That's your second "condom" posting this afternoon.

I'm currently in my last year of school and this semester I'm at two public schools and one (my first) private school. At the private the scores were off the charts compared to the public school. HOWEVER, the student-teacher ratio at the private is 10:1 while at the public is 30:1. Therefore with less students you can work with them more and more indepth. Also the students who go to the private school have to work, they just can't sit in the back and float through classes like you can many times in some public schools. I'm still torn on this subject. I like the idea of vouchers due to it allows students to recieve a better education. But, if x amount of students leave public schools and go private there will be less students in the public system and teachers will be given the chance to work with them much more and their scores may rise. Since there may be more students in the private setting, teachers may not be able to give the attention they previously could therefore scores may falter.

Okay, I'm now lost on what the heck I just wrote.

In Michigan, school districts who wish to open up their doors to other students (usually those who have room for other students) are listed as Schools of Choice. Students from other districts who want to go there can apply to go there and the chosen district receives the state money for that student, rather than the original district. We have also had a host of charter schools open up. From my own observation, this is what is happening:

1. Students who are expelled from their original school go to schools of chioce or charter schools. so they just shuffle from school to school, wreaking havoc at each of them.

2. The local charter schools aren't meeting their AYP required in the NCLB act, in spite of the fact that when they opened, they were touted as being exceptional schools.

3. Students who are really poor can't afford transportation to the alternate choices of schools can't go to them.


The reality of the situation is, the best teachers in the universe can't help kids learn if they are hungry or malnutritioned, ill with no access to health care, don't have parental support, are living in crime infested neighborhoods where they can't sleep because of the gun fire outside and don't have heat, electricity or water in their living quarters. When teachers spend most of their time just keeping order in the classroom and worrying about whether they'll be shot or stabbed at work that day, children aren't going to learn much.

Let's do something about THAT and I bet the school situation will take care of itself.

Dee

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, my educating professor doesn't buy it. When she asked if we had any concerns about student teaching/teaching in general, I mentioned being physically attacked (a lot of those middle/high school kids are way bigger than me!) and dealing with kids who just don't prioritize learning very highly because of their home situation (i.e. no parental encouragement, poverty, etc.). She looked at me like I had three heads and said in amazement, "Oh, you don't have to worry about that." Like it doesn't happen??? Riiiiiiiiight. My dad is an elementary school counselor and he has been assaulted by students on numerous occasions. When I subbed at that same school, I encountered children whose parents didn't give a rat's a$$ about education and taught their children to do the same. Some of those kids couldn't get their homework done because they had to go home and take care of little brothers and sisters, and sometimes their parents. That's reality.

I also detest NCLB and standards and all that bull hockey, but that's a whole other post.

When Mrs. DA taught high school, she had a knife pulled on her and was close to being assaulted on other occassions.

That was at a suburban/country school in the early 1970's.

Things certainly haven't gotten better.

What are the poor people going to do with a $2000 voucher if the schools charge 5-10k in tuition?

Or that they're trying to empower the lower classes. Public education, as provided to the poorest of Americans, is often just a cruel joke. The parents can't just move to a district that has good schools, or send their kids to private schools.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Education
 

That would only happen in the short run. Within just a few years, market forces would cause new schools to open, and the over crowding argument would be a moot issue.

Nor can the good public schools. In the current public school system, which is supposed to be egalitarian, poor kids are in the bad schools (which are often overcrowded,) and the rich kids wind up in good schools.

Every argument against vouchers cites a scenario that describes the current public education system when broken down by class.

Not much. The poor should be given vouchers equal to what the public schools spend on a per child basis. In NYC, we spend more than $12,000/student.

Imagine what kind of education each poor child could get if the private school market responded to their $12,000 vouchers!

No, no. The purpose of this group is to get rid of public education because they believe that only the rich upper classes deserve it, so they're seeking block the lower classes' entry into jobs that require education, thus curtailing their power. So says my professor. I'll have to ask her for their website again.

In our system, anyone can go to any of the middle or high schools as long as there is space available.

You think so? What happens when the poor kids from single parent homes that don't care about education, don't go to class, don't study and cause problems at the private school? What will the excuse be then?

How are vouchers going to solve that problem?

What would you suggest?

The US already provides free breakfast and lunch at school. Food stamps for the family. Counties have free health clinics, and a hospital has to treat anyone who shows up.

The earned income credit sends thousands of dollars to families with low income.

Some of the old housing projects have crime problems, and every child age 10 and up knows who the drug sellers are. The ghetto 'code of silence' keeps them from telling the police, which might help reduce crime.

Every city has housing codes. If the necessities aren't being provided, the code dept. will take action upon request.

In reality, you get more of what you reward. If you provide free/cheap food, housing, med care, transportation, books, pencils, education, etc., you get more people wanting the free stuff and much more for free.

On the other hand, one of the more successful plans - put thru Congress by the Republicans before the '96 election - has been workfare. If you are healthy and don't have an infant, you have two years to get a job and get out of the project (and help will be provided). When the two years came up, thousands had found jobs and found better housing.

If oportunities are available, and the free stuff is not available or very hard to get, people will get their act together.