The future of U.S. public schools...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 23:32
VIEWED: 8340
PAGE 3 of 4
And what I forgot to comment on - your idea about private schooling. What's next, limiting the right to vote to only a select group? Because that's the ultimate end of the private school argument (call it a slippery slope if you will, but I don't think so). Schools exist, at least in the ideal, to produce productive citizens capable of participating in the political process. If you make all schooling private, in a learn-by-paying program, how will the lowest end of the spectrum receive an education? Especially at the rate the government tries to cut funding to school programs (gifted programs were cut all over the country this year and last).
So, you want a private, pay system to educate the citizens, and you think that will be a better idea? A nation of illiterates? As easily led as the majority of the population is now, and you think letting them know less is to be admired. What would the response be, besides restricting the vote? Because otherwise you'd have nothing but demagoguery and control by fundamentalist groups (look at other countries that have low literacy rates). I think that before that happened in the US, we'd become an oligarchy - rule by the educated elite (rich).
/Takes off tinfoil hat
//Still thinks privatization is a bad idea
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HaoLeHaoLe:
... Money is not the answer, however, in public schools. I have no links to offer, but I have read time and again about the disparity bewteen amounts spent per child in certain districts and the grades of the kids there.
You say this, and then you say this
Quote:
In my humble opinion, that might be the place to start looking should you wish to fix them. (to say nothing of of schools with zero dollars to work with, of course).
How will giving money to schools with zero dollars to work with not help them? Or did you mean to say money is the answer? If you would like to see some info about actual disparities between performance as it relates to per-child spending, I would suggest you check out Jon Kozol's work. But to say money won't help but then point out that some places have no money (and by having none are broken) is a contradiction.
I don't dispute that home schooling works, provided the educator in the home is qualified (your sister the math whiz teaching them math, that's fine). But one area that home schooling has a major simultaneous positive and negative is in values education. I can't get away with much in the way of trying to instill values into kids, otherwise I get a big fat lawsuit because someone gets their panties in a snit; at home you can teach whatever values you think you want them to learn. On the other hand, some use home schooling to indoctrinate their children into things they would be better off avoiding - people who really know zero about education (Creationists, white supremacists, etc.) but don't want their kids to mingle with the "trash."
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
How will giving money to schools with zero dollars to work with not help them? Or did you mean to say money is the answer? If you would like to see some info about actual disparities between performance as it relates to per-child spending, I would suggest you check out Jon Kozol's work. But to say money won't help but then point out that some places have no money (and by having none are broken) is a contradiction.
I don't dispute that home schooling works, provided the educator in the home is qualified (your sister the math whiz teaching them math, that's fine). But one area that home schooling has a major simultaneous positive and negative is in values education. I can't get away with much in the way of trying to instill values into kids, otherwise I get a big fat lawsuit because someone gets their panties in a snit; at home you can teach whatever values you think you want them to learn. On the other hand, some use home schooling to indoctrinate their children into things they would be better off avoiding - people who really know zero about education (Creationists, white supremacists, etc.) but don't want their kids to mingle with the "trash."
... Well there it is, "straight from the horse's mouth". Who better qualified to comment than a teacher in the public school system?
... Thanks for that, SevenPercent. Kind of shuts people up, myself included, to hear a teacher comment on the topic.
... So it IS money. Got it. ... But we're talking about money the families have as well. Poor kids don't have calculators, etc... In Ohio, the Cleveland school system (Cleveland East Distric) had many millions poured into it after many years of near non-performance . . . they had the highest dollar per student rate in the state. Even with all that money, results failed to appear. That was my point: "Money is not the answer."
... But I bow to your position and your experience on the topic. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HaoLeHaoLe:
... So it IS money. Got it. ... But we're talking about money the families have as well. Poor kids don't have calculators, etc... In Ohio, the Cleveland school system (Cleveland East Distric) had many millions poured into it after many years of near non-performance . . . they had the highest dollar per student rate in the state. Even with all that money, results failed to appear. That was my point: "Money is not the answer."
Thanks. Maybe I should have added an addendum to my point, which you did for me I think. It's not just money, but money spent well. Often, the school board and the state are at odds over how to spend the money, and it doesn't (at least imo) get allotted as it should. Believe me, if teachers got to make the budget, not admins, you can bet your ass you'd see results.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm coming at this issue from a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps I'm so far in left field we can't find enough common ground for discussion but, Sevenpercent, I'm actually interested in your point of view on this.
My issues with the status quo of education center around the generally accepted notion that institutionalizing children is a good way to educate them. I don't buy that. I've seen many kids, including my own, find fantastic results by dropping out of school and pursuing education as a goal rather than 'schooling'. I'm curious what you think about this.
As a disclaimer, I'll say up front that I realize certain children will be at a disadvantage because of poverty, or other circumstance, and I have no problem with helping them out as public policy. But I don't accept the notion that the average parent can't be trusted to make sure their children get a decent education.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
7%,
Have you read nothing I've posted?
You should know that I used to teach special ed. and that I posted about the difference in funding about 7 times on this forum and no one ever said "oh, let's correct that."
Anyway, of course I wasn't blaming teachers for this disaster, I was one, my sister still is one. The system is a disaster. It's totally bureaucratic socialism.
No system without competition ever evolves. This one sure doesn't. For some reason liberals love the idea that private school should be only for the rich. Well screw that.
If we had actual competition, then actual education would evolve, and people would not be illiterate, and maybe they'd be educated. I've worked briefly in private schools on temp gigs, and let me tell you, the quality of education wasn't just a little better, it was stunningly better. It was night and day better. And the teachers were the same, me an my friend, but the students there actually wanted to learn, and knew stuff, and had resources. And this school was a $10K/year school, 2/3 of the budget of a NY public school.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Private schools have the advantage of picking and choosing their stdents. Public schools - not so much. It's similar to public health v private.
In either case the term is 'cherry picking'.
If public schools got to select out only the best students and weed out all the rest, I'm sure their costs would go down and their success rates go up.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
7%,
Have you read nothing I've posted?
You should know that I used to teach special ed. and that I posted about the difference in funding about 7 times on this forum and no one ever said "oh, let's correct that."
I don't read every thread, nor do I always comment when I see something I think is incorrect. I don't have a perfect memory even if I had seen it before, so I did not know you taught special ed. Some topics I pay attention to more than others, and if you said it in one of the "others," I probably missed it.
Quote:
No system without competition ever evolves. This one sure doesn't. For some reason liberals love the idea that private school should be only for the rich.
How would it not be? Explain to me how, as a fiscally conservative person opposed to big government (as I know you are from most threads I see), you are going to make it so that everyone in America receives the education that they should have (I'd say are entitled to)? You want private schools, but explain to me how the poor are going to pay to get their kids into good schools? Competition isn't going to change that.
Quote:
And the teachers were the same, me an my friend, but the students there actually wanted to learn, and knew stuff, and had resources. And this school was a $10K/year school, 2/3 of the budget of a NY public school.
That is nice for those kids. But what of the kids who don't have the resources, who were never taught that learning was important, or who are ignored by their parents? Privatization will throw kids like that right out of the system, and not look back to see where they landed. That's exactly the kind of kids that I see every day and try to turn into good and decent American citizens; kids who might not be good at school but who can at least read contracts and do well in interviews. I try to instill in them a love of learning and give them a chance they probably didn't get at home. Privatization is nothing more than a rich man's shell game; the poor will always be trying one second too late to find where the funding is. You're preaching a system guaranteed to leave some kids out while condemning a system that, while flawed, at least tries to help everyone (although without the necessary resources to do so).
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
Possibly, but I strongly doubt that these were the guiding factors. I think these private school students were selected on the basis of parents' income, not students' merit.
George W. Bush would not be an easy student to have in your classroom, esp. if you've read the stories.
I think if anything, fear of being kicked out helps a little. But the real guiding thing here is superior methods. A teacher in a rigid system can do only so much within the confines of the public school structure, in comparison to what they could do in another structure, say montessori, or whatever. There is room for competition and many ways of doing it. Socialism is a disaster in every other walk of life, I don't see why we stick with this socialized school structure. Same teachers, same students, different structure, things might change. Attitudes might change. It's at least worth trying both models side by side with equal govt. funding to test and see if maybe it might help. Something's gotta.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm coming at this issue from a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps I'm so far in left field we can't find enough common ground for discussion but, Sevenpercent, I'm actually interested in your point of view on this.
Nah. I can't recall once where you and I couldn't find common ground. I don't think this thread will be any different.
Quote:
My issues with the status quo of education center around the generally accepted notion that institutionalizing children is a good way to educate them. I don't buy that.
And I don't disagree. Which is why I'm against 30 kids or more in a classroom. Students learn best through small group or one-on-one interaction, it becomes institutionalizing when teachers have to mass produce lessons because they don't have the time for the one-on-ones, and have to cut out values ed because of lawsuits. But again, as per my point, more money for more teachers means less kids per room, means more interaction, means better learning. Can't get much simpler.
Quote:
I've seen many kids, including my own, find fantastic results by dropping out of school and pursuing education as a goal rather than 'schooling'. I'm curious what you think about this.
But I don't accept the notion that the average parent can't be trusted to make sure their children get a decent education.
I come out pretty hard vs. homeschooling, but hear me out. I know what I had to do to become a teacher, and the requirements have tightened even further in the few years I've been out. English teachers in my state need an Eng. degree, a speech degree, and a teaching certificate just to teach reading. We have to know how to teach reading as it relates to every other subject (and the new 'reading across the curriculum' thing has even math teachers trying to teach reading now).
So, here's my point. I know all that I know (and my specialty is writing), and did all that work, and all I am qualified to teach is English (well, I'm also certed in Soc. Studies, but I don't actually want to teach it). But I know next to nothing about math or science (I couldn't even answer the question about mollusks in this thread, and I'm a college graduate). I'm sure there are a lot of smart folks out there home schooling their kids. But do they have that level of knowledge in their subjects? I could home school my child in Eng., but I'm not qualified to teach them math - so how could I home school them in math? I'd send my kids to public or private school where I knew each instructor that my child had held at least a college graduate level knowledge base in their subject field.
I don't object to home schooling at an elementary level, certainly, but after that I think the subjects should (at the least) begin to become too complex for the average person to teach at home (especially high school level subjects like physics and calculus). I just don't see the average American possessing those skills - you know the people you see every day at work or hear on talk radio; do you think they have those skills?
Feel free to carry this to email, Sarge, if you want - that way we don't clog the thread (and I'll include anyone else that wants in to the response).
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME