Education

DILYSI Dave wrote: So how did your kid get to go to the good school that you drive to, instead of the E36 M3ty one up the street? Most people do not have that choice.

It was a pain in the butt. We enrolled in the lottery at DSST, the school I mentioned earlier. He didn't get picked. He auditioned for the Denver School of the Arts, where my daughter goes, but wasn't accepted. We were running out of options and I thought he might have to go to the crappy school. Even talked to some folks over there. But we kept digging. I investigated some other charter schools but found, to my dismay, that most were terrible. Even worse than the local drop out factory. Finally, a friend told us about a "Computer Magnet" program at Thomas Jefferson High School. I called immediately and asked if there was any way our son could apply, even though we had missed the deadline. I was able to work in the fact that he had been in the Highly Gifted and Talented program and scored in the 99th percentile on the standardized tests. The ones that determine school funding. They let him apply and he was accepted.

We worked our tails off to get him into a good program. And even at that, we damn near didn't make it. So am I in favor of more parent choice? You bet your ass. That was ridiculous. But if public funds are paying for it, everyone should get the same choices.

My wife and I are both college educated. I navigate all kinds of crazy bureaucracy at work all day. And we still had that much trouble. He had little say in any of it and his past academic performance didn’t get him on any track that would get him in a good school. If he had parents that didn’t care he would have been screwed no matter how hard he tried. He would have been punished for his parents inability to navigate the system.

You said yourself that when forced to take an active role in their child's education parents will try to get their kids into a better school. Now you say they won't.

There won't be a "better school" for the parents to get their kids into if the choices are all public schools with a fixed capacity. Congrats on wining the lottery. What if you hadn't?

I do not value equality over a higer median level. You're putting words in my mouth. Classic right wing tactics. Tell me what I said and then tell me why it's wrong.

I said you had to be honest about the costs of your position for it to be valid. If you valued a higher median you wouldn't be rejecting private vouchers because of inequality. If you are claiming that you can get to the same median or higher using only public school vouchers, then I don't think you're being intellectually honest.

Basic economics... and the reason our "poor" live a lifestyle similar to the middle class in the rest of the world.

Bill

DILYSI Dave wrote: Ah. Yeah - that E36 M3 gets old. I'm trying not to do that. Smack me around a bit if I do.

I'll throw out the same to you. I do it sometimes. Trying hard not to. Easier when you see how stupid it make you sound.

wcelliot wrote: If you are claiming that you can get to the same median or higher using only public school vouchers, then I don't think you're being intellectually honest.

You're welcome to your biased opinion.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: So how did your kid get to go to the good school that you drive to, instead of the E36 M3ty one up the street? Most people do not have that choice.

It was a pain in the butt. We enrolled in the lottery at DSST, the school I mentioned earlier. He didn't get picked. He auditioned for the Denver School of the Arts, where my daughter goes, but wasn't accepted. We were running out of options and I thought he might have to go to the crappy school. Even talked to some folks over there. But we kept digging. I investigated some other charter schools but found, to my dismay, that most were terrible. Even worse than the local drop out factory. Finally, a friend told us about a "Computer Magnet" program at Thomas Jefferson High School. I called immediately and asked if there was any way our son could apply, even though we had missed the deadline. I was able to work in the fact that he had been in the Highly Gifted and Talented program and scored in the 99th percentile on the standardized tests. The ones that determine school funding. They let him apply and he was accepted. We worked our tails off to get him into a good program. And even at that, we damn near didn't make it. So am I in favor of more parent choice? You bet your ass. That was ridiculous. But if public funds are paying for it, everyone should get the same choices. My wife and I are both college educated. I navigate all kinds of crazy bureaucracy at work all day. And we still had that much trouble. He had little say in any of it and his past academic performance didn’t get him on any track that would get him in a good school. If he had parents that didn’t care he would have been screwed no matter how hard he tried. He would have been punished for his parents inability to navigate the system.

It sounds like, even though it's an enormous PITA, you have a lot more school choice than most of the country. That might be flavoring your opinion of vouchers. A lot of us see vouchers as the only route to school choice.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: If you are claiming that you can get to the same median or higher using only public school vouchers, then I don't think you're being intellectually honest.

You're welcome to your biased opinion.

Agreed it is an opinion, but one based in basic economics. Forced equality always comes at a price... the unwillingness to acknowlege that is why collectivism never works...

I would be being just as dishonest if I didn't acknowledge that the cost to my market-based program would be increased inequality...

wcelliot wrote: Agreed it is a biased opinion, but one based in one particular view of economics. Forced equality, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything you suggested, since you've gone out of your way to say that some children *will* be left behind, _always_ comes at a price... the unwillingness to acknowledge that, which, again has nothing to do with you as you already have said as much, is why collectivism never (Not usuall, not often, never. Everything is black or white to me) works... I don't know why I'm saying that, since you clearly stated an opinion that is not collectivism at all. I guess it's just my inability to understand any idea that doesn't fall to one extreme or the other. We agree so much I'm having a hard time figuring out how to beat you. And, really, that’s all I want. I would be being just as dishonest as the liberal argument you didn't make if I didn't acknowledge that the cost to what I call a market-based program, even though it isn’t a free market solution at all as you have pointed out, would be increased inequality. I just wish I had the ability to see there are “middle ground” solutions with regards to cost, access and quality and we're just talking about moving from one point to another. Typical of us hard line right wingers.

As they like to say when using this technique on the internet forums: Fixed that for ya.

Incorrect use of the word "liberal".

My position is "liberal", yours is "leftist", other end of the economic scale. We've had this discussion before. Embrace your ecomonic opinions for what they are!

There are no "middle ground" solutions for significant change as long as the public school apparatus remains in place without outside competition to force change.

Bill

DILYSI Dave wrote: It sounds like, even though it's an enormous PITA, you have a lot more school choice than most of the country. That might be flavoring your opinion of vouchers. A lot of us see vouchers as the only route to school choice.

Could be. Denver isn't Manhattan, but it's a pretty good sized city with a fair number of schools, public and private. Growing up in rural Ohio, that wasn’t the case. Even making the decision to go to private school meant a very long commute for me as a kid. My High School was more than an hour from my house.

Actually, you’re right. I have been thinking about the situation here in Denver as we’ve been discussing this. There are almost certainly a lot of places with fewer public schools which would make the choice option less practical. Like I said before, it doesn’t seem like a perfect answer. I’d prefer a solution that means my neighborhood school is a reasonable option. That’s how it should be.

Having said that, I believe that a decent education is really important. Decent. Doesn’t have to be the best education available. I’m not one of those people who have delusions of grandeur for my kids. But I think it’s important. Really important. And if I found myself in a situation where I didn’t see an acceptable solution to my children’s education, I’d move. Shoot, I did. Not just over education, but a better place for my family.

I’d take care of it. One way or another. At the risk of being a jerk, I wouldn’t sit saying the government should take care of it for me with some voucher program. Sorry. That was bad.

wcelliot wrote: There are no "middle ground" solutions...

See? I was right.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I’d take care of it. One way or another. At the risk of being a jerk, I wouldn’t sit saying the government should take care of it for me with some voucher program. Sorry. That was bad.

As would I. And those who can't just take care of it? Their kids just get to be screwed because their parents are upside down in a house / unemployed / live in an area that doesn't allow moving between schools?

We're on the same page that choice = good. I'm not sure how that accompanies vouchers = bad though.

wcelliot wrote: Incorrect use of the word "liberal". My position is "liberal", yours is "leftist", other end of the economic scale. We've had this discussion before. Embrace your ecomonic opinions for what they are! There are no "middle ground" solutions for significant change as long as the public school apparatus remains in place without outside competition to force change. Bill

Bill,

I know this is a free country and all, but you're not contributing to the conversation. Please either stop with the finger pointing, or leave the thread.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: If you are claiming that you can get to the same median or higher using only public school vouchers, then I don't think you're being intellectually honest.

You're welcome to your biased opinion.

As are you, sir.

I see LOTS of ideas and input in this thread, and 1 person taking offense, being argumentative, and accusing everyone else of being disingenuous.

It's a broken system. Solutions are gonna be uncomfortable. I am part of a community of 3 million people who essentially have a very large educational success story, which I enjoy sharing.

But you do not have to listen to new ideas. You're welcome to your biased opinion.

edit: Actually, there are more than 1 person being argumentative.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Private schools don't have to bear any of that burden, but under a voucher system they still get public funds. They also don't have to conform to the government mandated curriculum or testing regime. If public schools are going to "compete" with private schools, remove the burden of unrelated expense and government curriculum.

You've done a pretty good job of stating your position on vouchers. This section appears to essentially be the crux of your position, and it is where we disagree.

Private schools bear the same burden that public schools bear. The families of the students pay taxes, which support the public school. No voucher program that I am familiar with offers 100% of the cost of the student back for use as a voucher. This essentially means that the public schools have an unfair advantage no matter how many vouchers there are.

As a home schooler, I still pay my taxes. I support as much of the public school system as any other taxpayer, and then ALSO pay for my kid's education independently.

Additionally, as I have previously shown, virtually none of the related expenses (capital, buildings, debt service, pension funds) are usually included in the "cost-per-student". If the stated "cost-per-student" is $10,000, and the real cost (including capital, etc) is more like $25,000, I see no loss to the schools if I am offered a $7000 voucher to take to the school of my choice. I get to vote with my dollars, but the school still gets $18,000 (through property taxes, special purpose taxes, etc). Meanwhile, they are not required to offer the education to my kid, which they claim would be a $10,000 expense. That would mean that they actually get to keep $21,000 for NOT educating my kid.

I like vouchers.

DILYSI Dave wrote: As would I. And those who can't just take care of it? Their kids just get to be screwed because their parents are upside down in a house / unemployed / live in an area that doesn't allow moving between schools?

Nah, I shouldn't have said that. That's why we need to fix it. Kids will pay the price for picking the wrong parents. Nothing we can do about that. But we should do our best not to make it worse than is has to be. The system should work as well as it can work for as many people as it can work well for. Won't work for everyone, but we shouldn't thow up our hands and say "too bad" unless we can honestly say we're doing our best. I don't think we can say that right now.

We agree. Won't work for everyone.

So if 90% of the people did NOTHING and did not participate in a voucher program, how is that bad?

SVreX wrote: You've done a pretty good job of stating your position on vouchers. This section appears to essentially be the crux of your position, and it is where we disagree. Private schools bear the same burden that public schools bear. The families of the students pay taxes, which support the public school.

If you go back a couple of pages, you'll see the link to a letter written by a former School administrator trying to explain why education costs have gone up so much. I touched on one issue earlier. There are many. But forced busing is a good example. Private schools don't have to worry about how much more it costs to bus kids from one part of town to another. In fact, they have the benefit of using the public school busing program without the cost. Some of that cost is going to kids in private schools. But when we talk about "per student spending" we attribute that entire cost to public schools. There were many more specific examples.

The point is, when you say the families "pay taxes, which support the public school" that's not entirely true. They pay taxes, some of which benefit the public school, but a lot that pays for all kinds of other stuff the public school has to have or do. Things that are mandated by laws you may or may not agree with. Things that the private school doesn't have to have or do. And some things that benefit the private school but get wrapped up in the "cost of education" which gets hung on the public school.

But as I was saying before, it isn't just about cost. The private school doesn't have its funding based on a standardized testing system and isn't forced to teach a government mandated curriculum that teaches to that test. They also aren't burdened with students, at least to the degree public schools are who would rather not be there and plan to drop out as soon as the law allows.

I think Fast eddie's point is that many voucher systems work something like (Disclaimer: made up numbers): $10,000 voucher, to send a kid to a $20,000 per year private school. Barring small percentages who may get extra assistance or scholarship for whatever reason, it is still going to be something that will only benefit students whose parents happen to have the money. Meanwhile, you are weakening an already struggling public school that that kid and that caring parent could have helped make better.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here (So please don't hurt me!) but that's what I see as fasteddie's point. Please feel free to correct me if I'm way off.

Also, for what its worth, up here in upstate NY we have MUCH smaller school districts than the county-based districts found across the south (not sure how western states draw the lines - I can only assume like random squares, just like the states themselves ). This means, for us, each small town usually has a couple elementary schools, ONE middle school, and ONE high school. We have no choice in school like many other places do, and our schools have many of the same problems other places do, but in general do pretty well by most measurements (graduation rates, test scores, etc.). Part of this (in my unsubstantiated opinion) has to be that everyone is on board with the same system. When there is no superstar school, public or private, to switch your kid over to, there is no other option than to work to make what you do have better.

SVreX wrote: We agree. Won't work for everyone. So if 90% of the people did NOTHING and did not participate in a voucher program, how is that bad?

I didn't say “bad.” But my problem with it is taking public money and spending it on private schools at the expense of the public school. Then turning around and telling the public school they still have to pay for all the other crap. Especially when the program only provides "choice" to people who can afford to take advantage of it. Choices are great and we should have more of them. There should be more charter schools modeled after successful examples. And the non-charter public schools should be free to model the programs that work better.

