.
I never said it was ruined, I said others accuse HGSE or ruining it. I'm
beginning to think you are the one with ADD.
A friend of mine who is a tenured teacher in my hometown claims that his
system spends half of its budget on 10% of the kids due to mandated special
education plans (this has nothing to do with wheelchair ramps).
I understand your point, re wheelchair ramps vs. something more like
specialized tutoring or a teacher's aide being required in the classroom.
I don't believe him
I suspect, from general reading and what I hear from parents, that his
numbers are quite close to the mark.
but I think the point is valid that a few kids require an inordinate share
of the cost.
Okay.
If you allow vouchers and charter schools to siphon off kids who do not have
mandated special education requirements
This presumption has no support whatsoever.
snip
I thought you didn't want to snip! I think you snipped the part where I
pointed out how vouchers take money away from the kids left behind.
You seem to think that it is poverty that makes kids hard to educate.
The _effects_ of poverty unquestionably have an extraordinary effect on
kids' ability to become educated.
It does, but it doesn't hold a candle to attention deficit and behavioral
deficiencies
My understanding is that poverty, attention deficit and behavioral problems
go hand-in-hand.
Your understanding is wrong.
Like I see you say below: Of course, wealthy families may have kids with ADD
ADD is an adult problem. I guess you would say that the very fact that you
confuse this with ADHD and other childhood learning disabilities is proof
positive that you don't begin to understand what you are talking about.
and behavioral problems. But since ADD was introduced as a concept, the
wealthy families have the knowledge and wherewithal to get their kids
treated, including special assistance from the public schools. The kids from
poor families tend not to get this much needed attention.
when it comes to running up the cost of educating a particular child. There
are unfunded federal and state mandates that require that such students have
extra teachers and support services.
If anything, poor students are less likely to receive these services since
their parents are less likely to demand them. Most school systems will bend
over backward to avoid evaluating another child to see if they need to be on
such an education plan. They simply don't have the money.
Although special education is not unheard of in private schools, I think you
will find that it represents a much lower percentage of faculty positions
than in public schools. They are simply not required, by law,
You are dead wrong. Embarrassingly so. Good lord.
No I'm not and your using colorful phrases to express your assertion doesn't
alter the fact that you are only making assertions.
I have a relative in the parochial school system. Her work these days is
STRICTLY special education kids. The school is required by law to
accommodate these kids. When the parochial school can't accommodate the kid
in house, she with others coordinates with the public schools to acquire the
needed testing, assistance, etc. This is no fly-by-night operation. It is an
entire system within the parochial school system.
What are you saying? Your relative works in a parochial school that has to
accept any student that comes along with ADHD, blindness, cerebral palsy,
etc.? In what sense would it be a private school if there were the case.
The public school system really is required by law to deal with all of this
and more. Yes, some find it more cost effective to pay full boat for these
kids to attend private institutions.
I saw similar at the private school where I taught.
You were required by law to accept special ed students?
Google.
It that is where you get your information, then no thanks.
Proof positive of how mediocre Harvard is is your posts on this topic,
AFAIC.
And yet, it's the best Ed School in the country. Google that!
to provide it and if a student becomes too hard to teach, they have the
ability to dismiss that student and replace him with one waiting for the
position to open up.
I understand that you are advocating a means tested, fair and limited system
of vouchers but that is not what all supporters of vouchers feel. Many are
already sending their kids to private school (try to find a public
schoolteacher that doesn't) and just want a rebate.
You are so completely, radically out of touch. Did you know that kids
already in private school are not allowed to receive vouchers in Milwaukee?
(This excludes kids who originally never went to private schools then
started a few years ago, using vouchers.)
I did not know that. Does this cover all of their siblings as well?
You can check yourself on Cleveland. You really need to do SOME homework
here. I am doing you a disservice by letting you know all these things,
since, as you know, education is more effective if one puts in SOME effort
by one's self.
Please don't project your emotionalism onto me.
The feeling is mutual.
snip junk
Again with the snipping that you demanded I stop.
This is a mutual funds newsgroup. If you are really intersted in improving
public education for poor kids, I suggest you Google alternatives to sending
all 15 million or so to private schools. Get a grip.
Do you even know who represents you on your local school board? Are they
doing a good job? If not, why don't you run.
-herb
"Herb" <> wrote
Elle wrote
> > Suburban public schools tend to produce a better product than parochial
> > schools, but not as good a product as private schools.
