Low scores don't deter Wis. voucher supporters

[Dreadnaught]

Actually, Sweden has had a pretty good experience with school vouchers. Not perfect (no system is perfect), but it's a popular program, nyet?

In the US, our most high-profile program is in our national capital. It was so successful that the teacher's unions got Democrats to temporarily cancel the program. But pulling poor kids out of good private schools was seen as a low-blow and the program was restarted.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

Right, distance doesn't matter, because, as I've already said, you either end up to close to help, or to far away to help those that need it most.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? Not only is Milwaukee the 28th largest city, and Tampa the 55th, Milwaukee has twice the population of Tampa, and is almost 3 times MORE dense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

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.

Quick important note, rural schools aren't the issue. Your reading comprehension failings are starting to challenge Lewk's latest attempts. The problem is getting the population from the lowest graded schools (urban locations) and transporting them to rural locations. Something you already admitted would negatively affect those families. The number of rural schools doesn't matter, try finding some numbers on how many low income families pay to attend those schools?

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.

Another comprehension fail.

[Dreadnaught]

Whoops, got the density figures backwards. Hangover fail.

But OG, you keep changing the goalposts. First it's a weird rant about about areas with low school density (IE rural areas) and how private schooling is effectively impossible in rural areas. So I bring some solid metrics about how private schooling does exist in rural areas, so now it's not about rural areas.

You haven't defined rural, you haven't defined small down, you haven't defined what exactly the problem is at all. You keep throwing up these vague ideas about how kids will have to move around or something, and that this is bad. The only think you've defined is that you fear change and progressive education, but that you love to fall-back on the "schools need more money" doctrine. You're the most conservative person in this thread.

[Ominous Gamer]

I haven't mentioned anything about rural areas Dread, especially something that would suggest rural schools are impossible . This discussion was never about the ability of schools to exist in rural areas. You're in your own little fantasy world on that subject.

It is, and always has been, about helping the actual children in these schools you consider failing. But you don't want that, instead you want to punish these "failing" schools, and the poorest students that attend them, by telling parents to ship their kids out of the community for a "better" education. Failing that, you want to send them to a private school within the community, where the students are going to suffer the same setbacks and social problems that hampered their education in the public school. Want to do some research for that? Take the schools in the OP, and match them up to the dots in the map you provided.
Its not the schools, or the teachers, that are the problem. Environment is playing a much larger role here than anything else, and you're using public schools to ignore that much larger issue. You keep mentioning Waiting For Superman, which was made to put a face on the figures people throw around, but you've been extremely ignornant of what the film was trying to get across. Perhaps you would do better with dramatizations like Lean On Me and Stand and Deliver?

and you still haven't shown a distinction between the different tiers in which funding trickles down, so I'm not surprised you think I'm advocating to "throw more money" at it.

I really can't break it down in simpler terms for you, so please, continue to ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.

[Dreadnaught]

You've done a great job of muddying the waters. When did I ever mention that the goal is to remove kids from their "community"? Why are you talking about "the community" so much all of the sudden? It's like you're reading some kind of African-American pamphlet about how charter schools are some kind of white imposition.

Vouchers are about giving parents an opportunity to get their kids out of failing schools and into schools with more promise. Successful schools don't exclusively exist outside of poor areas (see: Harlem Success Academy). And private schools need not be the exclusive preserve of people with a lot of extra disposable income.

If you read my first post in this thread, I readily acknowledged that environment impacts education. But it's not a deciding factor, and we can't stop excusing failed schools because some of them happen to be in bad neighborhoods. Our public schools in wealthy areas are also lagging. And I would further argue that failing schools lead to failing communities, so we all have an interest in change. Sticking to conservative statements about how the "community" needs to change before the schools in its area can change amounts to soft bigotry.

And this isn't some kind of right-wing philosophical exercise. These solutions are about direct distribution of education funds, far more direct than what we have now. If the Swedes can do it, surely it can't betray your leftish sensibilities that much.

