urbanSTL

The school system in LA and NYC has made a lot of progress and they remain public.



Private schools is not an option.



Free K-12 is what made us a great nation.



We need to remove political infighting and focus on the students.



Get back to the basics.

Free K-12 is what made us a great nation.

Really? I thought it was the freedom supposedly protected by the Constitution. Nazi Germany, Fidel's Cuba, and Communist Russia all had free education. Public schools were only first introduced in America in the Northeast in 1852. It took years for them to spread. The literacy rate is lower today than it was before public schools.

In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.

http://www.mises.org/story/1425

I think those of us in favor of voucher/private schools should make clear that we do not wish to get rid of free education, we just want private citizens/companies running the schools versus the government. Right now the fat burocratic machine receives the money and tries to run X number of schools. For Y years their product (education) has been, well, I guess not as great as we would like it. And yet, since they have a monopoly, we continue to fund the only show in town. What makes us think THE GOVERNMENT knows how to run a school? The government doesn't run the airline industry. The government doesn't build the suburb. The government doesn't grow the food. This is America. Free markets, choice, competition. Sure the government throws out tax incentives, but it doesn't run the show top to bottom. And why not, because the government doesn't know what the @(!* it's doing. In most areas, the government admits that and praises the private sector for doing it right. Why they continue to think that they know how to manage the business of running a school is beyond me.



THE VOUCHER/PRIVATE SCHOOL SOLUTION:

We attach the money to the children. Private schools COMPETE for this children. Good schools, like Metro, entice PARENTS to send their kids to that school. Each child enrolled would grant that school X amount from the government. If the school does well, parents will leave their children in the school and more parents will ask to get their kids in, the school will grow and that school will continue to do well with even more money.



BUT SCHOOLS that SUCK with BAD TEACHERS and BAD ADMINSTRATORS won't hang on to students and will go out of business.



So what does that mean, schools that are good will stay open and teach students, schools that are bad will close. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?



I'll tell you. BAD TEACHERS would have a hard time keeping jobs at the GOOD schools. They would get fired because the schools would want to only have good teachers to attract more students. BAD ADMINSTRATORS don't like this idea any better. POLITICIANS don't like this idea because they need the union votes so they'd rather keep the BAD TEACHERS than lose the union votes. CORRUPT people don't like this idea because it's a lot easier skimming thousands from million dollar bloated budgets than from smaller private school budgets WHERE WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT YOU GET FIRED.



Just talking about it disgusts me. IF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM was a CORPORATION it would be BANKRUPT. NEW YORK, for example, spends $20,000,000 a year on teachers that don't even teach. (See my post about the rubber room). I don't call that improvement.



The voucher system makes perfect sense. Kids get a free education and because of competition they get a better education. The only people who get screwed are bad teachers, administrators, spineless politicians and crooks. And those are the people who are fighting to protect the current system.

YES, if a kid is disruptive and can't be helped he's out, just like at regular private schools. At some point enough is enough. It's a sad reality of life, but if we try to save everybody and make it perfect for everybody we're not going to make it great for anybody. Hopefully, if the student and/or his parents realize that HE/SHE is at fault for not getting an education HE/SHE can change his attitude and get into another school at a later date.



Bring a gun to school GOODBYE. Stab somebody in school GOODBYE. I'd rather give 9/10 students a great education than 10/10 students a mediocre one. I guess I believe in personal responsibility.



The private system works. It's not perfect. But I don't hear too many cases of kids suing PRIVATE SCHOOLS because they can't wear their KILL MY MOTHER t-shirt to school. You don't like the school go find another one. THAT's ONE OF THE BENEFITS, competition. Go to the school that fits for you, not the one YOU HAVE TO GO TO BECAUSE YOU LIVE ON XYZ STREET.

Ihnen wrote:
The government does run the airline industry, build the suburb and grow the food. Government subsidies and regulation determine whether industries and individual entities live or die every day.

Government regulation is diifferent from government flying, building and growing directly. The government RUNS the school systems but it does not fly the planes, build the buildings or farm the food. I still want government to PAY FOR IT, I just don't want government to spend it. When government spends money (in general) it doesn't get as much bang for it's buck as the private sector.

There should be a school accessible to the public for their education. What happens if a school shuts down? Students must travel further for their education - parents must spend more to get them there - this is an additional hardship.

As long as there are students in a community and as long as each student represents X dollars, someone will build a school to capitalize on the opportunity. If there are enough students, then a second, and then a third school will be built.



Now, granted, maybe in the middle of nowhere there would not be a financial reason to build a school. So how about this. If your school system ain't broke, don't fix it. Plenty of districts out there, like Ladue, are probably very happy with their school system and I don't see any reason to interfere with something that is already working.



But if the system has been broken for, I don't know, let's say 20 years, and is not getting any better any time fast, AND is in a major urban area, why not switch to the voucher system?

The StL public schools are a mess. The solution is difficult, but simple. Put more teachers in the schools (decrease class sizes), adequately fund books and teaching materials (so that teachers do not have to purchase these items themselves), add staff in order to enforce discipline. Do not close down schools, run away from the challenges and hope that starting over with a entirely new staff or in a new location will solve our problems.

More money, more money, more money. Money is not the answer. City public schools spend a TON of money. Like I said before, NYC spends 20 MILLION DOLLARS on teachers that don't even teach. Public schools run by government WASTE MONEY. Why? Because they can. Who is going to stop them? They have no competition. Then they say the only problem is lack of money, so you give them even more money. Why should two teachers, one who is outstanding and one who is terrible get paid the same thing? Shouldn't promotions and salary increases be based on skill, commitment and effort? NOT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.



It's easy to say give me 10X the money and I'll give you a better school. The real challenge is to STOP WASTING MONEY and spend the money like you would if you were running a business.



NYC could probably buy a lot of textbooks and hire more teachers if they didn't have to keep the bad teachers, who don't even teach, on the payroll in the rubber room. Did I mention NYC spends TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ON THOSE TEACHERS. They sit around all day and read Vanity Fair. What is that? No one ever tries to defend this because it's just insane.



More money is not the answer.



And like I said, if a school ain't broke, don't fix it. I should limit my suggestion for voucher systems for schools that don't work, and aren't going to ever work despite the many noble people who try to fix it.



Someone told me the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. While I respect your opinion and your desire to improve the current system, I think it is inherently flawed and does not serve the students as well as a voucher system could.



And while I realize that many public school systems provide wonderful educations, that doesn't seem to be the case in major metropolitan areas like New York, Boston and St. Louis.

And that's probably why I get so mad because I know inevitably a voucher system is probably not in the cards. Maybe in a way, your solutions are better because they can actually be implemented. And for what it's worth, your solutions are right on, except for the mo' money part. Although, I can't see how mo' money would hurt, even if it gets wasted it doesn't hurt.



It's just so sad that it's gotten this bad. Obviously, public schools CAN work. Look at Ladue. But in inner cities they are not working. Sure they all have some trophy schools but they are the expection rather than the rule.



innov8ion said that since the school board is so politically entrenched they won't conduct the necessary reforms. I fear that it is probably true.



Maybe one day some superhero will come with a hammer and smash it all down and build something beautiful in it's place. I play lotto too.

I belive this is the link you want.



http://dese.mo.gov/schooldata/four/115115/finanone.html



That should give you the financial data for the St. Louis City school district. If you poke around the state education website more, you can find other school districts.

I think some schools spend 12k but the average is closer to 10k. Even so, the articles point out that many schools are doing more with less money. The point is that the St. Louis inner city schools are NOT underfunded, they just don't spend the money wisely. It reminds me of the first credit card my parents gave me for emergencies and why it got taken away. The solution was not to give me more money. Although, maybe I should have tried that one.



http://www.pubdef.net/slswatch/2005/11/ ... agnet.html



http://countenance.wordpress.com/2006/0 ... l-players/

Let's explore that. Why do you have to spend more money if a child is poor?