>
> Says you.
Says traditional quantitative measures like SAT score; other standardized
tests; college admission rates. The differences among the factions I name
above are not small.
No reason to continue. As demonstrated yet again above, you fail to
demonstrate a command of the most basic facts of primary and secondary
schooling today. You won't provide alternatives to standardized testing to
measure how well a school is doing. You won't help inner city kids who want
to escape violence, drugs, and disruptive classrooms. You effectively tell
the 50+% of blacks who support trying vouchers that they're too stupid to
know better, when they're just looking for a lifeline that will NOT come if
we follow your counsel: Do nothing.
Don't be too quick to join Ed in his attempts to attack people (again) by
coarsely speculating about their choices, whatever they may be. He tried it
with TK (who I suppose in a manly defense pointed out Ed's affection for
hamsters). He's tried it with Sam and others. It's not the way of mentally
sound humans.
The thread speaks for itself
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:rwJqe.2977$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> Elle wrote
> > > Suburban public schools tend to produce a better product than
parochial
> > > schools, but not as good a product as private schools.
> >
> > Says you.
>
> Says traditional quantitative measures like SAT score; other standardized
> tests; college admission rates. The differences among the factions I name
> above are not small.
Every private school does better than every suburban school? Every suburban
school does better than every parochial school? The SAT is a good predictor
of college graduation rates?
It must be nice to live in such a simple, clear cut world. No wonder you
want to had 10 million kids or so a voucher and point them to Choate and
Andover.
>
> No reason to continue. As demonstrated yet again above, you fail to
> demonstrate a command of the most basic facts of primary and secondary
> schooling today. You won't provide alternatives to standardized testing to
> measure how well a school is doing. You won't help inner city kids who
want
> to escape violence, drugs, and disruptive classrooms. You effectively tell
> the 50+% of blacks who support trying vouchers that they're too stupid to
> know better, when they're just looking for a lifeline that will NOT come
if
> we follow your counsel: Do nothing.
Why do you keep claiming 50% of "blacks (sic)" support vouchers? Which 50%?
Where did you get this number?
[snip troll wrestling]
>
> The thread speaks for itself
Yes but you are screaming too loudly to hear what anyone else is saying.
Don't you think Essential Schools would be a more viable model then shipping
all these kids to private schools in the suburbs (at great cost) that are
already turning away applicants? How do you explain Central Park East?
What do you think of portfolio assesment as an alternative to grades?
-herb
PS: Give me a URL to a credible source about how Cleveland and Milwaukee
have solved all of their problems with vouchers and I will be happy to read
through it and tell you what I think.
Actually what is interesting in Milwaukee is the explosion of students
in religious schools.
Which is fine, but the legislature has now blocked any performance
review of the programme and the schools to see if it leads to better
education. So there is no way of checking if the programme is
achieving its intended goal and no way of going back.
The agenda of school vouchers is to religiously segregate American
schoolchildren, not necessarily to educate them better.
It's worth understanding that this is what actually is going to be the
outcome.
No different than desegregation in the South... gave birth to countless
private schools.... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them
think...
Arne
"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
> Actually what is interesting in Milwaukee is the explosion of students
> in religious schools.
>
> Which is fine, but the legislature has now blocked any performance
> review of the programme and the schools to see if it leads to better
> education. So there is no way of checking if the programme is
> achieving its intended goal and no way of going back.
>
> The agenda of school vouchers is to religiously segregate American
> schoolchildren, not necessarily to educate them better.
>
> It's worth understanding that this is what actually is going to be the
> outcome.
>
Arne wrote:
> No different than desegregation in the South... gave birth to countless
> private schools.... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them
> think...
>
But at least people will pay the full cost of that. Whereas under a
voucher system they are in fact beggaring the local public school
system to achieve their religious objectives, then refusing to allow
normal educational scrutiny.
A nation trained to think that the Theory of Evolution is a theory no
better than any other and that the world is 8,000 years old is a pretty
scary concept if you think about it. But such a populace would be
easier to control and manipulate.
Robert Heinlein's 'If This Goes On' is still the best depiction I know
of of the likely outcomes. That and Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else....
it is scary....
But, does a voucher pay the entire cost? I suspect a voucher does not. And
think on the bright side. Just like companies are getting out of the pension
business (and using 401 k's), a community can get out of the school
business..... no retirements, no personnel depts., no school facilities to
build and keep up.... and no teachers to deal with. In my state, the average
teacher gets over $50k, plus 22% in benefits, plus, plus, plus...... To be
able to give someone a voucher and say 'see you later' sound like a good
deal to me....
Since we have too many people already, I'm in favor of just having the
community educating 2 kids
per family... anything over 2 the parents can pick up the whole cost.....
Arne
"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> Arne wrote:
>> No different than desegregation in the South... gave birth to countless
>> private schools.... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
>> them
>> think...
>>
>
> But at least people will pay the full cost of that. Whereas under a
> voucher system they are in fact beggaring the local public school
> system to achieve their religious objectives, then refusing to allow
> normal educational scrutiny.
>
> A nation trained to think that the Theory of Evolution is a theory no
> better than any other and that the world is 8,000 years old is a pretty
> scary concept if you think about it. But such a populace would be
> easier to control and manipulate.
>
> Robert Heinlein's 'If This Goes On' is still the best depiction I know
> of of the likely outcomes. That and Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
>
MK. a) When "darkness39" writes: The agenda of school vouchers is to
religiously segregate American schoolchildren, not necessarily to
educate them better", s/he makes an assertion about the motives of
numerous people whom s/he has never met. Many non-Catholic Anerican
blacks send their children to Catholic schools. School vouchers would
assist them and others whose "agenda" is to protect their children from
the psychological abuse and educational neglect inflicted by the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Milton Friedman and other market-oriented policy
analysts recommend school vouchers on grounds of economic efficiency
and freedom.
b) The result "darkness39" predicts sounds plausible to people who have
not studied school voucher programs in other countries. The facts are
otherwise. The distribution of schools by affiliation (State, Church,
independent) is an artifact of the current policy which restricts a
parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy
to schools operated by State (government, generally) employees. This
yields an expensive "free", "public" school system, high-end
independent schools, and a low-end, Church-affiliated system, whose
employees take their compensation in "psychic" income (they're doing
the :ord's work).
MK. Currently, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools receive about $500
billion in tax subsidies per year. For this we get a lot of --school--.
If the State gave parents control of this revenue stream, it would buy
a lot more --education--.
>
darkness39 wrote:
> Actually what is interesting in Milwaukee is the explosion of students
> in religious schools.
>
> Which is fine, but the legislature has now blocked any performance
> review of the programme and the schools to see if it leads to better
> education. So there is no way of checking if the programme is
> achieving its intended goal and no way of going back.
>
> The agenda of school vouchers is to religiously segregate American
> schoolchildren, not necessarily to educate them better.
>
> It's worth understanding that this is what actually is going to be the
> outcome.
<> wrote
> MK. a) When "darkness39" writes: The agenda of school vouchers is to
> religiously segregate American schoolchildren, not necessarily to
> educate them better", s/he makes an assertion about the motives of
> numerous people whom s/he has never met. Many non-Catholic Anerican
> blacks send their children to Catholic schools. School vouchers would
> assist them and others whose "agenda" is to protect their children from
> the psychological abuse and educational neglect inflicted by the
> NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Milton Friedman and other market-oriented policy
> analysts recommend school vouchers on grounds of economic efficiency
> and freedom.
> b) The result "darkness39" predicts sounds plausible to people who have
> not studied school voucher programs in other countries. The facts are
> otherwise. The distribution of schools by affiliation (State, Church,
> independent) is an artifact of the current policy which restricts a
> parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy
> to schools operated by State (government, generally) employees. This
> yields an expensive "free", "public" school system, high-end
> independent schools, and a low-end, Church-affiliated system, whose
> employees take their compensation in "psychic" income (they're doing
> the :ord's work).
> MK. Currently, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools receive about $500
> billion in tax subsidies per year. For this we get a lot of --school--.
> If the State gave parents control of this revenue stream, it would buy
> a lot more --education--.
> >
> darkness39 wrote:
> > Actually what is interesting in Milwaukee is the explosion of students
> > in religious schools.
> >
> > Which is fine, but the legislature has now blocked any performance
> > review of the programme and the schools to see if it leads to better
> > education.
Yeah right. Cite this, please.
Nice post, malcolm.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Nice post, malcolm.
I'm not sure I agree, but being no fan of unions I am leaning that way. I
still think vouchers are only possible if we end public education as we know
it. Some may feel that this is a great idea, others may not.
