Oh I agree with you there(buckethead). The city has many challenges that make teaching the students far more difficult. Those are the problems we should be targeting, not throwing more money at the situation. Vouchers would at least allow those who want to learn, to attend a quality school where now they have few options unless they have the $$$ to pay for good schools.
- 11K
IMO - the effect of white flight and vouchers have some parallels. When more affluent students leave a school the problems are only increased. As this happens we're asking for more from teachers with a class that is probably representative of the bottom 20% of students. This makes it unreasonable to have similar and greater student/teacher ratios. Regardless of the cause, teachers in the city are expected to educate kids that are disproportionately from broken homes, kids that are caretakers for their parents, kids who have witnessed violent crime, kids who do not eat well, kids who do not excersize. I understand that these are vast generalities, but all together the effect is very dramatic.
Maybe it's illustrative to look at it this way - in Ladue we're asking teachers to educate children of affluent college graduates, who are quite possibly the children of college graduates. There are bad teachers in Ladue, but they're not noticed in the same way as in the city. There are very good teachers in the city, but they are asking a kid who has most likely never stepped foot on a college campus, a kid who may very well not know anyone who's been to college and is surrounded by like-experienced peers to prepare themselves for additonal school, or a production career otherwise.
Past and current housing policies, welfare, the social safety net, racism, etc. etc. have failed our inner cities - and our inner city schools.
Maybe it's illustrative to look at it this way - in Ladue we're asking teachers to educate children of affluent college graduates, who are quite possibly the children of college graduates. There are bad teachers in Ladue, but they're not noticed in the same way as in the city. There are very good teachers in the city, but they are asking a kid who has most likely never stepped foot on a college campus, a kid who may very well not know anyone who's been to college and is surrounded by like-experienced peers to prepare themselves for additonal school, or a production career otherwise.
Past and current housing policies, welfare, the social safety net, racism, etc. etc. have failed our inner cities - and our inner city schools.
- 1,493
The schools themselves can't fix our social issues, but they can use vouchers to allow those who want to overcome a fighting chance in a good school without having to shell out 10k+ for that education out of their own pocket( a cost that keeps the poor uneducated, which is a liability for society).Ihnen wrote:IMO - the effect of white flight and vouchers have some parallels. When more affluent students leave a school the problems are only increased. As this happens we're asking for more from teachers with a class that is probably representative of the bottom 20% of students. This makes it unreasonable to have similar and greater student/teacher ratios. Regardless of the cause, teachers in the city are expected to educate kids that are disproportionately from broken homes, kids that are caretakers for their parents, kids who have witnessed violent crime, kids who do not eat well, kids who do not excersize. I understand that these are vast generalities, but all together the effect is very dramatic.
Maybe it's illustrative to look at it this way - in Ladue we're asking teachers to educate children of affluent college graduates, who are quite possibly the children of college graduates. There are bad teachers in Ladue, but they're not noticed in the same way as in the city. There are very good teachers in the city, but they are asking a kid who has most likely never stepped foot on a college campus, a kid who may very well not know anyone who's been to college and is surrounded by like-experienced peers to prepare themselves for additonal school, or a production career otherwise.
Past and current housing policies, welfare, the social safety net, racism, etc. etc. have failed our inner cities - and our inner city schools.
^ I agree with your post Ihnen. But I want to separate the money issue from other challenges. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that certain school districts are more attractive to teachers and thereby are capable of attracting better teachers. It's also fair to conclude that certain school districts are going to achieve higher academic results because the students in those districts are more equipped to learn, whether that is because they have tutors or a better home environment that helps them focus more on their studies. But I have yet to see why more money needs to be spent because the student body is disadvantaged. There might be come costs like social counselors etc that are needed in the poorer districts, but it doesn't explain why inner cities school lack text books and have fewer teachers per student. That money is going somewhere and I don't think it's reaching the classrooms. I think the money is just being wasted in these poorer districts and being lost in the burocratic process. I can't back this up but it just seems to make sense to me that way. But I could definitely be wrong and would be happy to be enlightened if I am.
^ I also agree with Urban in that vouchers would give the disadvantaged students who WANT to learn a better chance at a solid education.