We're mandating how they do it and then we tell them they're doing it wrong. "Why don't you do it like the charter school or the private school?" When the answer is "Because it's illegal if I do it that way even though it's clearly more effective".

My official left wing, leftist, liberal, Socialist or whatever you want to call it stance is that there is too much government intervention in the classroom.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We worked our tails off to get him into a good program. And even at that, we damn near didn't make it. So am I in favor of more parent choice? You bet your ass. That was ridiculous. But if public funds are paying for it, everyone should get the same choices.

I can relate. 6 hours per day, 180 days per year for 17 years. We've worked our ass off for over 18,000 hours pursuing a good education for our kids.

Home schooling is legal in all 50 states. Everyone can make the same choice.

I just don't see why I get to pay for other kids' education to go to a school that is NOT required by law, but can't use any of the education dollars to assist my children in receiving the best education that is available to them.

The public schools in my area have dropout rates in excess of 50%, violent crime divisions of the police department in the schools, and nurseries for babies of the students. The median household income in my area is $28,639.

There are NO charter or magnet schools anywhere near where I live.

Disallowing voucher programs or other methods of leveling the educational playing fields is ignoring the plight of an awful lot of people. It permits the existence of schools that suck a$$ and suck off the teat of governmental largess while churning out enormous volumes of people well trained to become wards of the state.

It's easy to point fingers when you have other options.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: You've done a pretty good job of stating your position on vouchers. This section appears to essentially be the crux of your position, and it is where we disagree. Private schools bear the same burden that public schools bear. The families of the students pay taxes, which support the public school.

If you go back a couple of pages, you'll see the link to a letter written by a former School administrator trying to explain why education costs have gone up so much.

I read every link you posted.

Did you read mine? You have failed to offer a single comment on them.

Those expenses are not being reported honestly.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The point is, when you say the families "pay taxes, which support the public school" that's not entirely true. They pay taxes, some of which benefit the public school, but a lot that pays for all kinds of other stuff the public school has to have or do. Things that are mandated by laws you may or may not agree with. Things that the private school doesn't have to have or do. And some things that benefit the private school but get wrapped up in the "cost of education" which gets hung on the public school.

No sir.

It is absolutely 100% true that families pay taxes which support the public schools. Where else are you suggesting the funds come from?

Those expenses which are not directly educational which you are unhappy with are ALSO paid for by families that pay taxes.

And however many pages later, you have still not even attempted to respond to the fact that the school has other revenue streams that help pay for that stuff.

Don't you see why some folks are getting frustrated with your line of debate?

Jamesc2123 wrote: We have no choice in school like many other places do, and our schools have many of the same problems other places do, but in general do pretty well by most measurements (graduation rates, test scores, etc.). Part of this (in my unsubstantiated opinion) has to be that everyone is on board with the same system. When there is no superstar school, public or private, to switch your kid over to, there is no other option than to work to make what you do have better.

First off, yes, you made my point pretty well. Thank you.

This probably works pretty well for a lot of places. But probably not as well if you’re talking about Watts Public Schools. Some of those really tough places are going to be difficult to improve. But generally, yeah, I like incentive to be invested in your local school. I think parents who care are a huge part, maybe the biggest part, of successful schools. If all the parents who care take their kids to private school, the public school is just a holding pen for drop outs.

SVreX wrote: Those expenses are not being reported honestly.

I don't know what to say other than to respectfully disagree. Not likely to sway your opinion, and that's okay. We're just chatting.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Jamesc2123 wrote: We have no choice in school like many other places do, and our schools have many of the same problems other places do, but in general do pretty well by most measurements (graduation rates, test scores, etc.). Part of this (in my unsubstantiated opinion) has to be that everyone is on board with the same system. When there is no superstar school, public or private, to switch your kid over to, there is no other option than to work to make what you do have better.

First off, yes, you made my point pretty well. Thank you. This probably works pretty well for a lot of places. But probably not as well if you’re talking about Watts Public Schools. Some of those really tough places are going to be difficult to improve. But generally, yeah, I like incentive to be invested in your local school. I think parents who care are a huge part, maybe the biggest part, of successful schools. If all the parents who care take their kids to private school, the public school is just a holding pen for drop outs.

But you care and you put your kid in the good school. Does that make you part of the problem?

I think you did the right thing by putting your kid in the good school. Your job isn't to ensure good schools, it's to ensure your kid gets a good education. You're doing it. I just think that opportunity should be expanded to others.