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

 

I actually agree with you!

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

 

Just a thought to play the devil's advocate. If my kid comes home telling me he loves his new school, brings home report cards with all A's, and thinks his teacher is great, how long would it take for me to figure out the school is inflating grades to make themselves look good, actually providing a very poor education and in general just way too easy?

There's an article in last week's Time magazine that talks about how poorly we take care of our gifted students.

 

"To some extent, complacency is built into the system. American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs. But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential."

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html

Just a thought to play the devil's advocate. If my kid comes home telling me he loves his new school, brings home report cards with all A's, and thinks his teacher is great, how long would it take for me to figure out the school is inflating grades to make themselves look good, actually providing a very poor education and in general just way too easy?

And then legislatures get involved to protect the poor consumers of this travesty. I could see a congressional inquiry with all sorts of political mumbo-jumbo.

There's an article in last week's Time magazine that talks about how poorly we take care of our gifted students.

 

"To some extent, complacency is built into the system. American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs. But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential."

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html

This has been a growing fight in public schools and it has improved in the last 10 years. Not to where it should be. G & T students are beginning to get the recognition as Special Ed students as needing specialized teaching to take teach them to the level they are.

You cannot use state money for a private education, against all rules, church and state. My older 2 children went to private schools and we paid for it because it was best for them and us. No vouchers for private schooling.

You cannot use state money for a private education, against all rules, church and state. My older 2 children went to private schools and we paid for it because it was best for them and us. No vouchers for private schooling.

With Bush's new rules on using government funds to do social programs EVEN if they came from a church, why can't the next step be vouchers?

Just a thought to play the devil's advocate. If my kid comes home telling me he loves his new school, brings home report cards with all A's, and thinks his teacher is great, how long would it take for me to figure out the school is inflating grades to make themselves look good, actually providing a very poor education and in general just way too easy?

 

Well, since I've had my kids in "privitized" schools for years, I can tell you that not once did Assumption or Trinity "inflate" my kids' grades to make them look better. And, since I know a lot of kids at Mercy, St. X, Holy Cross, and Sacred Heart, I can tell you, they didn't either.

Please explain because I do not know what you mean.

 

The government would no longer be the source of schools. Rather, private schools would replace state schools with the government moving to a more regulatory role and providing the funds not spent on maintaining and building schools for students to pay for the private schools. Of course that is a very simplistic view of it, but I'm sure you get the gist.

 

With the difficulty of raising levies for schools, the inequality of public schools, and the fact that we are severely lagging behind globally, a market-based, competitive system of education is, for me, the best option to alleviate these ills. Instead of every student getting the same education, which is often very poor, better students will be able to opt for more challenging schools. Students who simply want to get by or are not college bound may opt for a school that caters to that.

The government would no longer be the source of schools. Rather, private schools would replace state schools with the government moving to a more regulatory role and providing the funds not spent on maintaining and building schools for students to pay for the private schools. Of course that is a very simplistic view of it, but I'm sure you get the gist.

 

With the difficulty of raising levies for schools, the inequality of public schools, and the fact that we are severely lagging behind globally, a market-based, competitive system of education is, for me, the best option to alleviate these ills.

Do you think that there would be an unequal distribution of private schools in the affluent to midclass areas compared to the inner city low income areas?

Do you think that there would be an unequal distribution of private schools in the affluent to midclass areas compared to the inner city low income areas?

 

Probably, but is that not the case now? The inner-cities are an anomaly, and until someone makes some bold changes there they will remain so. However, the government would still ensure that minimum standards are being met with the ever-present possibility of reclaiming schools that underperform.

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?

 

 

My point is that you can have equal funding, equal cirriculums, equal support and it still comes down to an individual teacher . Some are very good. Some are not - both public and private - rural and urban. You can mandate all you want but you can never actually produce equal education received.

The government would no longer be the source of schools. Rather, private schools would replace state schools with the government moving to a more regulatory role and providing the funds not spent on maintaining and building schools for students to pay for the private schools. Of course that is a very simplistic view of it, but I'm sure you get the gist.

 

With the difficulty of raising levies for schools, the inequality of public schools, and the fact that we are severely lagging behind globally, a market-based, competitive system of education is, for me, the best option to alleviate these ills. Instead of every student getting the same education, which is often very poor, better students will be able to opt for more challenging schools. Students who simply want to get by or are not college bound may opt for a school that caters to that.

 

..and one more point. Good teachers would see a significant boost in their paychecks as private schools wouldn't be beholden to a "maximum wage" that we currently have. Good schools will want good teachers and will pay for them.

My point is that you can have equal funding, equal cirriculums, equal support and it still comes down to an individual teacher . Some are very good. Some are not - both public and private - rural and urban. You can mandate all you want but you can never actually produce equal education received.

Tell that to a politician looking to garner votes.

Probably, but is that not the case now? The inner-cities are an anomaly, and until someone makes some bold changes there they will remain so. However, the government would still ensure that minimum standards are being met with the ever-present possibility of reclaiming schools that underperform.

What if a school did not want to follow certain government mandates? Educating all students, including those with disabilities. How do you handle that? Do you allow specializing? And what about those areas that there is not enough to justify specializing but the kids still need to be educated.