^ I also agree with Urban in that vouchers would give the disadvantaged students who WANT to learn a better chance at a solid education.
- 11K
I think the money is just being wasted in these poorer districts and being lost in the burocratic process.
This is
and 
. Perhaps city administrators were educated in the city schools . . .I also agree with Urban in that vouchers would give the disadvantaged students who WANT to learn a better chance at a solid education.
This is true - I only feel that the students who remain (for whatever reason - and no 5-year-old either WANTS to learn or doesn't want to learn) are left even worse off.
So I agree that money seems to be used poorly in city schools - surely this has/can be looked into. Wouldn't the public school budgets be public? If everything else was equal, I think lower student/teacher ratios would be needed in the city to overcome social obsticles, etc.
^ Maybe we should send letters to 20/20 and Dateline and ask them to do some investigative reporting.
Corruption is part of life and I'd like to think less so here than in many other countries. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the NYC school system is rampant with it. The NY Post and The Daily News often publish pieces about Principals that somehow work full time for numerous schools while being caught on tape shopping at the malls in New Jersey. Stuff like that really gets to me and is probably partially why I prefer private systems that seem to be more accountable. But in light of Enron I realize that such abuse is not limited to the public sector.
The only difference is that my tax dollars didn't go to Enron. My sympathies to the poor workers who were robbed of their pensions though.
If it was up to me I'd stop spending billions on the drug war and start spending them on fighting corruption--not to start another thread.
But everytime we hear about corruption in the public sector, it just encourages more people to not want to pay their fair share of taxes because they don't like what it's being spent on.
I hope I haven't started too many new threads with this post. I'm on fire today.
Corruption is part of life and I'd like to think less so here than in many other countries. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the NYC school system is rampant with it. The NY Post and The Daily News often publish pieces about Principals that somehow work full time for numerous schools while being caught on tape shopping at the malls in New Jersey. Stuff like that really gets to me and is probably partially why I prefer private systems that seem to be more accountable. But in light of Enron I realize that such abuse is not limited to the public sector.
The only difference is that my tax dollars didn't go to Enron. My sympathies to the poor workers who were robbed of their pensions though.
If it was up to me I'd stop spending billions on the drug war and start spending them on fighting corruption--not to start another thread.
But everytime we hear about corruption in the public sector, it just encourages more people to not want to pay their fair share of taxes because they don't like what it's being spent on.
I hope I haven't started too many new threads with this post. I'm on fire today.
- 1,493
The whole point is that once enough students leave, the school will be forced to close(either by law or economics). Their parents would force them to do so if a school performed poorly, it's not the kids choosing where they attend it's their parents. Once the school closes all remaining students would then be forced to choose a new school, which presumably would be a better school since it would still be in "business".Ihnen wrote:This is true - I only feel that the students who remain (for whatever reason - and no 5-year-old either WANTS to learn or doesn't want to learn) are left even worse off.
- 11K
The whole point is that once enough students leave, the school will be forced to close(either by law or economics). Their parents would force them to do so if a school performed poorly, it's not the kids choosing where they attend it's their parents. Once the school closes all remaining students would then be forced to choose a new school, which presumably would be a better school since it would still be in "business".
I definitely understand your point, but parents often do not make (or aren't capable of making) rational choices for their children. Of course if your idea would help to creat a better system in a couple years I'd be all for it. But how is this idea not just asking teachers to work harder - maybe teachers everywhere could work a little harder - but what about teachers who work very hard, work miracles and the result is 30% literacy in their 6th grade class instead of 20%?
- 1,493
^Huh? I don't understand how using vouchers makes all teachers work harder. What it does sdo is hold the school as a whole accountable for results. All vouchers do is allow the poor the same mobility the rich have had forever. The rich just move to a new neighborhood when they want to changes districts or pay for private education. The poor have neither option. This levels the playing field and at the same time forces poor schools to shut down. The good teachers from those schools would easily be assimilated into the remaining schools? Don't try to change this into an argument about how hard some teachers work, I'm talking about giving the poor a right to choose a better education.
Also if parents aren't going to make the best choice for their child, I don't see how the voucher system makes that any worse. How does forcing 300 students to attend a very poor school benefit the child whose parents don't care? It doesn't. If anything it is in that student's best interest to have that school closed so that their parents will be forced to then place them in another school. Bad schools would be forced to close, not be allowed to fester. Non-caring parents is a social issue that neither the current system nor vouchers will fix. Those problems have to be targeted in different ways. We have to try and help the most people possible.
Also if parents aren't going to make the best choice for their child, I don't see how the voucher system makes that any worse. How does forcing 300 students to attend a very poor school benefit the child whose parents don't care? It doesn't. If anything it is in that student's best interest to have that school closed so that their parents will be forced to then place them in another school. Bad schools would be forced to close, not be allowed to fester. Non-caring parents is a social issue that neither the current system nor vouchers will fix. Those problems have to be targeted in different ways. We have to try and help the most people possible.
- 11K
I don't understand how using vouchers makes all teachers work harder
I'm just saying that as the aptitude of the students in a classroom decreases (student who want to learn or are being held back move on to another school) the challenge for the teacher becomes more difficult. My fear is that this the voucher system/closing failing schools becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we would be saying, "The best students in an already failing school are going to leave and if the remaining students don't suddenly acheive more than the better students who just left, we'll shut down your school!"
- 1,493
Exactaly. If a school underperformes to a point where students start to leave, then that school is shut down. That is the purpose of the voucher system, to force schools that are poor at teaching to close. If a school is good, then the students will remain and the school will stay open. The bad schools would close, and remaining students would than disperse out to the remaining schools which should in theory be bette since they have surived in the market.Ihnen wrote: "The best students in an already failing school are going to leave and if the remaining students don't suddenly acheive more than the better students who just left, we'll shut down your school!"
This allows for a mix of students, just like in the suburbs. All of the top students would no longer be concentrated into a few schools as they are now. That imbalance is why Metro and private schools thrive, and public schools fail.
I think you are assuming that only the smarter more motivated kids will take the initiative to leave to better schools. Why? If not for a better education, what about better accomodations or who knows what, or just to stay with your friends. If one school is absolute garbage and another one rocks, what would you choose?
I also don't want to let the better schools CHOOSE their students. No tests and admissions criteria. The voucher system should be distinguished from the current private school system. These better schools will not be FOR THE GIFTED only. In my version, I would prefer first come, first serve service EXCEPT I would give the school the right to kick students out if they are disruptive or violent etc. This would have to be regulated because obviously a school can help itself by recruiting the best and the brightest. But I think this is getting a little ahead of ourselves.
ANd if a school is so great that we get a waiting line to get in, then since they are FOR PROFIT, they can just open a second school and a third school just like McDonald's. Education Inc. Over 1,000,000 educated! The WALMART of education. Bring it!
I also don't want to let the better schools CHOOSE their students. No tests and admissions criteria. The voucher system should be distinguished from the current private school system. These better schools will not be FOR THE GIFTED only. In my version, I would prefer first come, first serve service EXCEPT I would give the school the right to kick students out if they are disruptive or violent etc. This would have to be regulated because obviously a school can help itself by recruiting the best and the brightest. But I think this is getting a little ahead of ourselves.
ANd if a school is so great that we get a waiting line to get in, then since they are FOR PROFIT, they can just open a second school and a third school just like McDonald's. Education Inc. Over 1,000,000 educated! The WALMART of education. Bring it!
- 1,493
^Yes, exactaly how I see it too. The few holdouts that for some reason or another do not switch to a better school voluntarily, will be forced to do so once that school is closed.
I'm just going to ask a few questions. I haven't decided about this yet.
So in this plan, the bad schools close. Most likely this will be the schools in the low income neighborhoods. Isn't it entirely possible that a large amount of city schools will close with regard to a particular region and encourage a lot of moving around? There could be almost no schools in all of North St Louis City. Even though people can drive, aren't people going to want to live somewhat closer to their school system? If everyone North of MLK in the City decides to drive to the southside aren't we just giving people more reason to move out of already struggling neighborhoods? How would the bussing system work? Without any consistency to an area vs. where they are going to school, is everyone going to have to drive to school? People wouldn't be guaranteed a close walk to school. Again, this might encourage density shifts. I'm just asking.
So in this plan, the bad schools close. Most likely this will be the schools in the low income neighborhoods. Isn't it entirely possible that a large amount of city schools will close with regard to a particular region and encourage a lot of moving around? There could be almost no schools in all of North St Louis City. Even though people can drive, aren't people going to want to live somewhat closer to their school system? If everyone North of MLK in the City decides to drive to the southside aren't we just giving people more reason to move out of already struggling neighborhoods? How would the bussing system work? Without any consistency to an area vs. where they are going to school, is everyone going to have to drive to school? People wouldn't be guaranteed a close walk to school. Again, this might encourage density shifts. I'm just asking.
The idea is that Education Inc. will build schools to attract clients (aka students and parents). It is reasonable to assume that they will build schools IN neighborhoods where schools are needed, where they feel the Education Inc. product will sell more than the current product that is already available.
How you would pay for these new schools and continue to fund the public system during the transition is beyond my ability, but imagine 5-10 years down the road. If a neighborhood is only being served by Arby's, you can expect to see McDonald's and Burger King opening soon. Burger King won't expect people in that neighborhood to drive 10 miles for a Whopper.
Since the money is attached to the student, schools, including NEW schools will compete for the student. One way to compete is to offer something closer to the student, ergo a new school built in a neighborhood that is currently being underserved.
We are not suggesting that all the schools in the inner city close and that inner city kids take buses to schools in the county.
We want to replace the current schools with NEW private sector schools, schools that are not run by the government. The new schools could even buy the buildings from the government where we already have schools. The main thing is WHO is running the school. I want private companies to do it, not government.
Then once all the schools are being run by private companies, the good schools will flourish and the bad schools will close because students will have the ability to switch schools like they switch cell phone carriers. Obviously, we would want to provide an incentive to stay in the same school for your complete education, but again those are details that I would leave to the experts.
How you would pay for these new schools and continue to fund the public system during the transition is beyond my ability, but imagine 5-10 years down the road. If a neighborhood is only being served by Arby's, you can expect to see McDonald's and Burger King opening soon. Burger King won't expect people in that neighborhood to drive 10 miles for a Whopper.
Since the money is attached to the student, schools, including NEW schools will compete for the student. One way to compete is to offer something closer to the student, ergo a new school built in a neighborhood that is currently being underserved.
We are not suggesting that all the schools in the inner city close and that inner city kids take buses to schools in the county.
We want to replace the current schools with NEW private sector schools, schools that are not run by the government. The new schools could even buy the buildings from the government where we already have schools. The main thing is WHO is running the school. I want private companies to do it, not government.
Then once all the schools are being run by private companies, the good schools will flourish and the bad schools will close because students will have the ability to switch schools like they switch cell phone carriers. Obviously, we would want to provide an incentive to stay in the same school for your complete education, but again those are details that I would leave to the experts.
Isn't it possible to end up with similar problems though?
I mean you talk about competition, but another way to compete is to provide cheaper products to areas with less income. Neighborhoods of low income often see cheap, crappy grocery stores that aren't run very well and outdated equipment, few retail options, and lots of dirty fast food restaurants. They sell weaker product at a lower price. Doesn't it stand to reason that this same principle can be applied in the private sector of schooling? That the low income neighborhoods will get the school equivalent of a dirty and poorly run Taco Bell?
I mean you talk about competition, but another way to compete is to provide cheaper products to areas with less income. Neighborhoods of low income often see cheap, crappy grocery stores that aren't run very well and outdated equipment, few retail options, and lots of dirty fast food restaurants. They sell weaker product at a lower price. Doesn't it stand to reason that this same principle can be applied in the private sector of schooling? That the low income neighborhoods will get the school equivalent of a dirty and poorly run Taco Bell?
- 1,493
You raise some very valid concerns. I would hope that parents would be serious enough about education, that if the scenario you describe begins to occur, then they will simply tranfer to a school that is further away, yet better. If enough people do this, then it wiill force the closer schools to maintain quality education.stlmike wrote:Isn't it possible to end up with similar problems though?
I mean you talk about competition, but another way to compete is to provide cheaper products to areas with less income. Neighborhoods of low income often see cheap, crappy grocery stores that aren't run very well and outdated equipment, few retail options, and lots of dirty fast food restaurants. They sell weaker product at a lower price. Doesn't it stand to reason that this same principle can be applied in the private sector of schooling? That the low income neighborhoods will get the school equivalent of a dirty and poorly run Taco Bell?
The schools in the poorest areas alrady have the worst supplies/facilities, can it really be any worse than it already is? At least under the voucher system students will have the option of moving to a better school, while right now there is not way out unless you are middle class or above.
- 687
But for many of the parents in the low income neighbors transferring to another school isn't an option with or without vouchers. Many do not have their own vehicle to provide their own transportation and for others working 2 jobs or late shifts do not have the time.
So even if they are serious about education it might be a problem. However, then you have the other end of the spectrum, which may be a majority, that are not as serious about education and are going to choose the most convenient school no matter how bad it is.
So even if they are serious about education it might be a problem. However, then you have the other end of the spectrum, which may be a majority, that are not as serious about education and are going to choose the most convenient school no matter how bad it is.
- 1,493
Again, at least the option would be on the table whereas now there is no option at all. It can't get worse than it is now, any change at all would be for the bettter.buckethead wrote:So even if they are serious about education it might be a problem. However, then you have the other end of the spectrum, which may be a majority, that are not as serious about education and are going to choose the most convient school no matter how bad it is.
This policy would especially help with getting middle class families into the city since they would not need to pay for private school, which as we all know is the first thing suburban families throw in your face as their reason for not living in the city.
Vouchers do almost nothing to address the real problems of inner-city schools.
The problems are not bad teachers, corrupt administrations, waste, fraud, laziness, or unions. The problems stem from social issues that arise from concentrated poverty. Not that the other problems don't exist - they are indeed found in any school system or indeed any walk of life.
We have schools that face an inordinate amount of children that have major social issues that are poverty related. Some of them have learning disabilities stemming from drug/alchohol abuse. Many of them have disadvantaged home envioronments (parents uneducated, single parent, parent's job leaves no time for child, abusive parent). Some of these parents care, but wouldn't know a good education (because they are the product of this same endemic poverty) or how to go about getting one for their child. Others don't care.
How exactly do proponents of a voucher system propose that all children are transported to the school of their choice. If transportation isn't involved, it's not much of a choice, is it?
If you kick out any disruptive children, does that mean they have to find another school? what if they get kicked out of that one? How many strikes until a child is out? How many kids are we prepared to give up on? How many burger-flippers do we need?
City schools spend more per student and rightly so. They have by far the most difficult (per capita) educational task. Who do you suppose that is costs more to educate: a child from a stable middle-class background or one with a learning disability / social disorder / disadvantaged or uneducated family? These kids arrive at school already behind their more advantaged counterparts and continuous testing and penalizing their schools does nothing to address that. They just continue to fall further and further behind because we don't address the root causes.
Consider this scenario: A private company opens a school in the inner-city where no other schools are willing to locate. Many local parents choose this school because it is convenient and they don't want their kids to spend long times on busses to get to other schools. Every child gets the same amount of voucher, so the school gets the same amount of money as a school in the burbs with the same enrollment. However, the kids in this neighborhood have a higher percentage of problems (stemming from poverty, lead paint, etc). Soon, the school finds out that it costs more to educate these kids. Therefor, they cannot compete with the other schools.
How exactly does this change anything?
The problems are not bad teachers, corrupt administrations, waste, fraud, laziness, or unions. The problems stem from social issues that arise from concentrated poverty. Not that the other problems don't exist - they are indeed found in any school system or indeed any walk of life.
We have schools that face an inordinate amount of children that have major social issues that are poverty related. Some of them have learning disabilities stemming from drug/alchohol abuse. Many of them have disadvantaged home envioronments (parents uneducated, single parent, parent's job leaves no time for child, abusive parent). Some of these parents care, but wouldn't know a good education (because they are the product of this same endemic poverty) or how to go about getting one for their child. Others don't care.
How exactly do proponents of a voucher system propose that all children are transported to the school of their choice. If transportation isn't involved, it's not much of a choice, is it?
If you kick out any disruptive children, does that mean they have to find another school? what if they get kicked out of that one? How many strikes until a child is out? How many kids are we prepared to give up on? How many burger-flippers do we need?
City schools spend more per student and rightly so. They have by far the most difficult (per capita) educational task. Who do you suppose that is costs more to educate: a child from a stable middle-class background or one with a learning disability / social disorder / disadvantaged or uneducated family? These kids arrive at school already behind their more advantaged counterparts and continuous testing and penalizing their schools does nothing to address that. They just continue to fall further and further behind because we don't address the root causes.
Consider this scenario: A private company opens a school in the inner-city where no other schools are willing to locate. Many local parents choose this school because it is convenient and they don't want their kids to spend long times on busses to get to other schools. Every child gets the same amount of voucher, so the school gets the same amount of money as a school in the burbs with the same enrollment. However, the kids in this neighborhood have a higher percentage of problems (stemming from poverty, lead paint, etc). Soon, the school finds out that it costs more to educate these kids. Therefor, they cannot compete with the other schools.
How exactly does this change anything?
- 1,493
Maybe, maybe not. It does however allow a choice that could attract middle class famalies back into the city.bab wrote: Vouchers do almost nothing to address the real problems of inner-city schools.
100% agree. There are serious social issues that vouchers will not solve....as I conceded 1 or 2 pages ago. How to tackle these issues is seperate from giving everyone a more equal(not completely equal, that would be impossible) opportunity to learn.The problems are not bad teachers, corrupt administrations, waste, fraud, laziness, or unions. The problems stem from social issues that arise from concentrated poverty. Not that the other problems don't exist - they are indeed found in any school system or indeed any walk of life.
Again, more social problems. The social issues will evaporate when we can dilute the concentration of poverty in neighborhoods, but what middle class family is going to move into the city and have to pay 10k+ per child ofr school when they can get it for free in the suburbs? We have to allow them the opportunity to edcate their kids free, just as they do in the burbs, to seriously hope to ever bring the city totally back.We have schools that face an inordinate amount of children that have major social issues that are poverty related. Some of them have learning disabilities stemming from drug/alchohol abuse. Many of them have disadvantaged home envioronments (parents uneducated, single parent, parent's job leaves no time for child, abusive parent). Some of these parents care, but wouldn't know a good education (because they are the product of this same endemic poverty) or how to go about getting one for their child. Others don't care.
Doesn't the current school system use(or it did use) public transit to get soem children to school? We can do the same thing, issue bus passes. This is just one suggestion.How exactly do proponents of a voucher system propose that all children are transported to the school of their choice. If transportation isn't involved, it's not much of a choice, is it?
It would be the same level of act required now to be expelled from public schools. We'd "kick out" the same number of students. The key is for the schools to be a mix of incomes, like in the suburbs. You make classes for advanced students, and classes for problem students. Then you have specialized teachers for each class.If you kick out any disruptive children, does that mean they have to find another school? what if they get kicked out of that one? How many strikes until a child is out? How many kids are we prepared to give up on? How many burger-flippers do we need?
100% agree. Perhaps some form of increased government subsidy for schools based on the household income of their parents?City schools spend more per student and rightly so. They have by far the most difficult (per capita) educational task. Who do you suppose that is costs more to educate: a child from a stable middle-class background or one with a learning disability / social disorder / disadvantaged or uneducated family? These kids arrive at school already behind their more advantaged counterparts and continuous testing and penalizing their schools does nothing to address that. They just continue to fall further and further behind because we don't address the root causes.
It allows those students to choose another school if this one fails, thus distributing the "problem cases" more evenly throught the system.Consider this scenario: A private company opens a school in the inner-city where no other schools are willing to locate. Many local parents choose this school because it is convenient and they don't want their kids to spend long times on busses to get to other schools. Every child gets the same amount of voucher, so the school gets the same amount of money as a school in the burbs with the same enrollment. However, the kids in this neighborhood have a higher percentage of problems (stemming from poverty, lead paint, etc). Soon, the school finds out that it costs more to educate these kids. Therefor, they cannot compete with the other schools.
How exactly does this change anything?
bab wrote:Consider this scenario: A private company opens a school in the inner-city where no other schools are willing to locate. Many local parents choose this school because it is convenient and they don't want their kids to spend long times on busses to get to other schools. Every child gets the same amount of voucher, so the school gets the same amount of money as a school in the burbs with the same enrollment. However, the kids in this neighborhood have a higher percentage of problems (stemming from poverty, lead paint, etc). Soon, the school finds out that it costs more to educate these kids. Therefor, they cannot compete with the other schools.
How exactly does this change anything?
You have replaced one monopoly with another so I don't think it would change anything. Perhaps I am naive, but I would like to think that in addition to Education, Inc., Schools R Us, Inc. and Learn, Inc. will open their doors also to compete for those dollars. Perhaps schools that provide special classes for kids with verifiable disabilities such as autism can receive more money.
But they may not even need more money. The private sector is good at making each dollar stretch further. The private sector will not spend 20 MILLION dollars a year on teachers that don't teach. The private sector isn't insane like that. They will spend the money wisely and get more bang for each buck. Assuming more than 1 school opens in the area, you will have competition and each school will try to outdo the other to gets those dollars.
And if some kids have too many problems and can't sit down in a chair for 40 minutes and bahave, then screw them, I'm willing to sacrifice them for the greater good.
I'm sure somebody will start another program to help kids that people like me are willing to give up on. That may not be a popular view, but I see no reason to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a kid who is destined to wind up in jail or dead by the time he's 25.
stlmike wrote:Isn't it possible to end up with similar problems though?
I mean you talk about competition, but another way to compete is to provide cheaper products to areas with less income. Neighborhoods of low income often see cheap, crappy grocery stores that aren't run very well and outdated equipment, few retail options, and lots of dirty fast food restaurants. They sell weaker product at a lower price. Doesn't it stand to reason that this same principle can be applied in the private sector of schooling? That the low income neighborhoods will get the school equivalent of a dirty and poorly run Taco Bell?
The reason this would not happen is because each kid is worth the same amount of money whether they live in Clayton or the City. In your example the people in the low income neighborhood have less money to spend so the shops stack more low quality products. Here the clients (parents) will have the same amount of income to spend.
- 11K
And if some kids have too many problems and can't sit down in a chair for 40 minutes and bahave, then screw them, I'm willing to sacrifice them for the greater good.
I'm sure somebody will start another program to help kids that people like me are willing to give up on. That may not be a popular view, but I see no reason to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a kid who is destined to wind up in jail or dead by the time he's 25.
Well, that ends the conversation for me.
- 1,493
Good points Tax Guru and let me thrown one more thing in.
The city must regain middle class families to have a long term future. Probably one of the best ways to do this is not to try to lure back people from the burbs so much, but rather RETAIN the young professionals as they create families of their own. I'm moving to to the city because frankly the suburbs are boring and lack culture.
But say in 7 years I have school age children. If they do not get into Metro, and I cannot spare 10k+ a year per child for private school, what choices do I have? I can either send them to a horrendous school, or begrudgingly return to the suburbs. What do you think EVERY parent is going to do? They are going to sacrifice their city lifestyle to allow their kids to get a proper education. Vouchers can get these couples another option, stay in the city and pick a great school for your child. That's even MORE flexible than in the suburbs as you could change school at will without moving!
Think long term people, we must regain the middle class, and the education system on one of the primary things standing in our way. Vouchers will change little overnight, but in the long term it can have a great impact as more education options become available and the middle class returns to the city.
The city must regain middle class families to have a long term future. Probably one of the best ways to do this is not to try to lure back people from the burbs so much, but rather RETAIN the young professionals as they create families of their own. I'm moving to to the city because frankly the suburbs are boring and lack culture.
But say in 7 years I have school age children. If they do not get into Metro, and I cannot spare 10k+ a year per child for private school, what choices do I have? I can either send them to a horrendous school, or begrudgingly return to the suburbs. What do you think EVERY parent is going to do? They are going to sacrifice their city lifestyle to allow their kids to get a proper education. Vouchers can get these couples another option, stay in the city and pick a great school for your child. That's even MORE flexible than in the suburbs as you could change school at will without moving!
Think long term people, we must regain the middle class, and the education system on one of the primary things standing in our way. Vouchers will change little overnight, but in the long term it can have a great impact as more education options become available and the middle class returns to the city.