The Case for Public Education - Part 2 in the Ed. Series

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Did anybody want to address the for-profit schools issue or can we move on to non-profits?

You're talking for-profit public schools? That idea's just stupid. It's got the worst of both worlds. Either fully-privatize education or keep it how it is.

[WickedLou9]

Are there very many "for profit" schools around? In my limited experience, you either have a public school or a religious non-profit school.

I guess there are some like ITT but those are after highschool.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Are there very many "for profit" schools around? In my limited experience, you either have a public school or a religious non-profit school.

I guess there are some like ITT but those are after highschool.

Edison Schools is one big one. They were even publicly traded on the NYSE for a while before somebody took it private. Philadelphia tried the model out for a while, I don't know if they still contract out.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by bheld

Edison Schools is one big one. They were even publicly traded on the NYSE for a while before somebody took it private. Philadelphia tried the model out for a while, I don't know if they still contract out.

yeah actually I think they have a few private charter schools. I'm not sure how well they are working out. It's a little different there though. The state hired the private company to come in and the state still pays for the schools. They aren't private like where you pay tuition.

[Thorgrim]

In Philadelphia, from what I've overheard, the schools the "charter" schools that have done well have recieved enormous amounts of cash from the state and city, and were able to enforce rules that would never work across the board, and still public non-charter schools that recieved more aid had similiar gains

They don't make a profit as much as they get so much god damn money that they simply don't go broke...but that's never been a problem...and ofcourse they come really close to basically kicking out all the underperforming and misbehaving kids...where do they go for basic elementary education? Regular public schools don't have those kind of options

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

In Philadelphia, from what I've overheard, the schools the "charter" schools that have done well have recieved enormous amounts of cash from the state and city, and were able to enforce rules that would never work across the board, and still public non-charter schools that recieved more aid had similiar gains

They don't make a profit as much as they get so much god damn money that they simply don't go broke...but that's never been a problem...and ofcourse they come really close to basically kicking out all the underperforming and misbehaving kids...where do they go for basic elementary education? Regular public schools don't have those kind of options

Well, in a fully competitive system you'd say that the demand generated by the "troublesome" kids (whatever that means) would create a school for them.

However, in a mixed system, those kids would just default to public school.

But, there ARE military-like schools that parents pay to send their problem children to. So I guess there is somewhere they can go if the parents are willing to pay. I wonder if more problem kids would be sent to those schools if voucher were wider spread... I imagine they would

[Thorgrim]

It's not just misbehaving, kids were sent home because they didn't do their homework...the kids simply weren't smart enough to understand it

You start weeding out kids for low performance...it's okay to put them in different sections...but different SCHOOLS? that's just a way to artificially raise the schools performance numbers

That's all these schemes do, they pull tricks to manipulate numbers, they don't play on the same field as public schools, and when they try they're forced to cheat

i saw some of the new things these charter schools did...a lot of it was: making smaller classes, new AC units everywhere, fresh paint, uniforms, etc

AKA what many liberal education advocates have been arguing for years but never had the money

More money, smaller schools, uniforms, refurbishing, smaller classes...public reformation is the way to go, people are just cheap and it's been hard for liberals to get them money because a lot of funding is based on property taxes

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's not just misbehaving, kids were sent home because they didn't do their homework...the kids simply weren't smart enough to understand it

You start weeding out kids for low performance...it's okay to put them in different sections...but different SCHOOLS? that's just a way to artificially raise the schools performance numbers

That's all these schemes do, they pull tricks to manipulate numbers, they don't play on the same field as public schools, and when they try they're forced to cheat

I understand why people think this is a shitty thing, but integrating the stupid kids with the smart kids doesn't help anyone. The smart kids don't learn as much because the teacher has to slow down for the dumb kids and the dumb kids are perpetually lost because the teacher is trying to keep the smart kids challenged.

The problem, really, is the rating system. "School X produces the smartest kids in the nation" combined with them only ACCEPTING the smartest kids in the nation doesn't really mean anything. It's not the school that is producing it necessarily, although they might be really good at keeping these smart kids really challenged. However, on the flip side, another school may be really good at supplying a good education to kids who have trouble with school. That is a GOOD thing, and just because on the RATING system it might not look as good because a higher percentage of graduates from that school end up being car mechanics (or whatever) compared to the other school where a higher percentage turn out to be doctors, it's still producing an educated child. A car mechanic who ends up with an education good enough to make him more aware of the world around him is a good thing, but hard to rate.

And public schools have tried separating the smart kids from the dumb ones (some probably still do). When I was coming up they'd bus us across town to a school specifically to challenge us more, and each school would send kids there once a week. And while we were over there once a week learning extra stuff and being challenged, the teacher back at our home school had an extra day to make sure the other kids were caught up in class. That worked pretty well for a while, until stupid parents, who had obviously produced stupid offspring, were pissed their stupid kids weren't going to the smart classes. Race cards were pulled (even though we had a number of minorities at the other school with us), suing was threatened, and suddenly everybody went to the "smart" class which was then reduced to an hour a week on the grounds of the home school.

Luckily that didn't happen til I was past the grades they were doing that program because I think it probably helped me stay challenged in those years. It's sad that smart kids can no longer partake of the program, and it sucks that the dumb kids no longer have a day in which they could play catch-up.

[Thorgrim]

I'm saying stupid "sections" but not stupid schools

that's a well known practice at catholic schools, since they aren't going to kick out a bunch of stupid poor catholic kids

catholic schools are actually a great model, just take out the religion, unfortunately since they are so accepting of poor kids, they aren't the "elite" academies, infact I've seen a lot of them in my old backyard go broke

They had about 5 elementary schools and 1 big high school when I was a kid, today they have 1 elementary school and no high school at all

Simply too many poor kids, and the education was good, but actually a brand new public school had a good first couple of years and you honestly got a better education at the public school if you took your studies seriously

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I'm saying stupid "sections" but not stupid schools

that's a well known practice at catholic schools, since they aren't going to kick out a bunch of stupid poor catholic kids

catholic schools are actually a great model, just take out the religion, unfortunately since they are so accepting of poor kids, they aren't the "elite" academies, infact I've seen a lot of them in my old backyard go broke

They had about 5 elementary schools and 1 big high school when I was a kid, today they have 1 elementary school and no high school at all

Simply too many poor kids, and the education was good, but actually a brand new public school had a good first couple of years and you honestly got a better education at the public school if you took your studies seriously

I don't really see the difference between stupid sections and stupid schools as long as those two aren't being compared to each other. If a school puts all its resources into hiring teachers who are better with kids who lack the ability to easily understand concepts, equipment/books/labs/etc to help those specific kids learn, etc... instead of having to balance between various levels of kids, it'd be better. I think magnet schools prove that works. There are science and math magnet schools who really focus on teaching kids with an affinity to science and math those subjects, and when they come out they're math and science hosses... same with music and art magnet schools

[Thorgrim]

If I went to George Washington High School, I could imagine the rest of my life people would go "oh yeah, I went there!" and people would give me some respect

However if I went to the 15th Street High School, which was designed for stupid kids, the rest of my life I have to walk around with a resume saying "i went to the stupid school" and in reality even a slowed-down american education puts you leagues ahead of many of the worlds children, and fully prepares you for some very well paying jobs involving management

Naturally someone with a bachelors in business is 10x+ better, but there aren't enough business graduates to fill every management slot on this earth (aka a management, but not executive, position at the local walmart)

However as soon as they see "oh...you went to...err...well thanks for coming in!!!"...it would be a heavy weight on their shoulders the rest of their lives...and what, because they had a hard time with some HS work?

I have friends of friends in medical school that when shown a map, can't tell you where Asia is

I know people in liberal arts graduate schools, that are simply amazing analyists, very creative, top students...but couldn't figure out a basic geometry or algebra problem if you forced them to...

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I understand why people think this is a shitty thing, but integrating the stupid kids with the smart kids doesn't help anyone. The smart kids don't learn as much because the teacher has to slow down for the dumb kids and the dumb kids are perpetually lost because the teacher is trying to keep the smart kids challenged.

Have you ever taught? Because that's actually not that difficult. For general classes, I never really had a problem having the "dumb" kids keep up or keeping the "smart" kids challenged.

And public schools have tried separating the smart kids from the dumb ones (some probably still do).

Kids self-segregate...a "tech" kid doesn't end up in trig unless he meets the requirements and chooses it. A "dumb" kid doesn't end up in AP because he didn't have the prerequisites. In the general Alg1 classes we had no idea what the kids' abilities were until the class was under way, but geometry and Alg2 had a "smart" and "dumb" version and most of the time the kid picked the one that was right for him. If he didn't, or if he wanted to try the harder one...well, sometimes kids fail.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

Have you ever taught? Because that's actually not that difficult. For general classes, I never really had a problem having the "dumb" kids keep up or keeping the "smart" kids challenged.

Kids self-segregate...a "tech" kid doesn't end up in trig unless he meets the requirements and chooses it. A "dumb" kid doesn't end up in AP because he didn't have the prerequisites. In the general Alg1 classes we had no idea what the kids' abilities were until the class was under way, but geometry and Alg2 had a "smart" and "dumb" version and most of the time the kid picked the one that was right for him. If he didn't, or if he wanted to try the harder one...well, sometimes kids fail.

Well, my example was only in elementary school. In HS it was easier to segregate the kids b/c you could setup classes specifically for the smart kids. However, a school that setup every class for the smart kids and SPECIFICALLY shifted their focus on advancing those kids as quickly as possible would produce some really brilliant minds.

To address Thorgrim in this same post, it would be the goal of the "dumb" school to get their kids in a state of education that would help them get those higher paying jobs because that's a reflection of the product they're offering. They will then have higher demand for their services and would make more money.

The segregation is needed because as much as people want to believe that anyone can be president or an astronaut or wtfever else, that's simply not true. Whether it's by genetics, upbringing, personality, or whatever, some kids can do more than others with their education. And those that CAN do more should be continually pushed to do more, otherwise it's a waste of potential (potentially).

And I'm not saying that public schools can't do this also, I'm just saying from a supply chain point of view, to address the "problems" with private schools picking and choosing who they want in their school, there is still supply for everyone that demands it. Public education needs to state the segregation as a goal, and push the better kids with teachers who are good at doing it. Not like my AP Biology class my senior year in high school which was taught by one of the worst teachers I had in HS. I made a 4 on the exam ONLY because I studied the material on my own, otherwise I'd have done like 95% of the rest of the class and made a 2 (only one guy made a 5).

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Well, my example was only in elementary school. In HS it was easier to segregate the kids b/c you could setup classes specifically for the smart kids. However, a school that setup every class for the smart kids and SPECIFICALLY shifted their focus on advancing those kids as quickly as possible would produce some really brilliant minds.

You mean you think it would. I'm going to assume private schools do that (maybe I'm wrong so this whole thing is moot, but..) and private school test data doesn't show a whole lot of difference between public school and private school.

[Publius]

I'd just like to interject that there are "semi-private" schools known as open-enrollment charter schools which don't segregate children in any fashion. These schools are technically part of the public school system because they derive their charter from the State Board of Education, but are semi-private because the vast majority of them are run and funded by non-profit private corporations who set the curriculum, teacher pay, etc.

They've been around in Texas for a little over a decade. The fact that these sorts of schools exist and thrive (the Texas State Board of Education has capped the number of these schools given charters at 215, and they are close to that limit), suggests that just because schools are privatized doesn't mean they'll become bastions of segregation.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'd just like to interject that there are "semi-private" schools known as open-enrollment charter schools which don't segregate children in any fashion. These schools are technically part of the public school system because they derive their charter from the State Board of Education, but are semi-private because the vast majority of them are run and funded by non-profit private corporations who set the curriculum, teacher pay, etc.

They've been around in Texas for a little over a decade. The fact that these sorts of schools exist and thrive (the Texas State Board of Education has capped the number of these schools given charters at 215, and they are close to that limit), suggests that just because schools are privatized doesn't mean they'll become bastions of segregation.

I hope no one was thinking that. I was saying that the ones that DO shouldn't be used as examples of why privatization doesn't work because they ARE working for their intended demographic.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I hope no one was thinking that. I was saying that the ones that DO shouldn't be used as examples of why privatization doesn't work because they ARE working for their intended demographic.

From what I've gathered skimming this thread and reading the last, a few people seem to believe that privatized schools would lead to open-enrollment schools ceasing to exist.

[Thorgrim]

Once public schools are destroyed...all you have to do is look at the leaing actors for "privitization" and they are almost all theocons

Pat Robertson and his ilk jumped on vouchers and made it an issue, not libertarians

When charter schools can't handle the tens of millions of students, who is going to get them? Fundamnetalist schools from all sects, they have the money to take losses every year, no one else does except...the federal government