[Loki]

Speaking of national socialists, it looks like Finland's manifestation just got 19% of the vote.

[Aimless]

Actually, Sweden has had a pretty good experience with school vouchers.

Probably has something to do with how well the rest of Swedish society works. A healthy populace that doesn't have to worry about medical bankrupcy and that has time and energy to spend with their kids can accomplish amazing things even with private schools

[Aimless]

With that said, you know what, I reckon there's a lot of good to be had from putting power in the hands of poor parents and their kids.

[Loki]

Out of curiosity, what is not perfect about Sweden?

[Ominous Gamer]

You've done a great job of muddying the waters. When did I ever mention that the goal is to remove kids from their "community"? Why are you talking about "the community" so much all of the sudden? It's like you're reading some kind of African-American pamphlet about how charter schools are some kind of white imposition.

Wow. I even made sure to list it as an either/or since you kept mentioning distance. You want to transplant children into what you think are better learning environments. Thats not going to happen by telling a kid to turn left at the next intersection inside of right. You have to remove the child from the environment that influencing them in the negative ways you want to correct. You're either suggesting to ship a child outside of those influences (community), or you're not, and if you're not, you're not providing a better education.

Vouchers are about giving parents an opportunity to get their kids out of failing schools and into schools with more promise. Successful schools don't exclusively exist outside of poor areas (see: Harlem Success Academy). And private schools need not be the exclusive preserve of people with a lot of extra disposable income.

Come on Dread, this is Lewk's thing, trying to attack a point with exceptions instead of the rule.
"more promise" is just another way to say better advertising.

If you read my first post in this thread, I readily acknowledged that environment impacts education. But it's not a deciding factor, and we can't stop excusing failed schools because some of them happen to be in bad neighborhoods. Our public schools in wealthy areas are also lagging. And I would further argue that failing schools lead to failing communities, so we all have an interest in change.

The schools create the bad community, the community creates the bad school.
You know what we should do about that? Fix them both, really, I figured this would be the easiest answer to find. But what you're suggesting is either going to amount to a lot of expensive nothing, or punishment on the poor (community).

Sticking to conservative statements about how the "community" needs to change before the schools in its area can change amounts to soft bigotry.

lul wht?

And this isn't some kind of right-wing philosophical exercise. These solutions are about direct distribution of education funds, far more direct than what we have now. If the Swedes can do it, surely it can't betray your leftish sensibilities that much.

As I've already mentioned, there are other ways to do this without removing funds from the public system.

With that said, you know what, I reckon there's a lot of good to be had from putting power in the hands of poor parents and their kids.

No doubt, but I don't think a voucher system is doing that, especially with the poor. I think we would be better off having parents more involved in their child's education, have a voice at the table when decisions are made. Force them in know whats going on in their child's classroom. Hell, force them to be in the classroom.

In Florida, the free VPK program requires parents to volunteer in the classroom, to attend monthly planning meetings, and to speak with the teacher daily. Florida also passed a few new laws that effect how teachers are kept in the system, and one of those is that contracts are now renewed yearly, and that gives parents a lot of power.

[Loki]

No doubt, but I don't think a voucher system is doing that, especially with the poor. I think we would be better off having parents more involved in their child's education, have a voice at the table when decisions are made. Force them in know whats going on in their child's classroom. Hell, force them to be in the classroom.

In Florida, the free VPK program requires parents to volunteer in the classroom, to attend monthly planning meetings, and to speak with the teacher daily. Florida also passed a few new laws that effect how teachers are kept in the system, and one of those is that contracts are now renewed yearly, and that gives parents a lot of power.

Pray tell how a poor parent, likely working multiple jobs, is going to have the time or the energy to do this.

[Ominous Gamer]

They've managed so far, I think Ocean's class has lost 2 (out of 20, more have moved in since then) kids since the beginning of the year. Not perfect, but its a good step. The meetings are also held at different times for different schedules, and if need be, the teacher makes a trip to the home (they have to do this at least once anyway).

EDIT:
Ocean's class is also income and address restricted, allows half hour early dropoff, and pickup from 2:45 till 5:30.

[Nessus]

Speaking of national socialists, it looks like Finland's manifestation just got 19% of the vote.

And the Social Democrats are the second-largest party, so in the heat of this wonderful emotion, fuck off

[GGT]

If you read my first post in this thread, I readily acknowledged that environment impacts education. But it's not a deciding factor, and we can't stop excusing failed schools because some of them happen to be in bad neighborhoods. Our public schools in wealthy areas are also lagging. And I would further argue that failing schools lead to failing communities, so we all have an interest in change. Sticking to conservative statements about how the "community" needs to change before the schools in its area can change amounts to soft bigotry.

What are you going on about now? It's a progressive idea that a community influences children as much (if not more) than parents/parenting. That it takes a village to raise a child, not just a good education but also proper nutrition, basic health care, safe streets, low crime, involved adults that care, and helping parents as much as children makes a difference. It's a conservative idea that a community needs to fix itself with as little government intervention (tax dollars) as possible.

The main reason the US has such a problem with failing neighborhood schools is the way we've assigned education money via property taxes. Followed by the way we assess property values and set district lines. We ended up with pockets of poverty, then entire neighborhoods, then swaths or regions. Rural poor is just as problematic as urban poor, or high crime areas that follow poverty. Kids get stuck in undesirable areas because housing costs and employment opportunities restrict their families. Schools lose money as property values plummet, and it's a vicious cycle.

I think OG is saying vouchers just moves one factor (the student) in a multi-factorial problem, but doesn't address fixing the other elements that affect schools like teachers, curriculum, methods, standards. And it doesn't do a damn thing for changing poverty, unemployment, housing costs, cost of living, blighted neighborhoods, dying communities, etc.

In other words, vouchers sound great on paper and in theory, but without other changes that fix core problems, they're really just a big Band-Aid.

[Dreadnaught]

With that said, you know what, I reckon there's a lot of good to be had from putting power in the hands of poor parents and their kids.

I agree, that's really the basic thing I'm saying. This doesn't have to be a partisan thing, I just think it's a good idea.

Pray tell how a poor parent, likely working multiple jobs, is going to have the time or the energy to do this.

They've managed so far

So parents can't be arsed to involve themselves in using educational vouchers are "managing" with public schools?

I mean come on, the idea that school vouchers punish the poor is absurd.

What are you going on about now? It's a progressive idea that a community influences children as much (if not more) than parents/parenting. That it takes a village to raise a child, not just a good education but also proper nutrition, basic health care, safe streets, low crime, involved adults that care, and helping parents as much as children makes a difference. It's a conservative idea that a community needs to fix itself with as little government intervention (tax dollars) as possible.

The main reason the US has such a problem with failing neighborhood schools is the way we've assigned education money via property taxes. Followed by the way we assess property values and set district lines. We ended up with pockets of poverty, then entire neighborhoods, then swaths or regions. Rural poor is just as problematic as urban poor, or high crime areas that follow poverty. Kids get stuck in undesirable areas because housing costs and employment opportunities restrict their families. Schools lose money as property values plummet, and it's a vicious cycle.

I think OG is saying vouchers just moves one factor (the student) in a multi-factorial problem, but doesn't address fixing the other elements that affect schools like teachers, curriculum, methods, standards. And it doesn't do a damn thing for changing poverty, unemployment, housing costs, cost of living, blighted neighborhoods, dying communities, etc.

In other words, vouchers sound great on paper and in theory, but without other changes that fix core problems, they're really just a big Band-Aid.

We spend tons of money on education, but it doesn't go to education and parents are deprived of good options. When it comes to delivering the best school services, school vouchers really don't make poverty worse. They just help make education better.

[GGT]

We spend tons of money on education, but it doesn't go to education and parents are deprived of good options. When it comes to delivering the best school services, school vouchers really don't make poverty worse. They just help make education better.

Ditto for our healthcare system, the US has a strange concept that "throwing money" at something makes it better. I explained why parents are deprived of good options---by being stuck in the housing-tax-funding morass. I did not say vouchers make poverty worse.

But it's not proven that vouchers make Education better as a system, instead of helping a few kids with vouchers choose "better schools".

[Dreadnaught]

If rolled-out on a wide scale, I think it's a lot more than a few kids. And I think the systemic value of that kind of choice and clear incentives is pretty significant.

[Ominous Gamer]

So parents can't be arsed to involve themselves in using educational vouchers are "managing" with public schools?

I mean come on, the idea that school vouchers punish the poor is absurd.

Even though you pulled that quote out of context, you still didn't make anysense
I was telling Loki that so far parents in VPK have managed to find someway to drop or pickup their student at a local school each day, that they can at least find 1 day every 2 months to spend a few hours in a classroom, and that they can spend 30 minutes a month helping shape the direction of their child's education.
I have no idea how you're trying to relate that to vouchers.

and you yourself admitted that vouchers could end up costing the parent in transportation. thats money some families simply don't have. thats punishing the poor.

[GGT]

At one time mandatory busing sounded like a good idea, too. Move the students to better schools outside their neighborhood or community. It didn't work. I doubt voluntary busing would have worked, either.

[Ominous Gamer]

At one time mandatory busing sounded like a good idea, too. Move the students to better schools outside their neighborhood or community. It didn't work. I doubt voluntary busing would have worked, either.

Parents (and students) don't like spending a good portion of their time sitting on a bus against their wishes. Thats why the magnet program (at least around here) popped up. Instead of busing the lower achievers into good schools kicking and screaming, bus the good students into the "failing" schools, and then everything starts to balance out. Its ties into segregation pretty deep as well.

EDIT:
Holy shit, my old high school, the school deepest into SOG Port Tampa is now considered a magnet school. You can't find a better example to show how fucked up that program has become.

[GGT]

Our county has a couple of magnet programs, too. Mostly the country tried "magnet housing" to switch things up, desegregate schools that were based on income and housing. Apartments that were heavily section 8, block grants for landlords to fix up low rent row houses, or build new cluster housing for the working poor in higher rent areas, mixed-use buildings for shop owners living above the shop, that kind of thing. It not only desegregated our middle and high schools by race, but income.

[Dreadnaught]

and you yourself admitted that vouchers could end up costing the parent in transportation.

$50/month by your estimates isn't a lot. The status quo costs parents and society money as well.

[GGT]

Then stop bitching about taxes that go toward Education, paying more for excellent teachers, or blaming unions for fucking everything up.

Of course it's not simply a "money" issue, but one of goals, quality and results. Still, it's ridiculous to think excellent teachers shouldn't expect a rising wage reflecting their experience and expertise. Or that the best way to improve Education is to slash funding, cap teacher salaries, ban collective bargaining.

[Ominous Gamer]

$50/month by your estimates isn't a lot.

$50 a month was giving you the benefit of car pooling, which would require 5 families that each owned a minivan
and yes, $50 a month (remember, impossibly low number as is) is a lot for a low income family with kid(s). Fucking christ on a stick, don't be so ignorant.

[GGT]

Dread, you seem to be thinking of this from a NYC perspective. Concentrated groups of people with access to public transit (you don't have Big Yellow School buses but students use metro bus cards or subway tokens) all within a manageable distance. But you don't really think vouchers would work to move students from Queens to Long Island, do you? In the broader America, there are barriers related to mileage, time, and transit.

Logistically it sounds like a nightmare for anything outside dense urban areas.

[Dreadnaught]

Err, we have school busses too.

For the fourth time, school vouchers does not require sending students over large distances. In fact it's possibly easier to set-up a new school in a smaller place than in a larger city (there's just a smaller pool of students to attract). You also seem to think I'm some kind of bumpkin who doesn't know that most of America lives in suburbs; America is not full of one horse towns.

