Low scores don't deter Wis. voucher supporters

[Nessus]

That's a fait accompli. Don't see why any leftist would want to perpetuate the status quo. The entire purpose of charter schools is to give poor people an alternative to a public system that has failed the kids of other poor people for generations. You can talk all you want about throwing money to fix public schools, but the reality is that this would take a lot of time even if people went about implementing it. Meanwhile, the students in those schools are seeing their life prospects destroyed.

I certainly don't claim to have good answers on how to fix education in the US, and if you recall you and I agree on several things about US culture and how it undermines education. But as a leftist, I do think it a more sensible solution to at least try to give all kids an acceptable education, instead of arbitrarily awarding education to a random smattering of poor children in addition to children from affluent homes. So many aspects of being poor and remaining poor are already inherited through some mechanism or another, adding to that seems to me as pissing on the poor just for the sake of pissing on the poor. I suspect your view-point will be vindicated by history as present becomes past, and the US moves closer and closer to self-immolation. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy for the participants, though.

[GGT]

What a vicious attack. I wonder how you'd react to a similar one.

That wasn't vicious at all. I think aggie knew exactly what I meant about the disconnects between education and employment these days. When our universities are graduating well-educated people with ideas on public policy or economics and can't find full employment in their field, we have a bigger problem than just how to produce well-educated HS grads using vouchers.

[Illusions]

I'm really getting frustrated with how to get a proper response to this, so I'm going to simplify it more:

The point often raised for vouchers is that it will create competition which in turn will lead to better education. The reasoning is that if schools have to compete for students' vouchers and money, they will have to improve themselves, and eliminate bad teachers, or be eliminated themselves. We already have a system in place where schools compete for students, and thus money. We call them colleges and universities. We still have colleges that range from bad to excellent, and people who teach at colleges that range from bad to excellent. How is competition being applied to one group of schools going to turn out differently in this instance?

If you want to know my reasons for posting this again, here is why:

Bad teachers without aforementioned contracts (or with, in extreme circumstances) could be fired by administrators who themselves would be held accountable to a review committee. Schools that don't work for a number of years could try different options on a case-by-case basis, such as removal of the principal or even shutting down the school altogether. (if it's determined to be simply a problem with the physical site of the school -- near a highway, near high-crime area, etc.)

Ignores reality. Colleges compete for students, and thus money. There are still bad colleges, and still bad teachers. Competition hasn't removed them in this case, why would it when schools are competing for students, and thus vouchers which represent money?

Except no one is under any obligation to go to a public college (or any college for that matter). Public colleges therefore compete with both each other and with private colleges. Depending on zoning rules, a given public school doesn't compete with anyone (for students whose parents aren't loaded).

Introduces irrelevant point (no one is under obligation to go to college). I'm looking at the claim that competition will result in a better system of education. We already have this in regards to colleges and universities yet this hasn't happened.

Introduces irrelevant point. I'm looking at the system post vouchers. So what about zoning rules? Are you claiming that they'd still apply after vouchers?

Different than college in what way? I don't see anyone proposing a voucher system for college tuition.

Completely missed the point. Vouchers are equivalent to money right? So you're trying to introduce a program whereby schools would compete for students and thus money, claiming it will improve education, and eliminate bad schools and teachers. We already have an example where schools compete for students and thus money, and competition hasn't removed bad schools or teachers. We call them colleges and universities.

[Loki]

Introduces irrelevant point (no one is under obligation to go to college). I'm looking at the claim that competition will result in a better system of education. We already have this in regards to colleges and universities yet this hasn't happened.

And here I was thinking that the US has a university system that's consistently ranked the best in the world. This is despite American universities being forced to spend the first two years teaching students what they should have learned in high school.

[agamemnus]

Ignores reality. Colleges compete for students, and thus money. There are still bad colleges, and still bad teachers. Competition hasn't removed them in this case, why would it when schools are competing for students, and thus vouchers which represent money?

Bad teachers can be marginalized (placed into less important positions) or fired. Bad professors might have other stuff on their mind like research. They also have tenure. Finally I would posit that almost no one is running into the US specifically for our K-12 educational system (well, please don't compare it to 3rd world countries?), while we import an immense amount of (rich?) students from developed and/or rich overseas countries because of our immense and well-regarded university system.

[GGT]

Tenure and Seniority doesn't work for educating students. It might work on an academic research or publication level, but not at a teaching level.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm really getting frustrated with how to get a proper response to this, so I'm going to simplify it more:

The point often raised for vouchers is that it will create competition which in turn will lead to better education. The reasoning is that if schools have to compete for students' vouchers and money, they will have to improve themselves, and eliminate bad teachers, or be eliminated themselves. We already have a system in place where schools compete for students, and thus money. We call them colleges and universities. We still have colleges that range from bad to excellent, and people who teach at colleges that range from bad to excellent. How is competition being applied to one group of schools going to turn out differently in this instance?

