PUBLIC EDUCATION

[nine]

An article that examines states that have already implemented school voucher programs.  
 

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/most-students-getting-new-school-choice-funds-arent-ditching-public-schools/2023/10

 

Vouchers are pitched as giving families more options for better education.   Sounds amazing, right?   
 

But studies have shown that 70-90% of these vouchers pay for students who never attended public schools.  The vast majority are redeemed by high-income families whose children have always attended private schools…or to a lesser extent,  children who were previously home-schooled.   Only a very small percentage of vouchers are used by children who previously attended public schools. 
 

Voucher programs sound great  in theory….but in practice, they’re just de-funding public schools to subsidize students who were already attending private schools.  This  the reality of how voucher programs actually work:   families who can already afford private education now have taxpayers footing the bill….by diverting money from public schools. 
 

Another example of legislation being sold as a program for middle- and low-income families….but the upper class high-income earners end up reaping all the benefits.     Funny how that works.  

[Mythos27]

13 hours ago, Titandan said:

I went to a public school about 30 years ago.  I didn't get fed leftist ideology back then or I was too disinterested or stupid to realize anything they were trying to teach me.  But I do believe my education I received was not the best.  It's still better than what they are teaching in the inner city where I currently reside.  But yeah, overall, I would say the quality was not great. 

Outside of political brainwashing and or national indoctrination, I believe the best way to get diversity of thought and improvement in quality of education overall would be to force teachers and the schools to compete.  

Why is it good to have competition for most other products and services but not in education?  This debate is probably as old as time but that's just my opinion.  I think competition is good for the consumer.  Monopoly is good for the company or the government entity.  

Competition is fine but it's impossible to have competition when the current conditions in teaching are generating nation-wide teacher shortages. I think that private schools have their place but so do public schools. Personally, I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is a massive expansion of trade schools. I think this would improve public school education in so many ways that it would take me hours to explain. The stigma against trade schools/ blue collar labor in general needs to die ASAP. 

[Rogue]

13 hours ago, Titandan said:

Department of Education oversees spending and funding for the education system. Whenever money's involved, I see possibility of corruption and inefficiency in system.  Public school funds mainly come through county taxes or property tax (at least where I live).  But the Department of Education still has a say in how the schools function.  I can talk to my friend who's a principle of a prominent high school in LA but haven't had the chance to yet.  

If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.  I just prefer privatized education to public and if I have the money in the future, I'll definitely opt for that.  My boy, Obama, agrees with me. 

You didn't look it up.  Just going with the gut, I see.  

[Titandan]

1 hour ago, Mythos27 said:

Competition is fine but it's impossible to have competition when the current conditions in teaching are generating nation-wide teacher shortages. I think that private schools have their place but so do public schools. Personally, I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is a massive expansion of trade schools. I think this would improve public school education in so many ways that it would take me hours to explain. The stigma against trade schools/ blue collar labor in general needs to die ASAP. 

I would think that the more successful schools will have higher pay for teachers and administrators since they will be earning more money due to more students.  

 

Teachers not earning enough money is another problem with the public school system.  I would also like to think that as teacher's salaries rise, more qualified people will opt to major in education and become teachers. 

 

But the really interesting thing that I read is that a lot of self-made millionaires are/were teachers. There's something about that profession that's conducive to the steady discipline of regularly investing in broad market index funds and delayed gratification. 

[Titandan]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

You didn't look it up.  Just going with the gut, I see.  

I looked it up.  But feel free to correct me.  Don't have time to look up every detail as I'm not too familiar with the Department of Education.  But less bureaucracy is generally a good thing. 

[CreepingDeath]

39 minutes ago, Titandan said:

I would think that the more successful schools will have higher pay for teachers and administrators since they will be earning more money due to more students.  

How do you see this working out?

- School hires a teacher for the entire school year (the chances are low that there will be an "amazing" teacher waiting around unemployed)

- Teacher is okay but doesn't rock the boat.

- School keeps that teacher

 

If there is a problem with a teacher, the school can't quickly solve it into a magical situation.  

 

Do you think schools poach good teachers from other schools?  I'm pretty sure teachers have to be actively looking for a new position, they aren't contacted by schools.

 

Also, families generally get "locked" into schools due to the kids making friends.  A situation has to be pretty shit for a family to uproot.

[CreepingDeath]

Also:  "Earning more money due to having more students"

 

Tell me this isn't your first day in Capitalism-land.  Do you really think the money-makers would hire more LABOR when they can just cram more students into a room?  More students = less individual attention per student = comparatively worse education (considering all of the variables).

 

"Oh, but in my Utopia Capitalism Land, schools would hire more teachers."  Okay, where are they going to teach?  There is a limited amount of space in a building.  Now you need to fund a new building.  Guess what that means, freeze the labor costs!  No raises or fewer teachers (bigger class sizes).

 

Oh?  Your propaganda youtube/podcast/24-7news told ya how to fix da publix educamashion?  Riiiight.  We all know the easiest fix is to post the 10 Commandments in the classroom.   

[Mythos27]

17 minutes ago, CreepingDeath said:

How do you see this working out?

- School hires a teacher for the entire school year (the chances are low that there will be an "amazing" teacher waiting around unemployed)

- Teacher is okay but doesn't rock the boat.

- School keeps that teacher

 

If there is a problem with a teacher, the school can't quickly solve it into a magical situation.  

 

Do you think schools poach good teachers from other schools?  I'm pretty sure teachers have to be actively looking for a new position, they aren't contacted by schools.

 

Also, families generally get "locked" into schools due to the kids making friends.  A situation has to be pretty shit for a family to uproot.

Americans have this inherent desire to treat everything like "a business". The best teachers aren't the cut-throat climbers that are itching to leave their school for the most prestigious schools in the country. The best teachers are generally people who grew up in that community, are loyal to that community and have a passion for working with children and know how to relate to them. I've seen motherfuckers that literally worked at NASA get eaten alive by a freshmen class and last less than a year. Everything isn't a business and the closer things are to a public service/good, the worse societal outcomes you get if you try to treat them as such. Most Americans think they just because they went to school 20+ years ago they know anything about education. They don't know shit tbh. 

[pat]

More money for more teachers for more students doesn't increase teacher pay or reduce teacher student ratio dingleberry 

 

Most of these algorithms tend to reward schools where parents can supplement the budget.  Ie look these rich kids with tutors have better test scores, let's give their school more money.  And oh look this school full of poor kids who miss class every few days because they have to help their parents work has poor test scores, let's take away their funding.

 

It's all about focusing services on the rich while regressively taxing the poor.

 

 

[Mythos27]

40 minutes ago, pat said:

More money for more teachers for more students doesn't increase teacher pay or reduce teacher student ratio dingleberry 

 

Most of these algorithms tend to reward schools where parents can supplement the budget.  Ie look these rich kids with tutors have better test scores, let's give their school more money.  And oh look this school full of poor kids who miss class every few days because they have to help their parents work has poor test scores, let's take away their funding.

 

It's all about focusing services on the rich while regressively taxing the poor.

 

 

I don't think people understand how devastating systemic poverty is. It's not just a matter of not having enough money it's also the ways that your ability to make money or get an education are impaired by not having enough money. I know that wealthy people think the rich stay rich because they work hard and poor people are poor because they're lazy/dumb but it's not that simple. Destroying public education is the surest way to destroy upward mobility and honestly that's what the right wants. They've successfully taken all of the resources and now it's time to erect the wall to keep the broke people out permanently. It's pure class warfare.

[Rogue]

2 hours ago, Titandan said:

I looked it up.  But feel free to correct me.  Don't have time to look up every detail as I'm not too familiar with the Department of Education.  But less bureaucracy is generally a good thing. 

 

The DOE does not determine curriculum for state and local schools, nor do they determine text books, nor setting academic stadnards, which would be neccesary for "Best way to keep the populace uneducated and brainwashed is to control them with centralized educational system"

[Mythos27]

23 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

The DOE does not determine curriculum for state and local schools, nor do they determine text books, nor setting academic stadnards, which would be neccesary for "Best way to keep the populace uneducated and brainwashed is to control them with centralized educational system"

Right. States having the autonomy to determine their own curriculum contributes to the disparity in educational outcomes between states. It's hard to for every kid to get a quality education when there are states that want to teach creationism as if it's just as visible as evolution. 

[Titandan]

18 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Right. States having the autonomy to determine their own curriculum contributes to the disparity in educational outcomes between states. It's hard to for every kid to get a quality education when there are states that want to teach creationism as if it's just as visible as evolution. 

Why not let each school determine what's right for their own kids? And the parents can choose accordingly.  

[Titandan]

45 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

The DOE does not determine curriculum for state and local schools, nor do they determine text books, nor setting academic stadnards, which would be neccesary for "Best way to keep the populace uneducated and brainwashed is to control them with centralized educational system"

Can they though? Do the states determine the curriculum or do the districts determine them? 

 

Nice try in stumping me.  Doesn't really matter if the DOE is currently trying to brainwash or keep the nations children uneducated.  Fact is that our kids are underperforming compared to the amount we spend on them. And the parents have less say over what their kids ought to be taught currently because they have less school choice.  

 

I really don't care if you completely disagree. I'm probably not going to change my mind on this one but doesn't matter all that much to me personally

2 hours ago, CreepingDeath said:

Also:  "Earning more money due to having more students"

 

Tell me this isn't your first day in Capitalism-land.  Do you really think the money-makers would hire more LABOR when they can just cram more students into a room?  More students = less individual attention per student = comparatively worse education (considering all of the variables).

 

"Oh, but in my Utopia Capitalism Land, schools would hire more teachers."  Okay, where are they going to teach?  There is a limited amount of space in a building.  Now you need to fund a new building.  Guess what that means, freeze the labor costs!  No raises or fewer teachers (bigger class sizes).

 

Oh?  Your propaganda youtube/podcast/24-7news told ya how to fix da publix educamashion?  Riiiight.  We all know the easiest fix is to post the 10 Commandments in the classroom.   

It would be interesting to do an experiment with two very similar states. 

 

One state goes the voucher route while one continues on the current course and we update in about 10 years how each state performs.  

 

If you're satisfied with the current system, feel free to keep supporting it.  Not going to fight you on it.  

[CreepingDeath]

18 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Why not let each school determine what's right for their own kids? And the parents can choose accordingly.  

Again - how does this work in real life??  This isn't two corner pharmacy stores competing for customers who can easily switch.

 

You probably love those election maps that color  whole swaths of empty rural land red and think that counts for more than urban blue areas.  You know those rural areas only have one school (not even separated by elementary, middle, and high schools) to service big chunks of land?  These kids are bused (sometimes for an hour each way) to this school that just so happens to be the closest.  Your ideas of competition simply don't work.

 

Your ideas will fuck over the poor.

 

And stop with the "the dept of ed isn't educating kids" and learn about the history of education.  You are so plugged into your propaganda that you are talking out of your ass.  

 

And your "run an experiment" (the fact that you want it to be state vs state is so goddamn hilarious, too) - it's been done!  On a local area so that variables are better controlled.  Idealistic billionaires have attempted multiple times to open schools that meet their crazy, utopian ideals.  Guess what?  These schools close down in 3-5 years.  These billionaires lose interest.  The kids aren't better educated when compared to the neighboring public schools. 

 

The fix isn't your capitalistic bullshit.  The fix is in the community.  Help the families to raise their kids.  Free lunches will drastically help the poor families.  Further helping the families will allow the kids to have better nutrition, sleep, and a more stable home life.  If these parents are able to earn a living wage with one job, maybe they will have time to read to their children.  

 

Did you know that reading levels DIRECTLY correlates to incarceration levels?  

 

Handing a book to someone is something, sure.  But spending TIME to read to and WITH a child is vastly superior.  It's the fucking community, you twit.