"> If the State gave parents control of this revenue stream, it would buy
> a lot more --education--."
Would it? Don't parents already have control to a large degree?
The people that you say need vouchers the most are probably the least likely
to use them effectively. In communities with good public schools there is
parent participation, parents that care about their kids.
Aloha,
>
Ed wrote:
> "Elle" wrote:...
>
> > Nice post, malcolm.
>
> I'm not sure I agree, but being no fan of unions I am leaning that way. I
> still think vouchers are only possible if we end public education as we know
> it. Some may feel that this is a great idea, others may not.
>
MK. The terms "public education" and "public school" are not
coextensive. Eliminating State support for K-12 schools would not end
--public-- support for --education--. Ending current policy, which
restricts a parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12
education subsidy to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel,
would not end "public education". It might not even kill the "public
school system" (the cartel's schools).
>
> "> If the State gave parents control of this revenue stream, it would buy
> > a lot more --education--."
>
> Would it? Don't parents already have control to a large degree?
>
MK. Parents influence the education their children receive in several
ways: in their choice of residence, in their activism at school and at
school board meetings, in lobbying the State legislature, and in
working directly with their own children. The degree of control which
parents exercise (aside from the last method listed, above) is directly
related to their political ability. Political control of school harms
most the children of the least politically adept parents ("Well, duh",
as my students would say).
>
> The people that you say need vouchers the most are probably the least likely
> to use them effectively. In communities with good public schools there is
> parent participation, parents that care about their kids.
>
MK. Political participation is a rigged game. Most parents care. In
large districts, many parents learn that caring means beating your head
against a bureaucratic wall. They, quite rationally, invest their
energy elsewhere. School vouchers allow a parent effectively to
influence her child's education without participating in the rigged
political game.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
<> wrote
> MK. The terms "public education" and "public school" are not
> coextensive. Eliminating State support for K-12 schools would not end
> --public-- support for --education--.
All true.
> Ending current policy, which
> restricts a parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12
> education subsidy to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel,
> would not end "public education". It might not even kill the "public
> school system" (the cartel's schools).
The problem with your railing against these unions is the reality that
suburban public schools tend to turn out a better product than Catholic
schools and many private schools. In some cases, I think the power these
unions have is all that keeps some parents from being totally out of control
in their demands.
It's uninvolved parents, particularly in the inner cities, that have led to
the demise of many public schools, notably of course in the inner cities.
Elle wrote:
> malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
>
> > MK. The terms "public education" and "public school" are not
> > coextensive. Eliminating State support for K-12 schools would not end
> > --public-- support for --education--.
>
> All true.
>
> > Ending current policy, which
> > restricts a parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12
> > education subsidy to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel,
> > would not end "public education". It might not even kill the "public
> > school system" (the cartel's schools).
>
> The problem with your railing against these unions is the reality that
> suburban public schools tend to turn out a better product than Catholic
> schools and many private schools. In some cases, I think the power these
> unions have is all that keeps some parents from being totally out of control
> in their demands.
>
MK. Would you give an example of "out of control in their demands"? I
regard parent influence as largely benign. Even anti-evolution
activists defend the bond between parents and children, one dimension
of which is religious instruction. Other than that, I cannot think of
an instance when parents reduce the value-added by professionals.
Usually, when parents com[plain, they are right.
>
> It's uninvolved parents, particularly in the inner cities, that have led to
> the demise of many public schools, notably of course in the inner cities.
>
MK. a) We disagree. I suggest that an immovable bureaucracy --caused--
the problem of uninvolved parents. b) Note that Elle now makes an
objection, "uninvolved parents", which is 180 degrees out of phase with
the objection in the last paragraph, parents "out of control in their
demands". Of course, these are not mutually exclusive; you have both.
However, policies which protect the system from demanding parents
buffer it against less energetic parents also. Policies which open the
system to input from uninvolved parents open it to activists, also.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
<> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
> >
> > > MK. The terms "public education" and "public school" are not
> > > coextensive. Eliminating State support for K-12 schools would not end
> > > --public-- support for --education--.
> >
> > All true.
> >
> > > Ending current policy, which
> > > restricts a parent's options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12
> > > education subsidy to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel,
> > > would not end "public education". It might not even kill the "public
> > > school system" (the cartel's schools).
> >
> > The problem with your railing against these unions is the reality that
> > suburban public schools tend to turn out a better product than Catholic
> > schools and many private schools. In some cases, I think the power these
> > unions have is all that keeps some parents from being totally out of
control
> > in their demands.
> >
> MK. Would you give an example of "out of control in their demands"?
Gross abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Outrageous demands to
mainstream "special needs" kids without serving the gifted kids.
I
> regard parent influence as largely benign. Even anti-evolution
> activists defend the bond between parents and children, one dimension
> of which is religious instruction. Other than that, I cannot think of
> an instance when parents reduce the value-added by professionals.
> Usually, when parents com[plain, they are right.
> >
> > It's uninvolved parents, particularly in the inner cities, that have led
to
> > the demise of many public schools, notably of course in the inner
cities.
> >
> MK. a) We disagree. I suggest that an immovable bureaucracy --caused--
> the problem of uninvolved parents. b) Note that Elle now makes an
> objection, "uninvolved parents", which is 180 degrees out of phase with
> the objection in the last paragraph, parents "out of control in their
> demands".
In the inner city public schools, the problem is uninvolved parents.
Problems in the suburban public schools are of a different nature. Still,
suburban public schools turn out a far superior product than parochial
schools and compete well with many private schools.
So don't frag the unions. Or do, but you'll be inconsistent.
Take care. Look out for the little guy/gal if you can.
Elle wrote:
>malcolm kirkpatrick wrote:
>
Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > ...the power these unions have is all that keeps some parents from being > > > totally out of control in their demands.
>
> > MK. Would you give an example of "out of control in their demands"?
>
> Gross abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Outrageous demands to
> mainstream "special needs" kids without serving the gifted kids.
>
MK. Some agreement, in that parents of special needs kids may advocate
effectively for their children, to the detriment of others. However, I
do not see that the public-sector unions resist this; usually, they are
only too happy to hear some authority demand that schools spend more
money. As to mainstreaming: this policy protects the system from
lawsuits based on the observation that the sp-ed classes are
disproportionately Black and Hispanic, while the GT classes are Wasp
and East Asian.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > It's uninvolved parents, particularly in the inner cities, that have led
> > > to the demise of many public schools, notably of course in the inner
> > > cities.
>
> > MK. a) We disagree. I suggest that an immovable bureaucracy --caused--
> > the problem of uninvolved parents. b) Note that Elle now makes an
> > objection, "uninvolved parents", which is 180 degrees out of phase with
> > the objection in the last paragraph, parents "out of control in their
> > demands".
>
> In the inner city public schools, the problem is uninvolved parents.
>
MK. This argument is going in circles. As I said before, these
hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Problems in the suburban public schools are of a different nature. Still,
> suburban public schools turn out a far superior product than parochial
> schools and compete well with many private schools.
>
MK. On average, parochial schools out-perform State (government,
generally) schools, across that US and internationally. Of course, one
can partition the data to get a variety of results. From all of the
research I have seen, or done myself, I extract two generalizations:
1) As institutions take from parents the power to make educational
decisions for their own children, overall system performance falls.
2) Political control of school harms most the children of the least
politically adept parents.
>
> So don't frag the unions. Or do, but you'll be inconsistent.
>
MK. Where would I be inconsistent?
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Elle wrote:
> The problem with your railing against these unions is
> the reality that suburban public schools tend to turn out
> a better product than Catholic schools and many private
> schools.
It's hard to beat Catholic schools, and they're usually considered the
best schools even in countries that lead the world in quality of
education, including among non-Catholic and nonreligious parents.
"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > The problem with your railing against these unions is
> > the reality that suburban public schools tend to turn out
> > a better product than Catholic schools and many private
> > schools.
>
> It's hard to beat Catholic schools,
No it's not. Their SAT numbers trail private schools' number significantly,
last I checked, and are close to suburban schools' numbers.
The College Board site, for one, should have the numbers on this. At least
it did a few years ago. I'd google but since no one else is lifting a finger
to learn anything here, what's the point?
People should quit posting crap off their top of their heads here and do a
little homework.
Elle wrote:
> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote
> > It's hard to beat Catholic schools,
>
> No it's not. Their SAT numbers trail private schools' number
> significantly, last I checked, and are close to suburban schools'
> numbers.
> People should quit posting crap off their top of their heads
> here and do a little homework.
I don't know about SAT comparisons, but for grade school and high
school achievement tests, Catholic school students average in the top
60-75%, even when the Catholic school students tend to come from
poorer families than do public school students.