I got that, but I didn't see the relevance because ideally our primary education could be more like our higher-level educational system, except with subsidies so that no kid was denied a primary education.

We have great quality colleges. And we have bad colleges. The point is that the reputation of those schools is in flux and parents have a choice, which encourages the schools to compete and improve themselves.

We could only hope for this for our primary schooling, with the caveat that there are a lot of social benefits to financially supporting primary education. Which is why a voucher program would enable great access to a wide variety of private schools who want to build a quality educational environment to compete for those subsidized dollars.

It's never going to be perfect. After all, competition implies a range of schools with some considered "best" and "worst". But keeping the competitive dynamic open is very important to avoid an unending status quo of craptitude.

[Flixy]

A big difference between college and schools is of course that you can't send a 12 year old across the country for a decent school. I don't know about the situation there, but over here very few people travel more than 20 km for a high school, and there's only so many you could choose between. Excluding boarding schools I could only realistically choose between three high schools.

[Dreadnaught]

People can and do send their kids to boarding school. Though obviously it's a very very small proportion.

A few things I believe:

1) Parents will travel the extra mile (literally) for their kids to get a good education. If the choice is between a failing school nearby and a quality school 60km away, most parents will do whatever it takes.

2) The presence of a quality school 60km from a failing school (and the risk of students and teachers leaving for a better school) can be enough to motivate the failing school to change. The status quo is that students are locked-in to failing schools, and it's next to impossible to change those schools.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think you vastly overestimate the ability of struggling lower class families (hell, I'll throw in most* working middle class families) to ship their children to a school thats almost an 80 miles round trip on a daily basis.
Hell of an about face you've made since your last argument that a mile was some sort of impossible distance to travel in NYC in the Park 51 thread.

*i can do it too.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't think my argument was that it's an impossible distance to travel, but that a mile is a lot further in NY than outside of NY and citing things within a mile of Ground Zero as "in the same neighborhood" wasn't accurate.

Also, 60km is 37 miles. An 30-60 minute commute for schooling? Like I said, watch Waiting for Superman, where parents specifically say they will send their kids further to get out of the educational crapholes their kids are in.

[Ominous Gamer]

a mile is a lot further in NY than outside of NY

Continue this thought, and you may see where you goofed a few posts back

Also, 60km is 37 miles. An 30-60 minute commute for schooling?

I'm sorry, a 74 mile round trip. twice a day. Thats about 3-4 gallons of gas a day in an econo box. $12-$16 a day just to get to and from school. and 30 minutes? who lives and attends school directly off of an interstate? It takes 20 minutes to get Ocean in her classroom, and that school is less then a mile away.
Try to picture how many lower and middle class families have that type of money or time, or what type of results you would get if you spent that investment (time and money) with parent/child homework and school help. Now, do you know what that investment doesn't happen already? Because families don't have the time or the funds to justify the claim you're making.

Like I said, watch Waiting for Superman, where parents specifically say they will send their kids further to get out of the educational crapholes their kids are in.

you're basing your claim of "most" off of a hand full of interviews in a movie?
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "talk is cheap".

[Dreadnaught]

If getting up extra early makes the difference between a good education and a crappy one, most parents will do what it takes to make it happen. Carpools, assembling a group of kids to make it worthwhile for the private school to send busses to get the business, etc. Why you find this so offensive or unbelievable is beyond me.

But again, the point is the existence of competition (and the ability to make changes) is enough to encourage any given school to improve. We can't keep this status quo.

[Nessus]

If getting up extra early makes the difference between a good education and a crappy one, most parents will do what it takes to make it happen. Carpools, assembling a group of kids to make it worthwhile for the private school to send busses to get the business, etc. Why you find this so offensive or unbelievable is beyond me.

How does this reasoning not apply to the grocery store lines in the Soviet Union? You want to feed your kids as well, right?

[Ominous Gamer]

most parents will do what it takes to make it happen.

You're still doing it, making this unfounded claims. Its not just about getting up early, its more about the points you ignored. The costs, even if its once a week, thats still $50+ a month that these parents didn't have to begin with. Now are the students going to be better improved by sending them to a far away fantasy school, or by keeping broadband internet in the home?
Its more about time, getting up earlier means going to bed earlier, so instead of the parents and students spending time together on their school work, they're spending it in a car in traffic. Its about multiple people trying to get to different locations within the same time frame. Students go to school, parents go to work. What makes you think a private school would send a bus almost 40 miles away when they could just as well fill their ranks from the community they were built in?

No, these incentives to improve help no one except for the ones that can already afford to help themselves, so you end up screwing over the students that need the most help in the current system.
Status quo needs improved? Yes, but thats no justification to replace it with an even more horrible idea.

[Dreadnaught]

Now are the students going to be better improved by sending them to a far away fantasy school, or by keeping broadband internet in the home?

Holy shitsnacks, are you joking? Sending them to school a mere 30 miels away takes precedence over broadband in the home.

Also, this idea that the only good school is going to be 80 miles away (and this somehow harms the closer school) is a complete strawman. Vouchers (along with the right legal/administrative reforms) would allow someone in a town with a bad school to get a business loan, offer jobs to the best teachers around and sway as many parents as possible into directing their tax-supported education dollars into that new school.

This idea that school vouchers hurt poor people is bizarre and farcical.

[Ominous Gamer]

Holy shitsnacks, are you joking? Sending them to school a mere 30 miels away takes precedence over broadband in the home.

See, this I don't agree with. But its awesome how you went from 60km to 30 miles With the amount of projects, homework, and general research that school projects require, I'd say a family with the time to help and boardband connection are far more important than a school thats a prohibitive distance away. Even if you're unable to afford broadband to begin with, schools commonly communicate with social locations within the neighborhood to prepare each other for projects. Schools sending libraries summer reading lists, or planning projects around each other, for example. To think that a school, no matter how awesome, some how is able to replace the self learning these local interactions or in home connection can provide... thats only feeding the existing problem, that schools are somehow supposed to be the first and only point for learning.
Also: broadband is pretty required for distance learning, which seems to be where even public education is headed.

Also, this idea that the only good school is going to be 80 miles away (and this somehow harms the closer school) is a complete strawman.

The 40 miles away was your example (no one said anything about 80 yet) and distance doesn't matter, the whole of a voucher system is there to punish the more local "worst" (remember thread title) schools. If you want to continue this, I think by the time you discover that a "good" school is close enough to benefit those that need the most help, you have ended up completely dismantling the entire concept behind this idea.

Vouchers (along with the right legal/administrative reforms) would allow someone in a town with a bad school to get a business loan, offer jobs to the best teachers around and sway as many parents as possible into directing their tax-supported education dollars into that new school.

Swaying, aka advertising
Now picture this, all the effort and work you just put into shipping someone away, trying putting that into whatever issue you have at the current school.

This idea that school vouchers hurt poor people is bizarre and farcical.

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, you're not being convincing. You're just setting up this hypothetical scenario that doesn't really have much to do with vouchers, then saying you would never sacrifice your home internet connection to get your kid out of a failing school into an awesome one a few miles away.

But, once again, you seem to be saying that the main problem with public schools is money. It's not money. We spend tons of taxpayer money on education and it goes nowhere. The problems are with flexibility, standards, no incentives to attract good teachers, etc.

Vouchers seek to give parents to right to not accept the status quo. But this may also require a few people cutting off their home Internet access or something, so you don't support it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah, you're not being convincing. You're just setting up this hypothetical scenario that doesn't really have much to do with vouchers, then saying you would never sacrifice your home internet connection to get your kid out of a failing school into an awesome one a few miles away.

60 kilometers is not a few miles away. It's quite a bit further away, even assuming no commute to work for a parent. Completely ignores the many parents who have to rely on public transportation for their kids. Maybe a few parents are in a position to drive their kids that far every day, on top of everything else, but most aren't. What the hell are you smoking?

[Aimless]

And here I was thinking that the US has a university system that's consistently ranked the best in the world.

*cough*

[Dreadnaught]

Whether 60 KM is far away or not is also not really a central issue with school vouchers. It's just a straw man OG has brought up to distract from the core problems of education.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yeah, you're not being convincing. You're just setting up this hypothetical scenario that doesn't really have much to do with vouchers, then saying you would never sacrifice your home internet connection to get your kid out of a failing school into an awesome one a few miles away.

I can't help but notice you're using failing, instead of bad, and awesome, even after the OP.
I've been waiting and waiting for you to make this connection, so it looks like I'm going have to spell it out for you. Its not the schools, its the environment they exist in. Ignoring what influences a school doesn't fix the underlying issues. You're either shipping people out to BFE (huge waste of resources and time), or you're keeping them in the community that is failing them.

