Vaught Strikes Again

[ladiesbballcoach]

Actually, as Americans, the Constitution grants us the right to choose many things, and a faith-based, private education is one of them.

 

Of course, it also guarantees that as Americans we are able to choose a faith-free education, funded by the citizens of the country.

 

In effect, we are bound by law to educate our children, but the Constitution grants us the right to choose the way in which we do it. Some of us choose to pay, yet are supposed to be penalized for our choice?

And there is the rub. The private side sees it as a penalty while the public side sees it as designing two classifications that allow like schools to compete. I have an issue with that classification being on a strict public/private thread but see the classification itself as needed.

 

I DON'T think the problems in HS athletics lay squarely on the private schools doorsteps, though.

[ladiesbballcoach]

That should not be the case either. I don't think there should be any tuition students. It is certainly not right that if their is tuition students, the local school board gets to set that tuition.

My view is that fine and dandy if a local school district wants to accept students outside of their designed area and if they do they should compete against other open enrollment and private schoolss.

[SilverShadow]

Rockmom:

 

A correction to your comment. The constitution does NOT mandate an education to its citizens. The founders and framers believed such efforts were necessary but responsible by the states. To become a state the education issue had to be addressed. Hence, EACH STATE constitution, typically its first order, directive, law, etc. deals with providing a public education to the population. Just a technical point but one of significance to the debate of education in the country.

 

I would also correct your comment regarding a faith free education. I think it is more correct to suggest a faith open education.

 

Not sure how you are penalized by your choice to private education. Maybe judged by some, unfairly I would maintain but not sure about penalized.

[Birdsfan]

I would also correct your comment regarding a faith free education. I think it is more correct to suggest a faith open education.

I would say it's more "faith-free" since no matters of faith are allowed in the schools. That may not have been the constitutional framers intention; but that has been effectively the result.

[rockmom]

Rockmom:

 

A correction to your comment. The constitution does NOT mandate an education to its citizens. The founders and framers believed such efforts were necessary but responsible by the states. To become a state the education issue had to be addressed. Hence, EACH STATE constitution, typically its first order, directive, law, etc. deals with providing a public education to the population. Just a technical point but one of significance to the debate of education in the country.

 

Thank you. I basically knew that, but didn't state it correctly.:thumb:

 

I would also correct your comment regarding a faith free education. I think it is more correct to suggest a faith open education.

When I say faith-free, what I mean is that there is no faith-basis or emphasis in the curiculum. Yes, each is able to practice their faith, but classes based in the principles of one faith or another are not allowed.

 

Not sure how you are penalized by your choice to private education. Maybe judged by some, unfairly I would maintain but not sure about penalized.

 

The penalties are not in place as of yet, but are sought. There have been multiple suggestions, some of which include eliminating students receiving aid from participating in sports in one way or another. That's a penalty as I see it. Judged unfairly is not a new thing, nor will it ever go away. There are just too many misconceptions and a lot of people who simply don't want to know the truth. I can live with that. On the other hand, I firmly believe that there is no cookie-cutter solution to providing the best education for every child, and that a family should be able to choose what's best for their child. I also believe that part of the educational experience should be extracurricular activities, and that no child should be barred from participating in any such activities because their family may need help in paying for their choice.

[westsider]

So students from Kentucky are not as smart as those in Indiana?

Way to blatantly misinterpret my comments, All Tell ...

 

The difference probably has much more to do with the educational system in the two states than any perceived difference in the students themselves.

[leatherneck]

That should not be the case either. I don't think there should be any tuition students. It is certainly not right that if their is tuition students, the local school board gets to set that tuition.

 

 

Why shouldn't the local school board have the right to set the tuition amount?

[All Tell]

Way to blatantly misinterpret my comments, All Tell ...

 

The difference probably has much more to do with the educational system in the two states than any perceived difference in the students themselves.

Then why not mirror what Indiana does? It certainly make Kentucky's overall educational achievement any worse.

[SilverShadow]

Then why not mirror what Indiana does? It certainly make Kentucky's overall educational achievement any worse.

 

So as a private school advocate are you suggesting you will support at least a 30% increase in per pupil spending AND double the current preschool through K state spending - which means and no way around it, a major tax increase. Is this what you suggest???

[rockmom]

So as a private school advocate are you suggesting you will support at least a 30% increase in per pupil spending AND double the current preschool through K state spending - which means and no way around it, a major tax increase. Is this what you suggest???