But the point is the ability for an individual or a school management company to identify a failing school, invest the funds to set up a competing school across the street is a powerful incentive that is many orders of magnitude more powerful than our current incentive-less system.

It's also worth pointing out the obvious fact that in many areas nothing would happen at all. Parents can and will park their government-given money in their local public school. Vouchers simply allow for choice. But choice is somehow horrid and offensive to you.

[Lewkowski]

Parents can and will park their government-given money in their local public school. Vouchers simply allow for choice. But choice is somehow horrid and offensive to you.

To liberals choice is bad. Because then they (government) do not have control.

[GGT]

Err, we have school busses too.

For the fourth time, school vouchers does not require sending students over large distances. In fact it's possibly easier to set-up a new school in a smaller place than in a larger city (there's just a smaller pool of students to attract). You also seem to think I'm some kind of bumpkin who doesn't know that most of America lives in suburbs; America is not full of one horse towns.

But the point is the ability for an individual or a school management company to identify a failing school, invest the funds to set up a competing school across the street is a powerful incentive that is many orders of magnitude more powerful than our current incentive-less system.

Parents and teachers are quick to know what's a failing school, we don't need "school management companies" to identify them for us. Plus, you're comparing schools like it's simply a competition between corner gas stations or fast food joints. Build it and they will come?

It's also worth pointing out the obvious fact that in many areas nothing would happen at all. Parents can and will park their government-given money in their local public school. Vouchers simply allow for choice. But choice is somehow horrid and offensive to you.

To liberals choice is bad. Because then they (government) do not have control.

Wow, never thought I'd see the day when Dread and Lewk spouted the same damn nonsense.

Everyone should agree that parents want the best for their kids, and would choose that first. Unfortunately for the USA, people are restricted by housing costs, transportation costs, and employment opportunities.

We can ALL only live where we can afford to live....poor people can't afford high property taxes or high-rent neighborhoods, the kinds of areas that attract well-paid excellent teachers. Vouchers may help a small minority of students trapped in "bad schools", but that doesn't translate into schools they fled becoming schools they want to return to. Vouchers don't mean "bad schools" will become better. Not when their parents are still trapped in low-income, low-rent, high crime areas.

[Dreadnaught]

Parents and teachers are quick to know what's a failing school, we don't need "school management companies" to identify them for us...Vouchers may help a small minority of students trapped in "bad schools", but that doesn't translate into schools they fled becoming schools they want to return to. Vouchers don't mean "bad schools" will become better. Not when their parents are still trapped in low-income, low-rent, high crime areas.

Often parents know their kids are going to a school that could be better, but their kids are effectively trapped because there are no options and the parents have no leverage.

Why parents should aim to send their kids back to a bad school is beyond me. If the failing school can't improve, why should anyone go there?

The idea that bad areas can't have good schools is simply bizarre and easily disproved by the growing success of inner-city charter schools which operate with public funding and without the restrictive environment of their public school counterparts.

[GGT]

Often parents know their kids are going to a school that could be better, but their kids are effectively trapped because there are no options and the parents have no leverage. Why parents should aim to send their kids back to a bad school is beyond me. If the failing school can't improve, why should anyone go there?

Have you read anything I've written, or are you choosing to ignore it?

The idea that bad areas can't have good schools is simply bizarre and easily disproved by the growing success of inner-city charter schools which operate with public funding and without the restrictive environment of their public school counterparts.

Can we agree that monied areas don't necessarily guarantee the best education, but poor areas almost always guarantee they can't provide the best education?

Where money is concerned, we have it backward as a nation. Not only do wealthy districts not need more funds, but poorer districts probably need more. That's a symptom of our Education-by-Property Tax model. It's a failed model. Vouchers won't fix that! Moving students around and out of their community does NOTHING to address other factors that affect students and their families.

Vouchers do NOTHING to fix how we fund and allocate Education tax dollars, they don't repair failing schools, and they certainly don't provide the "best" education for everyone.