Back to Leave No Child Behind

THe money is already budgeted. All the vouchers will accomplish is to give the parents the right to direct funding allocated for their child to a school of the parents' choice. All of course won't take that option as the voucher will not cover private school tuition but it will help parents who could not otherwise afford private school tuition. The vouchers will have absolutely nothing to do with capital expenditures. Federal monies generally don't touch capital expenditures anyway as all of these come from state and local sources mostly via property taxes.

If enough parents do take advantage of some help to get their kids into a better school, the local public school will do what it has to in order to compete which of course will mean the public school will make whatever changes are necessary in order to compete. When the funding is guaranteed to the public school whether or not they are doing a good job, many will not bother to be any better.

0 Replies

Quote, "If enough parents do take advantage of some help to get their kids into a better school, the local public school will do what it has to in order to compete which of course will mean the public school will make whatever changes are necessary in order to compete." Sounds every bit as naive to conclude schools will improve in order to "compete." What do you think all schools do now? Work to make them worse?

0 Replies

You quoted only part of the paragraph C.I. The rest was:

Quote:

When the funding is guaranteed to the public school whether or not they are doing a good job, many will not bother to be any better.

Naive it may be, but I believe that to be fact. Far too many public school systems devote an inordinate amount of funding, personnel, and resources to self image and self perpetuation and otherwise do just enough to keep themselves viable as a school. So long as they can doi that, I believe they won't make the changes necessary to get back to the point that 99% of the kids graduate and the diploma is truly proof that they are educated.

0 Replies

And in your fairytale land, all colleges will be first rate like Harvard, Stanford, and UC Berkeley, and graduate 100 percent of them with honors.

0 Replies

Fine C.I. I prefer to think that public schools can be good again. You seem to prefer to think they are just fine as they are. I prefer the way I think better.

0 Replies

Quote, "You seem to prefer to think they are just fine as they are." Why do you continue to insist I believe something I have never stated? Your assumptions are usually wrong, so why continue on with your blather? I have never in my life said, our school system is just fine as they are. If you can find any statement that supports that view, please show it to me.

0 Replies

Let's try this one more time:

NCLB Is Bad:
If Bush were my dog, I would swat him with a rolled up newspaper for depositing NCLB on my floor.

*NCLB increases financial strain on public school systems without providing a commiserate increase in educational funding.

*NCLB's goals for test participation (95% of students) and results (100% of students passing)are statistically unfeasible if not impossible--it isn't that they aren't worth striving towards, but they are unrealistic in the extreme.

*NCLB forces schools to replace important curricula with test preparation.

*NCLB penalizes schools that already have insufficient resources by taking away additional resources.

*NCLB penalizes already high achieving schools for not "improving" enough (this would be like a professional baseball team owner docking a player's pay because his batting average went from .341 last season to only .354 this season rather than .362).

NCLB is either a poorly conceived plan to improve schools, or a well conceived plan to push a conservative ideological agenda. It doesn't address the problems faced by education, it just shifts blame. If we really want to improve education, then lets talk about reducing class sizes, providing adequate learning materials, and maintaining the buildings children are educated in. Or, since many of us on both sides of the argument have identified parental involvement as key to educational success, lets be really bold and talk about how to reverse the trends of steadily decreasing real wages and steadily increasing work weeks so parents don't have to choose between feeding, clothing and housing their children and spending time with them.

0 Replies

Quote, "NCLB is either a poorly conceived plan to improve schools, or a well conceived plan to push a conservative ideological agenda. It doesn't address the problems faced by education, it just shifts blame. If we really want to improve education, then lets talk about reducing class sizes, providing adequate learning materials, and maintaining the buildings children are educated in. Or, since many of us on both sides of the argument have identified parental involvement as key to educational success, lets be really bold and talk about how to reverse the trends of steadily decreasing real wages and steadily increasing work weeks so parents don't have to choose between feeding, clothing and housing their children and spending time with them."

I agree 100 percent with the above statement; it addresses the key issues of why our children will not maximize their potential. Reducing class size would be an excellent start.

0 Replies

CI writes

Quote:

Why do you continue to insist I believe something I have never stated? Your assumptions are usually wrong, so why continue on with your blather?

Maybe it is because you insist on consistently misrepresenting what I say and drawing conclusions I didn't say? And in so doing you give the distinct impression that you take the opposite point of view. If you're going to tell me something I didn't say is completely wrong, it logically follows that the opposite of what you say I said is what you actually believe. You don't like NCLB. Many don't. You don't like vouchers. Many don't. So what do you like? Anybody can sit on their hands and complain and point fingers and lay blame. But I think those who really care will offer suggestion for how it can be corrected.

0 Replies

Fox, It seems obvious you haven't read a word I've posted since the start of this thread. It states precisely what I support and do not support. Get your head out of the shet pot; you might learn something valuable.

0 Replies

I prefer to think public schools can be good again, but I don't find vouchers to be the answer.

We have numerous schools that have sprung up due to the voucher system. Most have closed due to failure of students, corruption and lack of accountability.

Sound familiar?

But, even if the voucher schools had succeeded as many private schools have done in our area, the difference is in the "for profit" competition. Public schools are not for profit and have to accept all students assigned. Voucher and private schools can set enrollment limits. Public schools can't begin to compete with private schools for that reason alone.

Higher teacher pay, lower classroom sizes and ability of private and voucher schools to choose cream of the crop teachers also gives them an edge with which public schools can't compete.

I'd like to see the status of teachers increased. Give them the respect and tools they need to do their job. Make it a noble profession again that draws top professionals.

How does Harvard draw better professors than State University? How does Duke draw better staff than Georgia Tech? Is it just by pay rate? Or, do they have higher standards for hiring?

0 Replies

Now Mills says raise teacher's pay, reduce class size, and improve school buildings. In my opinion that is not for the Federal government to do but for the local community or state to do depending on how your schools systems are structured.

In many, maybe most school districts, the tax payers are in full revolt mode unwilling to pump more and more money into what they perceive to be bloated administrations and a failed system.

If the schools want more parental involvement, they have to insist on it and enforce it. The parents need to feel the school is an ally and that it reinforces parental values and that the parent's input is both heard and valued. Too often these days the parents feel their values are run over and undercut by the school. That does not mean that the school should cater to every nut out there, but the school should respect the values of the community or it will be in an adversarial role and will not receive respect and support from that community.

That little backwater one horse oil patch town I grew up in? There was no preschool program and kindergarten was a luxury for a very privileged few. There was no Ritalin or other 'behavior controlling' drugs. No school psychologist. Almost all classes above second grade had 29 to 35 kids in them; a few had even more. But it was a great learning enviroment because the persistently disruptive kid was sent to the principal's office, sent home with a note from the teacher or principal, suspended, or expelled. The teacher was the captain of his or her ship, dressed professionally, commanded complete respect from the entire community, and s/he taught real subjects in interesting ways to kids who were expected to learn them. It never occurred to any of us kids that we had any rights whatsoever and we knew what was expected of us. And it was safe and secure and, for the most part, a good place to be.

I know it is a different world now, but I cannot believe we can't do as well by our kids now as we did back then.

0 Replies

squinney, You've touched on the reason why not all schools will succeed by just establishing higher standards for all of our schools. There are good reasons why the Harvard and Stanford does a better job at teaching; not only better funding, but they select students from the top performers from across this country. Even if all students had a desire to attend a Harvard or Stanford, over 90 percent will not cut the mustard. NCLB is not even a viable solution; it turns our schools into test mills with worse consequences for all.

0 Replies

Squinney writes

Quote:

Public schools are not for profit and have to accept all students assigned.

There is no reason they cannot be market oriented though in order to keep the funding coming in. School should not believe they are entitled to the funding if they don't do their job.

And why do they have to accept all students? Why should the public school have to accept the disruptive student who destroys the learning environment for the other kids? That's the rule now. It has not always been the rule and it does not have to be the rule forever.

0 Replies

Quote, "And why do they have to accept all students? Why should the public school have to accept the disruptive student who destroys the learning environment for the other kids? That's the rule now. It has not always been the rule and it does not have to be the rule forever."

Oh, so you're saying it's okay for the voucher system to be "selective." Isn't it wunnerful that voucher schools should do better. Wink

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you're going to tell me something I didn't say is completely wrong, it logically follows that the opposite of what you say I said is what you actually believe.

It is this kind of logic that gets you into trouble Fox. If someone says you like blue and you disagree does that mean only the complementary color is the right answer? No, it doesn't.

It is this "yes/no" logic that is the fault in NCLB and its proponents. They see there being only one solution and anything else can't work. In any real world problem solving there are risks and rewards to every solution. One should base their answer not on being the only correct solution but the best of many solutions. Mills75 has stated clearly many of the problems with NCLB. Until those issues are addressed NCLB is doomed to failure. I have seen it time after time in the real world of people pretending that problems don't exist after they have implemented a solution. EVERY TIME it results in failure. If you refuse to realistically address or even admit the problems then a solution will never work.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Squinney writes

Quote:
Public schools are not for profit and have to accept all students assigned.

There is no reason they cannot be market oriented though in order to keep the funding coming in. School should not believe they are entitled to the funding if they don't do their job.

And why do they have to accept all students? Why should the public school have to accept the disruptive student who destroys the learning environment for the other kids? That's the rule now. It has not always been the rule and it does not have to be the rule forever.

What is the job of schools as you see it? If you don't clearly define the goal then how can you possibly come up with a solution?

Schools have a job to try to teach children. That comes with many problems. Lack of money won't solve those problems.

Giving the students vouchers won't solve that problem. It might benefit a few but fails to address the needs of the many. Refusing to accept unruly kids goes directly against "No child left behind" since it purposely leaves behind any child ruled to be a problem.

You don't solve the problem of children failing to learn by refusing to teach them. That is directly opposite of the stated goal.

0 Replies

Finally Parados has hit the the issue Fox elegantly misses. Define the Problem! only then can you consider the solutions.

0 Replies

Parados writes

Quote:

It is this kind of logic that gets you into trouble Fox. If someone says you like blue and you disagree does that mean only the complementary color is the right answer? No, it doesn't.

No, your analogy is wrong. The disagreement has nothing to do with preference but with policy. If I say vouchers is the way to go and C.I. says I am wrong, would it not logically follow that C.I. thinks vouchers are not the way to go?

Parados writes

Quote:

What is the job of schools as you see it? If you don't clearly define the goal then how can you possibly come up with a solution?

Schools have a job to try to teach children. That comes with many problems. Lack of money won't solve those problems.

Giving the students vouchers won't solve that problem. It might benefit a few but fails to address the needs of the many. Refusing to accept unruly kids goes directly against "No child left behind" since it purposely leaves behind any child ruled to be a problem.

You don't solve the problem of children failing to learn by refusing to teach them. That is directly opposite of the stated goal.

You'll have to go back many pages and through many posts in this thread as I have commented on all these points at length. But to summarize, of cource vouchers won't solve all the problems. There has to be serious systemic changes in the public schools before even most of the problems will be addressed, much less solved.

The virtue of vouchers is that it opens opportunity to many who can otherwise only dream about the advantages enjoyed by the rich. A working class family who cannot afford a private school education for their kids might, however, be able to swing the difference between the value of the voucher and the school tuition.

Public schools receive funding based on enrollment. If enrollment starts falling off, as it might with a voucher system, they no longer have guaranteed funding for mediocre performance. They will have to make those critical systemic changes to lure the money back to them. That working class family who knows the child will have the same positive enviroment and quality education in the public school as the child will receive in a private school will be more than happy to turn in the voucher to the public school and not have to worry about digging up the balance of private school tuition.

It's really simple. Those who depend on public schools for their livelihood won't change if they don't have to. Make it profitable for them to do so, however, and I guarantee you they will.

We don't have to keep operating in a system that is proving again and again that it isn't doing the job. The United States school system was once one of the world's most excellent. It can be again. It only takes the public will to do it.

So far as your question: what is the job of the schools? You answered it yourself. The job of the schools is to educate children. The public schools are not getting the job done.

I think the voucher system might be so effective, the Federal government could probably scrap NCLB and go to a more reasonable system.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many schools were involved in the "new study?" Who did this "new study?" When was this study done?

Quote:

Analyzing raw data from the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress for 28,000 fourth- and eighth-graders representing more than 1,300 public and private schools, Mrs. Lubienski, whose research focuses on equity issues in math education, was surprised by what she was seeing. When children of similar socioeconomic status were compared, the public school children scored higher

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0510/p11s01-legn.html

0 Replies

Back to Leave No Child Behind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know