 

 

Honestly, I would support tax increases for that purpose. Even as a private school advocate, I feel that increased taxes are warranted...no, NEEDED... to improve our educational system in Kentucky. It's easy to say that throwing money into education doesn't impact improvement. However, costs increase in every sector of society. This is true in education as well. I feel it's foolish to expect that minimal increases, if any, will keep pace with increasing demands on our educational system. Teachers will be lost to better paying systems, resources will be scant because school systems can only afford the minimum. Only until we place education near the top of our spending priorities will we achieve the goals we want. It's not about just giving school systems money, though. It's about helping them devise a master plan and wisely use the financial resources to achieve it.

 

I believe that only by better educating our future citizens can we solve some of the other "ills" that we face-High poverty rates, increased demands on social services programs, drug problems, etc.

 

That's just my opinion, though.

[leatherneck]

Honestly, I would support tax increases for that purpose. Even as a private school advocate, I feel that increased taxes are warranted...no, NEEDED... to improve our educational system in Kentucky. It's easy to say that throwing money into education doesn't impact improvement. However, costs increase in every sector of society. This is true in education as well. I feel it's foolish to expect that minimal increases, if any, will keep pace with increasing demands on our educational system. Teachers will be lost to better paying systems, resources will be scant because school systems can only afford the minimum. Only until we place education near the top of our spending priorities will we achieve the goals we want. It's not about just giving school systems money, though. It's about helping them devise a master plan and wisely use the financial resources to achieve it.

 

I believe that only by better educating our future citizens can we solve some of the other "ills" that we face-High poverty rates, increased demands on social services programs, drug problems, etc.

 

That's just my opinion, though.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of your post; the only caveat I have is the paying teachers more money concept. Perhaps the situation in Ft. Thomas is different than a lot of schools, but we don't lose a lot of teachers (very few actually) to higher paying occupations or the higher paying schools in Cinti. And we very, very rarely lose the better teachers for that reason. And I don't know the exact ranking of our pay scale to other schools in Ky, but the last I heard we were no longer in the top 10%, so its not like we are already paying our teachers top dollar to keep them at Ft. Thomas. I'm sure the Shadow can post the exact ranking. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some districts are hurting for bucks (actually Ft. Thomas has gotten shafted by SEEK). But if we, the taxpayers, are going to pay more taxes, its only fair to expect more accountablility. Tenure has to go (the whole concept is un-American to me). Parents should be totally free to select what school to send their children to. Site based councils should be only composed of parents and taxpayers (right now, as I understand it, a taxpayer that is not a parent of a child in the system, is not permitted to run for SBC in spite of the fact that the taxpayer is funding the school district). Teachers can be advisors to the SBCs, but not voting members. Plus taxpayers don't even have a vote on SBC elections, again in spite of the simple fact that they are the ones funding the district through their local and state taxes. Their only ability to "participate" in the school management is in school board elections. As we all know, KERA dramatically decreased the role school boards play in the management of school districts. Thus I believe if we are going to ask the taxpayers to fund the schools even more, we must be willing to give them a greater opportunity to monitor and control where their dollars are going IMO.

[rockmom]

I don't disagree with a lot of your post; the only caveat I have is the paying teachers more money concept. Perhaps the situation in Ft. Thomas is different than a lot of schools, but we don't lose a lot of teachers (very few actually) to higher paying occupations or the higher paying schools in Cinti. And we very, very rarely lose the better teachers for that reason. And I don't know the exact ranking of our pay scale to other schools in Ky, but the last I heard we were no longer in the top 10%, so its not like we are already paying our teachers top dollar to keep them at Ft. Thomas. I'm sure the Shadow can post the exact ranking. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some districts are hurting for bucks (actually Ft. Thomas has gotten shafted by SEEK). But if we, the taxpayers, are going to pay more taxes, its only fair to expect more accountablility. Tenure has to go (the whole concept is un-American to me). Parents should be totally free to select what school to send their children to. Site based councils should be only composed of parents and taxpayers (right now, as I understand it, a taxpayer that is not a parent of a child in the system, is not permitted to run for SBC in spite of the fact that the taxpayer is funding the school district). Teachers can be advisors to the SBCs, but not voting members. Plus taxpayers don't even have a vote on SBC elections, again in spite of the simple fact that they are the ones funding the district through their local and state taxes. Their only ability to "participate" in the school management is in school board elections. As we all know, KERA dramatically decreased the role school boards play in the management of school districts. Thus I believe if we are going to ask the taxpayers to fund the schools even more, we must be willing to give them a greater opportunity to monitor and control where their dollars are going IMO.

