Leatherneck brought up a good and interesting point in the public/private thread about competition in schools.

 

I have long been a proponent of vouchers.

 

Thought it would make for a good debate and discussion on whether the education system in this country needs an update to the free market system.

 

A system driven by competition on what is best for your child. On the surface, that sounds great but there are some monstrous lurking sharks in those shadows under the service.

 

For urban schools, competition is easy but for rural schools it is not. So now you have students in urban areas theoretically getting a better education, because of more choices, than schools in rural areas. State law prohibits this. Education rural/urban have to be equal. The inequality of funding between school districts was the basis of the lawsuit that brought about KERA and the SEEK funding. How do you sit up what is seen as a state constitutional right of every child to have the opportunity for an EQUAL and good education when you WILL NOT have equal choices around the state?

 

What about not-so-glamarous programs? Will there be as much competition and quality of programs to educate the court-ordered behavior disorder kids as there is for the AP kids? Look at advertising now, so much is done for the beautiful and sleek. Not many fat models out there on my television screens. The not-so-glamarous are not represented as well.

I'm against vouchers. If you want better than public for your children, then you need to be willing to make sacrifices to make it happen.

 

But I'd also like to see the public school system get overhauled. I think modern education is broken and no longer works. It's like the IRS code where we've added here and added there so much, that it no longer makes sense. The entire education system needs to be revamped so that we are getting the biggest bang out of our tax buck.

My view on vouchers resulted from a committee I set on 10 years ago. We had a very advanced student. Eventually she moved on to graduate from MIT.

 

She was a couple of grades beyond what her classmates (and she had skipped a grade) was doing in math. Her parents met with our curriculum committee to ask for us to offer a couple of classes she needed for admittance into MIT. Our math department said that we would have 2-3 students in the class. So do we offer a class for 2-3 meaning the # of students in the algebra classes would go from 26 to 30 per class?

 

We didn't and I understood why. So they withdrew her and enrolled her AT THEIR COST in a school that offered the class. I thought that was wrong. We couldn't meet their needs and so it cost them MORE money. Why shouldn't they be allowed to take that ADA money and put it towards their child's education?

For urban schools, competition is easy but for rural schools it is not. So now you have students in urban areas theoretically getting a better education, because of more choices, than schools in rural areas. State law prohibits this. Education rural/urban have to be equal. .

 

How can any organization guarantee that education received is equal?

A bit radical, but I am a proponent of privatizing education.

In my opinion, what separates private from public is an abundance of motivated parents. Provide vouchers for the masses and you will effectively eliminate that advantage. Will private schools be able to maintain their edge with an influx of poorly motivated, underachieving, or special needs children? When it becomes necessary to provide transportation, special instruction, added security or any of a myriad services that public schools are required to have, will they be able to maintain the level of academics currently achieved or even remain financially solvent?

How can any organization guarantee that education received is equal?

How? Ask the state of KY as it is our mandate that every kid in this state will receive an education that is comparable at minimum across the state.

 

Back in the late 80's when school district spending per pupil was not equal around the state, a lawsuit was filed and that was declared unconstitutional. That is the problems that the superintendents at Beechwood, Highlands have been arguing. They raise their local taxes to get the $$$ they need and it throws the per pupil spending out of whack, so they state lowers the amount of money they get from the state to get the per pupil spending back in line with the rest of the state.

A bit radical, but I am a proponent of privatizing education.

Please explain because I do not know what you mean.

In my opinion, what separates private from public is an abundance of motivated parents. Provide vouchers for the masses and you will effectively eliminate that advantage. Will private schools be able to maintain their edge with an influx of poorly motivated, underachieving, or special needs children? When it becomes necessary to provide transportation, special instruction, added security or any of a myriad services that public schools are required to have, will they be able to maintain the level of academics currently achieved or even remain financially solvent?

Why do you think they would be required to do these things?

How? Ask the state of KY as it is our mandate that every kid in this state will receive an education that is comparable at minimum across the state.

 

Back in the late 80's when school district spending per pupil was not equal around the state, a lawsuit was filed and that was declared unconstitutional. That is the problems that the superintendents at Beechwood, Highlands have been arguing. They raise their local taxes to get the $$$ they need and it throws the per pupil spending out of whack, so they state lowers the amount of money they get from the state to get the per pupil spending back in line with the rest of the state.

 

"Comparable at minimum" is hardly saying any 2 systems are equal.

 

Your second point is about funding and not about the actual education, right? We've all seen that increasing spending does not have a direct positive impact on the education received.

Why do you think they would be required to do these things?

 

Vouchers = government money.

Government money = government rules.

 

Or do you think they would still be allowed to pick and choose from the cream of the crop?

Vouchers = government money.

Government money = government rules.

 

Or due you think they would still be allowed to pick and choose from the cream of the crop?

One of the thoughts of competition is allowing schools to specialize instead of a buffet style of education. Don't make them have to specialize (as publics have to do now) to everyone. But each school has it's strengths.

"Comparable at minimum" is hardly saying any 2 systems are equal.

 

Your second point is about funding and not about the actual education, right? We've all seen that increasing spending does not have a direct positive impact on the education received.

The courts did not think so about funding when they declared the state education funding system unconstitutional.

 

I would say it is more equal than just comparable. The big push is a state approved curriculum so that the SAME THING is being taught in every single school in the state. So one of the things I am seeing is uniformity across the state in so much of what we do. I feel that equal or the same thing is what we are being led to. Do other public school teachers on here feel the same?

One of the thoughts of competition is allowing schools to specialize instead of a buffet style of education. Don't make them have to specialize (as publics have to do now) to everyone. But each school has it's strengths.

 

Ahh, but what if our star running back has special needs? We have to make provisions for such an occurance or we could lose our edge. :devil:

Ahh, but what if our star running back has special needs? We have to make provisions for such an occurance or we could lose our edge. :devil:

You could have a school chose to specialize in athletics. Come with us and we will travel the country playing in tournaments nationwide garnering you exposure while also educating you. An Oak Hill here in KY and that would be legal.