But, once again, you seem to be saying that the main problem with public schools is money. It's not money. We spend tons of taxpayer money on education and it goes nowhere

We spend tons of money per student on a very complex system. I've never denied that. What I have said is that the individual schools (more so teachers [none wages even] and students) need a bigger slice of that pie. You've yet to admit a distinction between overall and (extremely) local funding.

Vouchers seek to give parents to right to not accept the status quo. But this may also require a few people cutting off their home Internet access or something, so you don't support it.

So you're finally admitting that the people who can least afford to change anything are going to be the ones forced to changed. FUCKING FINALLY! Thank you for the honesty.

Whether 60 KM is far away or not is also not really a central issue with school vouchers. It's just a straw man OG has brought up to distract from the core problems of education.

What the fuck are you talking about? You brought up the distance, and I laughed at you for it. And you continue to use distance of varying distance, anything from a few miles to 80 miles.

[Loki]

*cough*

Your nationalist brand of socialism is always amusing.

[Nessus]

Your nationalist brand of socialism is always amusing.

[Dreadnaught]

I can't help but notice you're using failing, instead of bad, and awesome, even after the OP.
I've been waiting and waiting for you to make this connection, so it looks like I'm going have to spell it out for you. Its not the schools, its the environment they exist in. Ignoring what influences a school doesn't fix the underlying issues. You're either shipping people out to BFE (huge waste of resources and time), or you're keeping them in the community that is failing them.

Except I'm not talking about shipping anyone out, nor am I ignoring what's broken in a school. Vouchers provide the incentives for schools to change fast, instead of parents banging their heads against a PTA board for years.

What the fuck are you talking about? You brought up the distance, and I laughed at you for it. And you continue to use distance of varying distance, anything from a few miles to 80 miles.

I wasn't making a particularly subtle point, but I'll re-iterate:

The presence of a quality school 60km from a failing school (and the risk of students and teachers leaving for a better school) can be enough to motivate the failing school to change. The status quo is that students are locked-in to failing schools, and it's next to impossible to change those schools.

[Ominous Gamer]

Except I'm not talking about shipping anyone out, nor am I ignoring what's broken in a school. Vouchers provide the incentives for schools to change fast, instead of parents banging their heads against a PTA board for years.

Alright, let me hold your hand for a little longer...
The concept of a voucher wouldn't work unless the student was taken out of the community (cause again, its not necessarily the school thats the problem). You don't solve anything by taking the student body from one school and paying for them to attend a private school across the street, the school is going to suffer from the same influences that effected the public school.

I wasn't making a particularly subtle point, but I'll re-iterate:

presence of a quality school 60km from a failing school (and the risk of students and teachers leaving for a better school) can be enough to motivate the failing school to change

and here we go again...
a school 60km away doesn't and shouldn't have any effect on your "failing" school, because they are so completely and totally separated from each other. The flight of voucher waving students to a school that far away would be so minuscule it wouldn't even register. You have higher turn over from families moving, and I'm willing to bet, even deaths.

Now stick with me here while I connect these 2 points. You're either forcing people to travel outside the community (punishing the people who can least likely to afford it), or you're keeping the students in the community and fixing nothing (because its not the school thats the problem).

[LittleFuzzy]

Whether 60 KM is far away or not is also not really a central issue with school vouchers. It's just a straw man OG has brought up to distract from the core problems of education.

But you're the one who brought it up!

[Flixy]

I think that may be my fault, but vouchers rely on competition and usually there aren't enough schools within a feasible range to have an actual competition.especially outside cities

[Dreadnaught]

Once again, the point isn't whether a school is 60km or 2km. Had I said "within reasonable traveling distance of a failing school" this tangent would have been equally unnecessary.

Going back to the original post, even a school district in a small city like Milwaukee (which is not as densely populated as Tampa) manages to have a few dozen private schools where vouchers can be used.

I rural areas, people can and do open new schools. About 10-12% of private school attendance nationwide is composed of kids from smaller towns and rural areas. There is a definite skew towards religious schools, but obviously it's silly to think that private schools just don't exist in less-dense areas. And lowering the barriers to creating more private schools can act as a massive competitive drive to improve an existing public school.

Any if the existing public school still loses out and has to downsize? I'm comfortable with that outcome. If a local public school can't attract as many students as a nearby private school that accepts vouchers, it means parents are voting with their feet for a reason.

OG's idea that we can just throw even more money and tinker with some laws is the too-little approach that's led to more generations of failed schooling for many kids. Not to mention an enormous financial expense. This is a problem where the status quo needs to be nuked, not tinkered with.

[Nessus]

Which examples are you basing these ideas on? Which places have had success with similar methods? Or is this another part of the narrative of the theology of wealth?