 

Hey! I'm just the "idea man" here. :lol:

 

Seriously, I agree with all that you say. Increased resources definitely should bring increased accountablity, and the tax-payers SHOULD have a say in that.

 

I feel that one of the biggest detriments to our educational system is that it has become a "legislative" entity, versus being treated similar to a commercial enterprise. The commodity is knowledge, and the consumer is the student/family. I believe, as you do, that school choice is important. I believe it's important in many ways, obviously in the family selecting the best educational opportunity for their child. But, I also believe that competition among educational institutions has the benefit of creating better and better schools, as they have to constantly present a better product to win their students. I deplore the idea that students "belong" to a school district by virtue of their residence. To me, it allows school administrators to retain some level of complacency, in that they aren't voluntarily compelled to increase their quality or services. It can also be used to justify a lack of results, if the school is, as an example, in a poverty-ridden area.

 

Again, it's just my opinion.

[All Tell]

So as a private school advocate are you suggesting you will support at least a 30% increase in per pupil spending AND double the current preschool through K state spending - which means and no way around it, a major tax increase. Is this what you suggest???

Only, and I do mean only, after a very extensive study to determine how much "dead weight" is already in educational budgets done by outside professionals, not teachers unions or state BOE. Only after those in education PROVE beyond any doubt that they are spending what they get efficiently and effectively, only after tenure programs that allow bad teachers to remain in the classroom (even one is one to many), only after major changes in the way schools and school systems currently do business would I support any type of tax increase.

 

Now I know from your posting history that you will procede to tell me how uneducated I am, how stupid I am and how unelightened I am. I know that you think that public schools can do nothing wrong and that any percieved problems within them are due to lack of funding. I used to work in a public school and I disagree, but go ahead and very condescendingly tell me why I'm wrong.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I don't disagree with a lot of your post; the only caveat I have is the paying teachers more money concept. Perhaps the situation in Ft. Thomas is different than a lot of schools, but we don't lose a lot of teachers (very few actually) to higher paying occupations or the higher paying schools in Cinti. And we very, very rarely lose the better teachers for that reason. And I don't know the exact ranking of our pay scale to other schools in Ky, but the last I heard we were no longer in the top 10%, so its not like we are already paying our teachers top dollar to keep them at Ft. Thomas. I'm sure the Shadow can post the exact ranking. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some districts are hurting for bucks (actually Ft. Thomas has gotten shafted by SEEK). But if we, the taxpayers, are going to pay more taxes, its only fair to expect more accountablility. Tenure has to go (the whole concept is un-American to me). Parents should be totally free to select what school to send their children to. Site based councils should be only composed of parents and taxpayers (right now, as I understand it, a taxpayer that is not a parent of a child in the system, is not permitted to run for SBC in spite of the fact that the taxpayer is funding the school district). Teachers can be advisors to the SBCs, but not voting members. Plus taxpayers don't even have a vote on SBC elections, again in spite of the simple fact that they are the ones funding the district through their local and state taxes. Their only ability to "participate" in the school management is in school board elections. As we all know, KERA dramatically decreased the role school boards play in the management of school districts. Thus I believe if we are going to ask the taxpayers to fund the schools even more, we must be willing to give them a greater opportunity to monitor and control where their dollars are going IMO.

More than lose teachers who are in it, I think you lose them from ever choosing that route. Some would make good teachers but choose a career in business, medicine, etc and the $15-$20,000 more per year that they could easily make.

 

So, I believe you lose them in college/high school when they are coming down to the final decision on what route they want to go. If a top student could look at teaching and say, I will start out at $40,000, you would have more competition for getting teachers and districts not having to settle for a body.

 

4-5 years back, my district created a new resource teacher position in November because of an unexpected increase in numbers. From December through May they received ZERO applicants and the position was filled by a substitute for the remainder of the school year because simply there was no one. Many times, we will have certain positions with 3-4 applicants and that is it.

[ochenta siete]

More than lose teachers who are in it, I think you lose them from ever choosing that route. Some would make good teachers but choose a career in business, medicine, etc and the $15-$20,000 more per year that they could easily make.

 

So, I believe you lose them in college/high school when they are coming down to the final decision on what route they want to go. If a top student could look at teaching and say, I will start out at $40,000, you would have more competition for getting teachers and districts not having to settle for a body.

 

4-5 years back, my district created a new resource teacher position in November because of an unexpected increase in numbers. From December through May they received ZERO applicants and the position was filled by a substitute for the remainder of the school year because simply there was no one. Many times, we will have certain positions with 3-4 applicants and that is it.

:thumb: