"This is off topic but I thought of you when I was introduced to a new organization called takechargemn.com. Their purpose is to help the black community and they seemed to have a similar philosophy as you on how this can be done. It was started by Kendall Quall. Molly"
Molly, I love when folks give me new topics, especially when the news feed is slow. :-)
I agree with much of their concepts / mission, however their education statement is questionable at best..
"Over 50 percent of black students in Minneapolis public schools perform below state and national averages while black students from the same neighborhood that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools, perform above state and national averages of all students. These schools have waiting lists from desperate parents. Government agencies should not hinder impoverished parents of their choice of schools when local public schools fail students academically. We believe that choice in education is a civil right. Clear and concise options should be given to parents and students on the routes to prosperity through college education as well as certification via trade schools."
Why can't these idiots just be honest and consistent when writing statements? Trying to compare schools where many of the parents do not prioritize learning to schools where they do drives me crazy. It is like comparing North Mpls to Wayzata.
But stressing strong families is definitely Job 1...
213 comments:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»I think your comments and your report card link are confusing Hope Academy (a private religious school in Mpls) with Hope Community Academy (a Hmong charter school in St. Paul)
Students in private religious schools do not have to take the MCA.
I have mixed feelings about providing public school dollars to parochial schools. Attending these schools does seem to benefit some at risk students who are able to attend them. It is like the starfish story about not saving all the starfish on the beach but being able to save some of them.
Sort of like how the folkss who were in the lifeboats had a higher survival rate than those who remained on the Titanic. But is that really for providing more support life boats than technology that would helpe to spot and avoid icebergs?
==Hiram
Laurie,
That clears up why I only found one of their "successful" schools... I picked the wrong one... :-)
But if they are comparing:
- public to private
- and education focused families to families in general
- and providing no data (ie poverty rate, language, mobility, performance, special needs, family type, etc)
Their claim is pointless as we have discussed before...
This comparison drives the analyst in me crazy...
"Over 50 percent of black students in Minneapolis public schools perform below state and national averages"
"black students from the same neighborhood that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools, perform above state and national averages of all students."
They quantify the first category while not doing it with the second...
Is it 1% of black students from those schools who do so well? .001%?
Our kids went to Spanish Immersion elementary school. It's still public and follows the same standards, but getting in requires effort and involvement beyond just having a kid and putting them on a bus. The school likes to tout their higher performance metrics compared to the standard elementary schools, but as you pointed out, your baseline is involved parents looking for the best opportunities for their kids versus parents who don't take that extra step. You'll still have those that excel in the regular situation, and I'd wager you'd find a supportive structure at home behind them in either case.
Unfortunately I can usually tell if a school is "wonderful" by who attends it... :-(
Is this your Immersion?
If so it is even whiter, wealthier and fewer special needs than a pretty affluent district. :-O
Who needs privates with schools like that??? :-)
By the way, our Robbinsdale Immersion is quite different from the district...
But they have been trying hard to attract a mix for 10+years.
If I was a low income parent living in a neighborhood with a school that had many challenges and very low test scores, I would like a scholarship to a parochial school. I'd prefer to enroll my child in a high performing charter school but I don't think Mpls and st. Paul have many of those.
Laurie,
"high performing ... school"
I think you are buying into the Conservative viewpoint...
My argument is that a "high performing ... school" requires:
- children raised well from birth to K
- parents who are knowledgeable, capable and willing
- teachers who are motivated and capable
- a community that values education & fights crime
- money definitely helps (at home & at school)
My point being that schools can only do so much...
If parent(s) do not ensure their children's:
- brain develops correctly (O - K)
- health, food, security, etc needs are met
- value behaving and education
- efforts to learn are supported at home
Those ACEs are a key problem
And if you put a whole bunch of high ACE kids in a school...
The school is usually labelled as "failing"...
I have never blamed the schools with a challenging demographic. I worked in one for 10 years. I just would prefer to not send my child to a school with low test scores.
So you would not want to send your kids to a school like the one you work at?
Is that because of the student body?
The parent(s)?
The teacher(s)?
Other?
What would need to change to dramatically increase your schools test scores?
I have a new job at a school with higher test scores, but still not good enough that I would send my children there. Teachers can only do so much. There is not enough time to teach the different levels all well. Teachers try to teach the grade level standards but need to spend a lot of time helping the low students (who are too low to really get it)
That is my usual point...
Children who come to kindergarten prepared, English fluent, healthy, developed, with support, with correct behaviors, etc are like race horse ready to listen, learn, thrive and grow. And those kids usually get excellent support at home.
Children who come after 5 years of ACEs, poor role modeling, poor behavioral / social skills, etc by comparison come in floundering and struggling.
And then people wonder why schools with more unlucky kids struggle?
It is like 2 9th graders trying out for the hockey team...
- 1 who has been playing for 10 years
and
- 1 who has never worn hockey skates
Has it occurred to anybody that the reason some parents "don't value education" is because they have been so beat down and discouraged by the lack of choices, and forced to accept what the education establishment CALLS an education, that they give up? I still firmly believe if you handed that poor parent a $15,000 check and told them to find an education for their child, they would suddenly become VERY aware and accepting of the "value of education." The other disadvantages from birth may not be fully overcome, but a LOT can be done if the educational environment is improved, avoiding "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
Once again, you are blaming parents for not making a choice that is not available to them.
Has it occurred to anybody that the reason some parents "don't value education" is because they have been so beat down and discouraged by the lack of choices, and forced to accept what the education establishment CALLS an education, that they give up?
Interesting question. I would suggest that people who are concerned about the quality of the education their children are receiving do not intersect much with people who don't value education. Their pie charts won't overlap much.
Elsewhere, on a faux liberal website, someone complained about high taxes and lack of choice. This is a problem one often sees, juxtaposition of unrelated or even contradictory issues. You can have low taxes or more choices, but you can't really have both or at the very least those two things work against each other.
We do have choice in our schools as we do in much else. Each of us can choose to drive a Cadillac or ride the bus. If you decide not to drive a Cadillac, it isn't because you are denied entrance to the showroom or because they refuse your credit card.
--Hiram
Jerry,
This is MN where we have tons of choices.
The unfortunate reality is that many parent(s) are incompetent, immature and/or unstable.
I am still waiting for you to give me the name of the school that accepts all kids / families and succeeds in spite of these challenges.
I agree that teacher's unions, school bureaucracy, etc are maybe 30% of the problem...
But without holding parent(s) accountable for doing their job, the problem will continue...
At Least Take Charge acknowledges this. Not that I have any idea how they plan to accomplish it?
"Restoring the two-parent black family should be a priority both locally and nationally.
The nuclear family is the bedrock of any society and it has been decimated and ignored in the black community for five decades.
The problem is expanding beyond the black community. Today, over 50% of births occur outside of marriage for all women under the age of 30. This is the largest percentage of any country worldwide.
Raising children in a marriage is the best way to reduce poverty, combat inequality, and develop socially productive children.
Government agencies should incentivize marriage based on positive outcomes for children and society in general."
I changed my mind. If I lived in east St. Paul I would consider sending my children to the school where I now work.
test score comparison
"This is MN where we have tons of choices."
Then explain why the privates, charters and parochial schools have such long waiting lists. And that is just those kids whose parents can afford the extra cost. There is simply NOT enough choice for everybody that would exercise it if it were a realistic option for them.
You have no idea how to "fix" the problem of poor single-parent families and their kids, yet you want to continue to ignore the problems we CAN fix, by demanding that our public schools do better or let parents choose something else.
Laurie,
Now that is a mystery, slightly better demographics and worse scores?
Jerry,
What is that magical school that does better with all comers again?
The way I see the date is Achieve Language Academy has slightly better test scores than St. Paul public schools but they have a smaller % of low income students.
Laurie,
That makes more sense, I misread the bar chart.
Though I am not sure meets or exceeds numbers of 44.% vs 32.6% is wonderful.
However it aligns with my rough formula... :-(
Engagement and capability of the Parent(s) and the make up of the student body pretty much determine the "success" of the school.
And effective school mgmt, capable teachers and longer hours can help, but to a lesser degree. Maybe that is why the saying "the apple did not fall from the tree is correct so often".
"Today, over 50% of births occur outside of marriage for all women under the age of 30. This is the largest percentage of any country worldwide."
Nope. Not even close. The U.S. is below the OECD average in out of wedlock births.
OECD: Share of births outside of marriage
This graph is interesting...
"Chart SF2.4.B. Share of births outside of marriage over time
Proportion (%) of all births where the mother's marital status at the time of birth is other than married, 1970, 1995
and 2018"
No wonder so many countries are struggling...
"Jerry,
What is that magical school that does better with all comers again?"
You keep asking that question as if it meant something. The answer is that EVERY "choice" school does better than the "forced attendance" public schools by the simple virtue of the fact it is chosen by the parents. Given equal resources, they would do even better.
You are still blaming parents for not making "right" choices that are not available to them.
You are funny... I'll have to put that into the school performance ranking criteria...
Well by your criteria every school is wonderful... Since with moving, open enrollment, magnets, charters, privates, etc, parent's in MN have tons of choices...
Only the parent(s) efforts and choices limit where their kid(s) go to school.
Minneapolis has 32 charter schools. Also, there is choice within Mpls public schools.
"Only the parent(s) efforts and choices limit where their kid(s) go to school."
You are so funny. Obviously, parents who can afford a second choice are lined up on wait lists, and the thousands of others who would LIKE a choice but cannot afford the fees, transportation, etc. get stuck with whatever the educracy monopoly offers up.
You may be half right. Parents' choices are limited. Hard to blame their effort if the choice isn't available. Why is it so hard to admit that many kids are trapped in the poorest schools?
Charter schools are free and provide free transportation.
We must weed out Minnesota's lousy charter schools
Jerry,
You are starting to sound like one of those "Libruls"...
A true Conservative would be saying that adults are responsible for their own expenses, be it healthcare, food, housing or education. :-) They chose to have that kid, they should pay for it. :-O
Laurie,
But all of those "failing charters" must be "succeeding" if the parent(s) are choosing to send their kids their. (Jerry's success criteria)
That was an interesting article, especially since it noted that the waiting lists only exist in Jerry's head.
A) I am a liberal when it comes to education, believing that public education is a public good and must be available to all, (and unlike many liberals, I actually care about results of high quality).
B) I am a conservative who believes that public goods must be delivered with cost-efficiency and (not necessarily delivered by public employees) dedicated to doing it well. (Not that you would know what "a conservative" thinks or wants.)
Charters and privates don't apparently advertise their waitlists. Best I found was this: waitlist . BUT, any waitlist, especially for the "free" charters, must be proof that choice does NOT exist for everyone, and if you consider the high cost of the privates or even parochial schools, that choice is obviously not available to all poor families.
A) Now stop flip flopping, earlier you said parental choice was most important...
If you truly cared about the quality of the child's education and the public good you would be a big supporter of Parent/Child Early Education.
And choice certainly is not a strong indicator of school quality. I mean most charters struggle to perform as well as the local schools with many fewer challenges.
B) Trust me... After ~55 years listening to my parents, I know how conservatives think... And after the last ~5 years it has gotten even stranger. They care about babies until they are born and then say that the baby is someone else's problem... They lobby to get education funding so people like themselves can run away from the unfortunate kids and leave them to fail. Does that sound about correct?
You won't even help poor people buy birth control or get pre-natal health care... Where is that caring?
C) Without details, 5,000 on a waiting list means nothing other than that the charters have not expanded adequately. Maybe they like a waiting list so they have a reason for turning down questionable families?
Something that status quo public schools can not do. :-O
Come to think of it.
I thought you were the one who said schools would open, expand and out perform the publics for far less money given the chance?
Right now the State gives charters money to do so and the results have only been so so...
And as you noted, the supply is not meeting the demand.
Actually, it is quite easy to increase the numbers performance and we can do it at a lower cost. It's what we used to do. Expel or otherwise push out low performing students. They are expensive and the drag the numbers down. Elite schools do this but we just don't notice because their low performing, expensive kids are never in their schools to begin with.
--Hiram
And if the behaviorally or special needs challenged do get in there by accident, they find away to expel them or make them quit.
I remember a father telling me about "the talk" a private schools administrator had with him.
"We love your child however we really do not have the resources to manage him or his special needs. We think he would be much better off in the public schools where they have the services and professionals he needs..."
Sorry, but this conversation simply lacks any common sense.
You insist parents have school choice. Their choices are:
1. A "free" public school that will fail, or is already failing, to educate their child, especially if the child is of color.
2. A "free" public charter school, which may perform /worse/ than the public schools in general, according to the citations here, but may be better than THEIR public school.
3. A "free" charter school, limited availability, that is "better" than the public schools, but lacks the resources it should have if true "choice" was intended by the educracy.
4. A not-free, maybe parochial school whose tuition and location will bar many from that choice.
5. A really good private/parochial school that costs a lot, barring most, and that screens out students who may have been stunted academically by years of public schooling.
In short, very little true "choice" for parents of modest means.
And this really defies common sense. "I thought you were the one who said schools would open, expand and out perform the publics for far less money given the chance?"
Yes, I did. So tell me, where are the vouchers that would ACTUALLY incentivize private schools to open, expand and outperform the publics, for less money? It cannot be done with public charter schools because of all the "rules," and it isn't "choice" to say you can go to this failing public school or this failing public charter.
Here is another: "If you truly cared about the quality of the child's education and the public good you would be a big supporter of Parent/Child Early Education." I want you to prove that the public schools can offer a decent education to every child K-12, BEFORE you hand them a bigger task of E-12. Besides, the results of Head Start show that it doesn't really help beyond about the first grade, if even that. As for "family ed," that's not something I want the public schools doing, either. That's social services' job.
I simply refuse to believe that "demography is destiny." If the public schools in Mississippi can have a much LOWER racial achievement gap while their black students do BETTER than black kids in Minnesota, we need to be "fixing" MN schools, one way or another, before we continue penalizing kids for "learning while black."
Actually they are free to attend any Public School in the State. (ie normal, charter, magnet) Either by open enrolling or moving.
You just want to subsidize privates at the expense of the tax payers. And worse yet then you do not want the Privates held accountable for measurable results. It is surreal.
I don't care who does the work, but you simply do not support any programs that support or hold parent(s) accountable for ensuring their kids are ready for school.
Mississippi's gap is smaller because everyone scores lower... Not much of a success story by any means...
An Interesting Comparison
Overall
MN = 18
MS = 43
NAEP Reading / Math
MN = 3/17
MS = 43/45
Even with our gap...
The question is what are New Jersey & Massachusetts doing correctly.
They should have pretty diverse populations.
The question is, why aren't we doing better? it cannot be money, which is the only thing the unions seem to believe (and convincing their pals in the legislature) matters. Yet for per-pupil spending at or near the state average, academic performance varies by almost 2:1. And because the state aid formula supposedly fully compensates for poverty, minority status and non-English-speaking, that should not be a reason to give schools a pass on performance. Especially when it is statistically clear that the public schools that spend the most,tend to have the lowest academic performance and the largest achievement gaps.
You have schools which have shown that they can take students out of the public schools and give them almost 2 years of learning in one year, and you have studies showing that a poor teacher two years in a row, costs students an average of one year of learning. You simply cannot tell me that every teacher in these failing public schools is a good teacher, in a good environment. If you cannot or will not introduce True competition, or at least compensate teachers and schools based on measured academic performance (as we should have been doing since NCLB), then quit yelling at the parents for being forced into accepting a substandard "education" for their kids.
"supposedly fully compensates for poverty, minority status and non-English-speaking"
Who is saying that?
"schools that spend the most tend to have the lowest academic performance and the largest achievement gaps."
Make sense to me... Minneapolis has both the most lucky and least lucky kids...
What is the name of that miracle school again?
Unfortunately poor parenting yields troubled and failing kids... Seems an old "spare the rod, spoil the child" guy like you would understand that.
Do you actually know anything about the State school aid formula? Those things were built into it long ago, by the legislature, so all of your moaning about "unlucky kids" is just prejudice on your part. You're saying black kids can't learn, which is exactly [the liberal attitude of] the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that now causes these schools to consistently fail.
It follows then, since the state aid formula sends more money to the schools with the most unlucky kids (by your definition) to fully compensate for their unluckiness, there should be no reason whatsoever that there should be any discernible difference in academic performance, based on spending. And indeed, at lower but equal levels of spending per pupil, MN schools are all over the map on achievement, and it is fair to say that what matters in these schools is something OTHER than spending, and something OTHER than "lucky/unlucky."
Seems to me you are far too willing to deny these "unlucky kids" any CHANCE of getting a decent education and escaping the poverty they are in. How callous can you be?
Here's my idea for State school aid. Start with every school gets the same amount, plus whatever "compensatory aid" is needed to cover districts with a small tax base despite "local effort." Then I would entertain a "cost of living" adder for those urban schools that have higher costs because of their location. THEN, what I would ask is that each school district present a performance bond request to the legislature, stating exactly what programs they will initiate, how much academic performance will improve, and what the cost of those programs will be. They get the money if it is at all within reason, (I'm happy to see them get it) and then we see what happens. There has to be an accountability at some point, but that's a quibble for later. (It wouldn't hurt if some of the onerous State mandates were loosened, but that could be part of the budget request, e.g. "let us offer Hmong to meet the language requirement" or "we want to spend less on food service than you require."
Actually I have never mentioned race, I think it is not an issue. Unlucky kids: those with dysfunctional, emotionally immature, negligent, irresponsible, socially challenged, etc adults in their lives can be of any race.
Of course luck is the dominant causal factor, I mean luck determines a child's:
- genetics
- pre-natal healthcare
- special needs
- early healthcare
- diet and brain development
- daily role models
- emotional stability
- housing stability
- pre-K experiences / development
- language, communication, etc
- support, safety, etc during K-12
Again, because politicians and yourself say the formula is correct... It does not mean it is.
Accountability... I do not think you even understand the concept. I mean you want to support Privates that do not even show up on the school report card system.
Have it your way, then. A) Demography is destiny, so there is no point trying to educate these "unlucky" kids. It cannot be done. B) The school system really does not matter, every educational result is strictly a matter of what the kid was born with and into. C) If the formula is incorrect, then the politicians think, perhaps incorrectly, that there is an amount of money that DOES make a difference for unlucky kids, something you deny in A. D) Accountability says that parents see better results than what they expect in the alternative choices IF they have choices at all. There should be some (common) objective measure of academic performance, like the MN basic standards tests, on which that determination could be made by those enabled to make a choice. E) finally, whatever excuse you may make for the public schools by blaming parents, you still want to deny choice to EVERY parent because private schools cost money and you prefer to punish those who can afford it, rather than enable those who cannot to access a better education.
I thought only the teachers union held a hatred for vouchers, and while I understand their reasons, and consider them corrupt and malignant, I do not understand yours.
More $ could help with improving education in the lowest performing schools. If these schools paid higher than average salaries this might help attract and retain better teachers. More money could also pay for more small group intervention in math and reading.
Laurie, I would love to see that. Moreover, I would like to see schools propose that when they went to the legislature for "more money." Tell me what you will do to improve academic performance, by how much and what it will cost. (why what we now spend to "compensate" for "unlucky kids" isn't enough, I don't know. That is, one wonders where those huge per-=pupil (average) expenditures are going now.
I think in a large public school district like Mpls the schools with the most at risk students and lowest test scores should pay a bonus for working and staying there. I don't know if they would get the teacher's union to agree with this.
My charter school has added a couple of math intervention teachers for a couple of years. I am not sure but I think there is extra money related to covid and a year of distance learning and making up for learning loss.
Good to hear. I did hear that, during the year-long school shutdown, over 30% of kids NEVER logged in to their "distance learning environment," and I am certain they were the ones that most needed the schooling. I think it's criminal. I cannot imagine how that damage is ever going to be repaired.
What do the math intervention teachers do? Work with small groups to bring them up to speed, teach basic concepts they may have missed? I've done some work with kindergarten kids that arrive at school not knowing their numbers or being able to count well. Very successful one-on-one like that. 8 weeks or so, one day a week, and off they go.
Jerry,
I have perfect faith that every child can learn and be successful. I just acknowledge that getting there is complicated and challenging. And the child's first five years are CRITICAL in doing so.
You are simply a "one trick pony" who wants to divert funds from the kids who really need them. :-(
I mean people like me can already move, open enroll, send my kids to a charter, magnet or private. And you want to pay folks like me to make it even easier to run from the poor unlucky kids to your religious schools.
Vouchers as we have discussed for years now have an inherent flaw... How much should each child's voucher be for? I mean no private is going to enroll challenging our special needs kids for the base rate.
That means the privates continue to cherry pick and the publics continue to get all the pits... :-)
Jerry,
Remember that reducing ACEs has to be job one, if you want children to develop and learn well.
Your proposals ignore these.. :-(
Laurie,
Unfortunately any "extra money" gets siphoned off to the people who are most effective at lobbying. They don't necessarily intend harm, but they want something for themselves or their kids and can not help themselves. :-O
Some examples:
- older teachers paid more even if they teach in easier classrooms
- need a sport, art, activity, etc funded that they value
- need a facility improved because they attended that there
- keep local school open even when not needed
- need better more expensive Superintendent
- need more administration, equipment, services, etc
- etc
Remember what our old Superintendent made very clear when he was speaking to us at our more affluent Elementary school. "I am here talking to you because you are active, motivated and will attend this meeting. There are other schools in the district where we have tried to hold these meetings and no one attends."
I am not sure who will lobby too ensure the truly needy unlucky kids get what they need.
Too many folks are like Jerry and the union, trying to steal their money for what they think is important to them.
John, once again you prove that the only possible viewpoint is your own.
"You are simply a "one trick pony" who wants to divert funds from the kids who really need them. :-(" That is a lie and you know it. Knock it off.
"I mean people like me can already move, open enroll, send my kids to a charter, magnet or private." So... YOU have choice, but want to deny it to the poor kids who currently do not? Single mother of three on welfare, looking to buy a new house in the suburbs, minimum $300,000, 10% down. C'mon, man, enter the realm of the possible.
" And you want to pay folks like me to make it even easier to run from the poor unlucky kids to your religious schools." Wrong. Almost every voucher program ever proposed targets those kids who need a choice, either by income or, more likely, by being in a school deemed "failing" by some government standard. As it should be. To do otherwise is to condemn kids to continued and unnecessary failure. You're a monster.
"Vouchers as we have discussed for years now have an inherent flaw... How much should each child's voucher be for?" Simple. Whatever the child's current per-pupil is in the public school he/she attends. Special needs kids would have a different number than "average."
" I mean no private is going to enroll challenging our special needs kids for the base rate." How do you know? You don't believe in competition, do you? You don't think some dedicated outfit couldn't pluck failing kids out of a failing school, teach them the basics, and do it for less money than the government-run monopoly?
"Your proposals ignore these.. :-(" Yes. My proposals are about fixing our education system NOW, before we condemn another generation of kids to penury and squalor. You keep insisting that we must remedy all of society's ills, for everybody, before we can do something that MIGHT lift large numbers OUT of the poverty they are in. That is the PURPOSE and PROMISE of universal, free, public education. You are denying it to them.
"Too many folks are like Jerry and the union, trying to steal their money for what they think is important to them." Leave me out of it, and quit imputing false motivations to me. It's dishonest at best. I want the money spent where it will do more good for more kids. The unions actually hate that and actively work against it. It is one reason why vouchers, starting with kids in failing schools, are necessary, to break that political stranglehold.
"I am not sure who will lobby too [sic] ensure the truly needy unlucky kids get what they need." How about you? And what will you lobby for, school choice vouchers?
Jerry,
If you have another trick, let's hear it. All I have ever heard from you is vouchers, vouchers, vouchers...
While you totally ignore or fight against anything that would help ensure children are healthy, ready and supported when they walk through those kindergarten doors.
It is a bit strange... You care about a fetus and want K-12ers to be able to go to private schools... But to hell with the kids during their most critical 5 years of development... :-O
As always, please tell me the name of the "miracle" school that takes, keeps and succeeds with every student. As far as I know, the only really successful model is the HCZ model that starts working with the parents before the baby is born.
What schools need is more teachers better teachers and better curriculum (better administration could help as well.) Schools could be given money specifically for highering more intervention teachers. My school hired 2 small group math teachers with the money it was given.
Laurie,
Seems like good ideas, though what is preventing the schools from doing this with the BILLIONs of dollars they receive today?
And unfortunately time is working against the schools.
They only have the kids for 20% of the time, and have no influence (0%) during the most critical first five years.
This is why parent(s), community, etc make all the difference in a child's life and development.
Here is my math:
- 5 years with no pre-K = 0%
- 13 yrs x 16 hrs/day awake x 365 = 76000 hrs
- 13 yrs x 7 hrs in school x 171 days = 15500 hrs
John, it is obvious you would just as soon eliminate public education altogether. The lucky kids will learn without it (or their parents will pay for better), and the unlucky kids can't learn WITH it. Everything is determined before they "walk through the kindergarten doors." BS.
The movie "Lean on Me" is based on a true story. Reconstituted schools can perform better, sometimes markedly so. They aren't "miracle schools"; they are simply schools where common sense education-- focused on individual student learning, with an effective discipline policy and high expectations, driven by "good" teachers and administrators.
Why you are so insistent on condemning these poor kids to lives of penury and squalor I simply cannot understand. Do you care at ALL about these kids after they manage not to be aborted?
And you continue to deny the poor kids an equal chance at an education, by denying their family the MONEY they could use to get a better education. Why do you hate poor people? Don't call it a voucher, if the word offends you, call it "putting public services up for competitive bidding."
Laurie, you are absolutely right. But John has a good question. I know your school has little "extra" money, but the nearby publics spend quite a bit more, don't they? And on what?
No, I am fine with public education. Except I would work to weaken unions and increase accountability, and work to ensure the kids they receive are ready/able to learn and are supported at home.
Lean on Me is a movie. Some truth, some fiction and questionable long term impact.
You definitely like to focus on that one "trick". Maybe all you have is a hammer in your bag...
Jerry,
Another elementary near her K-8 program has higher poverty, higher special needs, higher homelessness and the same number of English language learners
I assume they find a LOT of places to spend any extra money they receive...
I wish they reported on how many parents at home... But I assume that shows up in the poverty number... (ie one income households are pretty poor usually)
I think traditional districts in general pay teachers better than charter schools. I think when schools are given more money with no strings attached it often goes to higher saleries for staff.
Take your pick:
- Teachers
- Cool programs
- Facilities
What ever the smart motivated people can ask for and demand.
Not too many people lobbying for the kid with the dysfunctional home life.
John, you are correct about that. I've long said that School Boards are not paid enough to say "no" to anybody. But suppose they had to COMPETE for students? Suppose those parents who wanted academic achievement rather than the "frills" could take their child elsewhere, maybe for less cost to themselves? BTW, Mpls Charters take in over $3000 LESS than the nearby publics. If they do as well academically, they are doing good. Call it a "miracle school."
You keep denying that "one trick"-- simple, free-market competition for edudollars-- can work, while simultaneously insisting that the fantastical magic of fixing all of our social ills must come first. Tell me, how is having all kids "ready for kindergarten" going to be done, since so far government has failed miserably to do so, and how is that going to even begin to help those kids who are PAST kindergarten already? Are you condemning another whole generation of kids to failure, or will you allow them to escape the system that is failing them?
Let's go back to your original post for a moment. You are complaining that private "choice" schools do better than the public schools? What is the matter with you? The cold hard fact is that they DO, and that opportunity should be offered to MORE kids! You want to condemn poor parents for not making a choice that is not available to them! Is it worth painting these parents as incapable and incompetent just to feed your sense of superiority over them?
Jerry,
I think status quo publics take in more than $3,000 extra... But they also have many more challenges within their student body... You keep comparing apples and oranges without acknowledging the differences.
The trick as noted before is too simplistic and leaves too many of the most desperate kids in worse shape. All adults in a child's life need to be held accountable, not just the Teachers.
I am not sure if I have ever said that private schools are better or worse. I have said that they have a much easier and more fortunate student body.
vouchers could pay the cost for some students to attend parochial schools but would not cover tuitionat at a "prep schoo" like Blake. I think there is definitly a limit to how many students a school would accept and they likely would not keep all the students that enroll. So this may be a solution that helps relatively few students for the maajority it would not make a difference.
If the best students leave public schools the quality of education would go down for those who remain. The biggest problem many low achieving schools have is the small number of successful students. If you took a student scoring not proficient and put them in a school where 75% of the students pass the MCA I think their achievment level is likely to go up.
A better solution might be to fund charters to a level equal to traditional districts. (with consideration given for the highet cost of special ed in traditional districts)
Couple of things.
--Laurie, charters with larger number of special ed kids DO get additional funding.
--If we had true school choice, where the money followed the student, there would not be no disparity in funding the charter schools. In fact, as I read the statutes, it appears that is what is SUPPOSED to happen, yet in Mpls and StP it does not.
--You are assuming that only the best students would leave the public schools given the choice, but that is what is happening NOW. Parents with the means can move to the suburbs or enroll in a private/parochial school. Poor (aka challenged) kids cannot. The idea behind school choice is a) the choice goes to poor kids in failing schools first, b) that competition will force the public school to improve (given the freedom from regulations to do so), and c) that large numbers of parents wanting out will create a market for NEW private schools in those neighborhoods. My proposal would be to allow these "schools" to take over (i.e. rent) certain classrooms and classes within the neighborhood school, no new building needed. Kids might take reading and math at the private, then go down the hall for chemistry, and still be able to participate in all the extracurricular activities the school might offer. Massive resistance from the educrats? Sure. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
--The idea that all you have to do is pluck a kid out of a downtown failing school and plop him/her in a reasonably-well-performing suburban school is not realistic. It's been tried many places including here locally. Without a lot of special attention to bringing that disadvantaged (by the poor education received to date) student "up to speed" it simply makes matters worse-- they get discouraged.
Jerry,
Do you have any sources to back up this poppycock?
"The idea that all you have to do is pluck a kid out of a downtown failing school and plop him/her in a reasonably-well-performing suburban school is not realistic. It's been tried many places including here locally. Without a lot of special attention to bringing that disadvantaged (by the poor education received to date) student "up to speed" it simply makes matters worse-- they get discouraged."
Your whole argument is that kids will rise to the occasion if given the proper challenge and resources... Then here you say that it will not work... Amazing.
Every child you ignore from birth to K faces this problem.
And John, that word "accountable" gets tossed around a lot, and to quote "The Princess Bride" I don't think that word means what you think it means.
First of all, you are implying that parents have no responsibility for their children, and that somehow it must be thrust upon them. Second, you imply that teachers, etc. have no responsibility to educate these children, in whatever state they find them. Also not true, the difference being that parents have the natural responsibility and we (that is YOU) consistently allow teachers to evade their responsibility by blaming parents.
The only obvious "accountability" is to "fire" those adults who are failing the children. This means taking children away from parents who HAVE a choice to do better but do not, and sending them to live with you. Then we fire all the failing teachers and administrators by allowing free competition for schooling, and letting them "go out of business." Neither of which you are willing to do.
"Your whole argument is that kids will rise to the occasion if given the proper challenge and resources..." Exactly right! Poor kids in urban public schools are not given the proper challenge and resources. Take that kid out to the suburban schools where they are already far behind, and they can not get the proper challenge and resources THERE, either, though they may do somewhat better. So what is the magic you will use to get those failing urban schools to offer what the kids need to succeed, when they get paid (well) whether the kid learns anything or not?
As for "ignoring kids from birth-K," if I have my choice between letting parents raise their kids or turning them over to nanny-state do-gooders like you, I think "benign neglect" is generally preferable.
Let's go back to the original post again. I cannot find the exact quote, but somebody long ago posited that "the single biggest economic and social change of this century is the replacement of one viable economic unit, the two-parent family, with two economically non-viable households." Kendall Qualls is trying to fix that directly. I've asked why he doesn't use the "carrots and sticks" of government to do it, and he prefers to treat this as a "problem of the heart." More power to him. You wanted the social and economic problems of poverty solved, so kids can get a better education, here's a guy actually doing it. I've already donated.
Being responsible and fulfilling that responsibility are 2 very different things, unfortunately millions of kids have adults in their lives who are failing to meet the most basic of those responsibilities.
I am all for firing incapable and negligent education personnel.
I am all for stopping incapable and negligent adults from bringing more babies home. And to remove children when needed.
Unfortunately you offer no accountability or protections at all. You just want to give money to people and hope things turn out better.
But then moving all the Kindergarteners to the burbs should work wonderfully. Let's start next year.
From the Take Charge web page. His solution seems pretty vague so far...
"Restoring the two-parent black family should be a priority both locally and nationally.
The nuclear family is the bedrock of any society and it has been decimated and ignored in the black community for five decades.
The problem is expanding beyond the black community. Today, over 50% of births occur outside of marriage for all women under the age of 30. This is the largest percentage of any country worldwide.
Raising children in a marriage is the best way to reduce poverty, combat inequality, and develop socially productive children.
Government agencies should incentivize marriage based on positive outcomes for children and society in general."
I wonder if that means giving all us currently married folks more money to stay married or what?
"unfortunately millions of kids have adults in their lives who are failing to meet the most basic of those responsibilities." You have no basis for that statement other than your own preconceived notions about people you do not and can not know. You do not believe there ARE solutions to the obvious problems, absent a dictatorial, one-size-fits-all, micro-managing government.
"You just want to give money to people and hope things turn out better. " Another vague and spurious non-response. Parents currently "receive" about $10,000 per child in the form of a "voucher" (calling it "scrip" is more descriptive) that can ONLY be redeemed at the "company store," for high prices and low quality. Simply redirect that same amount of money by allowing the money to "follow the child" to a choice school. The free market works wonders, but obviously you don't believe in that.
Oh, and the tax code gives lower rates to married folks. Do you want to give that up, or let other people access it?
Please feel free to continue denying the desperate reality of millions of children.
How again are you going to monitor and hold the choice schools accountable?
So how are you going to encourage people to get and stay married?
How does my "denial" alter the reality? And what you are doing is denying the best chance of ALTERING that reality, by allowing public education to lift people out of their generational poverty. That is, after all, its purpose. And to say I deny it is an insult. At least I am proposing a realistic, simple, though politically difficult solution.
Ha! How am I going to hold choice schools accountable? By allowing parents to make another choice (and some standardized testing)! Now, how are you going to hold the public schools accountable? Will you allow parents to make another choice?
Some reading I've done suggests that government welfare disincentivizes marriage, and some says it's the opposite. Part of it is cultural, and that is where Kendall Qualls is right on track. I've already donated to his effort. If you want government coercion involved, no welfare without naming the father, and enforced child support. Waived if they live together.
Jerry,
Well your proposal is definitely "simplistic".
Let's start by having the Privates tested and reporting student / family demographics the same way as the Publics do. Then at least then we would know how they are doing for whom.
Same challenge, how to do this with millions and millions of poor people... Without harming the their innocent children.
Simplistic, and thus likely to be highly effective.
Let's start with a level playing field, where parents can take their kid to ANY school-- including the public school-- and have the State pay what it would spend at their local public. Demographics be d****d. If somebody wants to start a private school for black kids, or Hmong kids, or rich white kids, LET them. Why would you ever stand in the way of SOME kids getting a better education, just because some others must make other choices? The State should be absolutely neutral in how much money "goes with the kid," except for matching the local spending PLUS whatever special ed money might be attached. Some minimum academic requirements should be tested for and disclosed, but not the extraordinarily detailed curricular requirements dictated by the State. The parents hold the school accountable by being able to take their kid and the money and go elsewhere.
I notice you nave no realistic and less coercive government program for solving the problem Kendall Qualls is addressing-- poverty and absent fathers, undoubtedly linked.
The simple side of my proposal is that it simply imposes a natural responsibility/consequences on the parties involved. You want government assistance, you name the father and he is now responsible for some effort, at least, at supporting his child. The simple beauty of this plan is that it can start at some point in the future, say 9 months from now, or a year + 9 months from now, giving everybody time to get used to the idea. And again, penalty waived for unmarried parents in the same household. We don't need government-mandated birth control or mandatory sterilizations IF we can get people to exercise some self-control, always the better "law."
If you want true competition... The Privates would need to all the same testing and reporting, and would not be allowed to say no to any child / family. I am pretty sure neither of those simple criteria fit into your proposal.
I am not seeing where your proposal encourages people to get and stay married or stably co-habitating ...
By the way, I am fine with demanding the Mother name the Father. Not sure why you would think I would be against that?
Of course, if she doesn't... Then what? Are you going to withold the babies formula?
Here is an interesting link
"If you want true competition..." So your idea of true competition is that every provider must offer exactly the same product, with all the same flaws and overregulation, to every person. No allowance for the fact that some parents may want something different, no allowance that some parents might agree their child does/does not belong in a particular school and anyway, that schools must ration their admissions to match their expenditures, so long as everybody has someplace to go. And if you want true competition, you will quit throwing up hurdles to stop ANYBODY from taking their kid and money someplace else.
"Then what?" Gee, I don't know, it is YOUR proposal-- #7 IIRC. I just happen to agree with it, adding a "cohabitation/married" exemption and a postponement to include only future children.
BTW, my previous proposal of "universal vouchers," where EVERY parent gets one and allows them to take it to the public school if they wish, would also reduce the unnecessary mandates on public schools down to a minimum needed to provide "universal public education" to everybody, up to some basic standard (to be added to locally), just like the privates would be allowed to do. Parents would then add "accountability" to the public schools just like they would to the privates.
I really do not care how the school succeeds, but I do demand proof of that success.
So yes....
- demographic reporting
- yearly test / progress scores reported for each child
- no cherry picking students / families
Seems pretty basic to me.
Or is your goal to encourage cherry picking and no quantifiable progress data.
It would be like Trump University... Except that tax dollars would pay the tuition... :-)
I have this vision of schools offering a free box of steaks with every enrollment... :-O
And parent(s) lined up for their steaks...
I think you meant number 6... I would probably take the baby away unless she named the father, but I am kind of determined in that way.
"Cherry picking" is your word. What you are saying is that NOBODY can have a choice of schooling. Demographics is part of the problem, but NCLB requires such reporting for the public schools and it doesn't help! We should never be concerned that black kids suffer from a huge gap in MN. We should be concerned that kids, period, are not succeeding as they should. Fix that and quit worrying about demographics. All it does is justify "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
AYP is also a measure of progress required by NCLB, but then the teeth behind it-- the requirement that schools failing to meet AYP targets give out vouchers to all kids-- was removed from the law. Why?
As for bringing the progress requirement down to the individual student, isn't that where the parents hold the school accountable? Something they cannot do in the public schools because they have no choice to go elsewhere?
I keep trying to figure out what it is you are defending. Is it the right of public schools to hold children captive in a system that continues to cripple them for life?
One must measure to improve and hold accountable.
I am curious why you have a problem with holding privates to the same standards as publics?
Are they that bad?
I don't have a problem holding privates to a standard. But whose standard? Who judges? If they take standardized tests and the info is publicly available, shouldn't parents be permitted to judge "acceptable"? I want to know what standards you think the publics are held to? Sure, they measure, but then what happens? No accountability whatsoever.
The standards, demographics and performance are well documented for public schools.
And of course there is "accountability", just as you wish. Many families leave communities as crime and poverty take over the streets and schools. And the money goes with it.
Unfortunately even as their budget plummets, the public schools are still there trying to help the kids of the community.
My turn to call poppycock. Only the LUCKY kids can afford that house in the suburbs, or even the parochial school. The concentration of poor kids in the public schools is not because of those that leave, but because we do not give the poor kids the same opportunity to "take the money with them" to someplace better.
Yes, the standards and test results are well known, but where is the accountability? What happens to poor-performing schools, including those with the largest racial gaps in the country? Answer: they get MORE money, and then fail some more.
And this is absolutely laughable: "Unfortunately even as their budget plummets, the public schools are still there trying to help the kids of the community." School budgets, as measured by per-pupil spending, goes up every year, regardless, and inner city schools moreso because of the State aid formula. The administration and unions get most of it and do not give a whit about the kids or "community."
Actually every child in the state can attend magnets, charters and/or open enroll as they wish. Only the privates are off limits. Maybe the Privates should open Charters to get that money? (if it is so lucrative)
Now you are inferring that all business costs are infinitely variable, which of course they are not. Our district at one time had ~30,000 students to spread their expense across. Now due to an aging population, charter schools, open enrollment and folks moving to wealthier communities we are down to ~12,000 students...
That is a pretty HUGE budget reduction, so they have been down sizing and making efficiency gains for 30 years... But that does not help that the mix of kids keeps getting more and more challenging to teach as the east side gets poorer and poorer.
Here are 2 of our more challenged Elementary Schools
And 2 of our much more normal schools
Then things get pretty mixed in Middle School.
There you go again, insisting that public magnets, public charters, and public open enrollment constitutes "choice." Those things may (or may not) be better alternatives, but they are not a choice in the sense of true free-market competition. You are suggesting that schools be allowed to include "excess capacity" as a budget item, but what matters, and gets funded by the legislature and taxpayers, is per pupil. And why don't these districts rent out their excess capacity to a private "school" and allow them to pick up some students and some classes, without leaving?
If they are unwilling (and it seems all are) then the straightforward solution is to let the money follow the kid to ANY school, public, private or parochial, that the parents deem best. You seem to have this serious dislike of freedom and free markets.
OK, your middle school cite was interesting.
I notice right off that they (and You) care about demographics. They obviously don't give a whit about "educating every child to their full potential." If they can't teach all black kids, apparently, they just won't try teaching ANY black kid. Both are "majority minority" schools, well mixed. Poverty slightly higher in the one, meaning they get more money.
After a bit of digging, I find that performance differs markedly between the two, with higher achievement going to the "more white" school. Why? But what is more interesting is that in both, academic achievement is going DOWN! What are the consequences to the school for this obvious failure? Where is the accountability?
Of course I like fair competition, you are the one who wants different rules for the different players. :-)
You are the fan of competition, why would they make things easier for the competition. They usually sell or re-purpose the school buildings. One did go to a charter... The buildings are so old that often bull dozing them and selling the land is more cost effective.
Or they get re-created as a magnet so the lucky kids / families have a place away from the general population. As I have noted below, the parents of unlucky kids rarely are aware or care about going through the work to apply for the district's magnets. That is why their kid's are unlucky. :-O
The why is what I have been trying to get you to acknowledge for years...
Same district, same curriculum, similar staff, more resources, etc and worse performance...
The only difference are the students and their parent(s)... And yet you are still in denial...
"Of course I like fair competition, you are the one who wants different rules for the different players. :-)" Let's work on your reading comprehension:
"BTW, my previous proposal of "universal vouchers," where EVERY parent gets one and allows them to take it to the public school if they wish, would also reduce the unnecessary mandates on public schools down to a minimum needed to provide "universal public education" to everybody, up to some basic standard (to be added to locally), just like the privates would be allowed to do."
"Same district, same curriculum, similar staff, more resources, etc and worse performance..." You therefore recognize that true competition does NOT exist. There should be schools which tailor their curriculum, better engage their staff, spend resources effectively, and concentrate on performance. They would be held accountable by parents choosing, or not, to send their kids there. So, where is the accountability in the public schools?
"The only difference are the students and their parent(s)..." Once again, if you are going to insist on that proposition, then I am going to insist on taking it to the logical conclusion, which is that for certain demographics (you pick) we should eliminate public education altogether. Save the money.
Please define...
"unnecessary mandates on public schools down to a minimum needed to provide "universal public education""
I think the unlucky kids in RDale are better off for their time in school with caring capable teachers. Just imagine how bad things would be if we left their development totally to their parent(s).
Getting them to the 8th grade level is better than totally abandoning them.
First, let me offer an interesting chart:
spending doesn't matter
Second, good to hear you admit that the education system can and does (but only in some cases) make a difference beyond "the students and their parents." So the question is, how do we make these achievement gains BETTER? Some schools obviously do it; others do not. If true competition existed, those that do better would thrive and those that did not would "go out of business" or at least CHANGE to compete better. More money is obviously not forcing that change. Perhaps because the "monopoly" doesn't see the need.
I believe I have previously conceded that some kids start school with a disadvantage. I've tutored some of them. The question is why the school allows that disadvantage to persist? Part of it may be onerous State regulations or union rules that disincentivize, at least, if not outright prohibit the sort of change that would be needed. For example, State rules dictate how much a district must spend on busing, how much on food service, what the "bullying" policy must be, and much more. Schools should be able to move their funds around, establish their own "student rules," and concentrate first and foremost on educating every child "to their full potential." Unless, of course, you want to deny that some kids, by accident of their birth, don't have any potential.
Time for you to get on the right side of the issue. :-)
parents favor school choice
The graph seems somewhat pointless to me since:
- fed spending is small percent of school funding
- does not address growth in single parent households
- how do special ed mandates fit in?
- etc
Unfortunately as I have said... The Poor Unlucky Kids are Screwed
You want to take their money, the Liberals want coddle them and everyone wants to put the adults first.
Hard to believe the extent to which we have had this conversation before:
"Obviously, John believes that every child of poverty is not only abused, but cannot possibly learn anything in the current public school system. While the latter may be somewhat true for some children, John cannot admit that the schools bear a large part of the responsibility. His own sources have told him that. The public schools are paid handsomely to do a job, have claimed that they are the only ones who can, and command we ignore their manifold failures rather than demand accountability for the princely sums expended. For example: Let's assume an ideal class size of 25, and the per-pupil in this school is the state average of roughly $10,000/year. That's a quarter-million dollars going into that classroom, and the teacher gets the MN average of roughly $60,000. Where did the other 3/4 of the money go? And are the results commensurate with the total expenditure?"
You bob and weave better than Mohammed Ali.
-- Your fundamental premise is that unlucky kids can't learn, that it is not the fault of the schools but of the parents. Then you admit that schools DO matter, that SOME unlucky kids learn some things.
-- You claim that parents have choice in MN, while steadfastly refusing to allow private schools to be chosen unless parents cough up the big bucks to send their kids there.
-- You complain that lucky kids leave the public schools and concentrate the unlucky kids there. You should be complaining that the unlucky kids should be allowed to leave, too, and take the money with them.
-- You are concerned it isn't "fair" that private schools can operate without all the mandates. Yet you don't want to remove the mandates from the public schools to allow true competition (with the money following the student to wherever). Your position seems to be that since not everybody can have the choice, NOBODY should have a choice.
-- You want to "hold parents accountable" and have no way of doing that sort of massive, coercive "social engineering." But any suggestion that /schools/ should be held accountable, by the simple expedient of allowing parents a choice, is fought tooth and nail (on the side of unions).
Again, get on the right side of the issue.
As always this is going no where... Oh well... Have a great weekend!!! :-)
Sure. When you come back Monday, mentally refreshed, you will see that this conversation IS going somewhere. It is going down the rabbit hole where your logical inconsistencies have driven it (see above).
I would offer you a suggested way out of this mental morass, if you are interested.
I doubt that you can offer more than beliefs, GOP talking points and wishful thinking.
Neither will help the truly unlucky kids... :-(
And there we have it! What I suggest is that you stop thinking about kids as a very large population with but one distinguishing characteristic-- "lucky" or "unlucky."
And you alone want to decide which kid is which, condemning some to a life of ignorance and misery, and allowing others at least a chance of success. You deny the fundamental purpose of universal public education, which is to lift people above their birth, through education, and make them productive citizens in our society. You go further, and assign no responsibility to the school system society has tasked with these efforts, steadfastly excusing their manifest failures, insisting they are all doing the very best they can. That is not only irrational, but profoundly cruel.
Your insistence on your one view of the problem is preventing you from seeking realistic solutions. You want to treat the cause, but it will be far easier to treat just the symptoms-- that many kids are not being given the education they could have, with a few tweaks to the "education delivery system."
A simple example: Some schools teach phonics, some do not. Some schools insist "reading is fundamental" and make certain every kid is reading at grade level by 3rd grade, others do not. There can be no excuse offered for schools that do not make these efforts. So why do you?
Actually I have been very consistent in weighting the causal factors for a very long time...
30% unions, bureaucrats, etc
60% poor parenting
19% other...
oops 10% other
OK, let's accept your arbitrary, made-up statistics for a moment. Why do we not demand that the "education establishment" do better with their "30%" than they are doing? Is every school providing the direct instruction each child needs, progressing them as quickly as possible? Are they teaching the basics, or something else? Is the State mandating arbitrary standards, or sharing best practices?
And if parents are responsible for the other 60%, then why are they not responsible for the most basic of choices about their kid's education-- the choice of a school that works best for them?
I do agree with holding schools, teachers, etc accountable, I just do not think your solution is the way to do it. Too many of the most vulnerable kids would be harmed.
And that has to be one of the dumbest questions you have ever asked. You apparently want to give the most irresponsible and incapable adults in these unlucky children's lives even more control?
It is kind of like giving the in mates the keys to the asylum.
OK, exactly HOW will you hold the schools accountable, if it is not to take away their "clients" and the money that goes with them? I don't think you know what that word means, in this context.
"You apparently want to give the most irresponsible and incapable adults in these unlucky children's lives even more control?"
What a nasty thing to say about any human being. According to you, EVERY "unlucky" kid has parents who are so irresponsible that, given the choice, they would be completely incapable of making it? What a bigoted, dreadful view of a large segment of our population. If vouchers were offered to only the "unlucky kids" in failing schools, are you really going to tell me that nobody would use them?
You apparently want to give the most irresponsible and incapable adults in these unlucky children's lives even more control?
And are you referring to the teachers' union? Your argument seems to be such.
Of course we have been taking their "clients" away for decades. What do you think charters schools, open enrollment, choice is yours, magnets, etc do?
No Child Left Behind, testing, etc are all forms of working to hold them accountable. Unfortunately as I keep saying, they can not work miracles with the unlucky kids. That is why our focus needs to be on Early Childhood Education and holding questionable parent(s) accountable.
The things you seem to be against addressing.
Yes, those parent(s) are emotionally immature, stupid, addicted, mentally challenged, selfish, or something else. I mean any healthy capable responsible parent(s) would have their kids ready for kindergarten, and limit the number to the 1 or 2 they could care for well.
Not sure why you want to keep defending neglectful incapable parent(s).
I personally will go on attacking the unions and neglectful parent(s) for the good of the kids.
"Of course we have been taking their "clients" away for decades." So, there is no one left in the failing public schools who would LIKE a choice, but does not have one? You seem to be laboring under that serious delusion. The facts, and even simple logic, do not back it up. People who can afford it CHOOSE to move to where schools are better. People who cannot are stuck with whatever is left. Not fair, and not defensible.
NCLB is about TESTING, not accountability. When first passed, it included a requirement that schools which failed to meet AYP standards were to issue vouchers to their students, so they could go elsewhere. That total "accountability" was not enforced, yet remains the obvious accountability we SHOULD have. You SHOULD blame the unions for this, but to blame millions upon millions of parents for not being "accountable" when you have not given them the means to hold the SCHOOLS accountable in turn, seems backwards at best.
Suppose you could end poverty and fatherless families overnight, tonight. It would be 20 years--a whole generation-- before those benefits would show up in a graduating class. But if you could follow the original AYP guidelines, you would work wonders immediately for all those kids already born, and have a far better system within the 12 year time-frame originally established by NCLB.
Plenty of choices... If you think they need more... Start a charter.
"charters schools, open enrollment, choice is yours, magnets, etc"
I blame the schools / system for their issues...
I blame the parent(s) for theirs...
Seems pretty simple.
Again... There is NOTHING to indicate your dream would change a thing...
And it may make things worse for many kids that your cherry picking schools do not want.
Your delusions have become massive and interlinked. You think there are lots of choices for every parent, yet every time vouchers or "opportunity scholarships" become available, giving people the /means/ of making a real choice, dozens or hundreds of people sign up to get one, just as those who can afford to move to an area with "good schools" do so at the first chance, leaving others behind. And public schools with a different name are not the same as true competition-- get over that notion because, as you know, many public charters in Minnesota aren't doing much better.
There is NOTHING to indicate that vouchers for the poorest kids would change anything, except for the introduction of competition, the free market, human nature, simple economics, and the history of where it has actually been implemented as such. You complain it "may make things worse," meaning you really have no idea, and the obvious question is, "how could it?" It would be a real shame if all of those parents of "unlucky kids" finally showed themselves as responsible, caring adults. It would sure make your visceral hatred of them questionable.
Jerry,
Of course it could make things much worse for the unlucky and special education kids. The last of the lucky kids may leave the high percentage unlucky kid schools with money that is used as a cross subsidy to help them.
Just as lucky people have left these communities / kids behind for decades and taken the funding to other communities. Of course the failure rate rises as all the academically focused families / kids leave.
While your private schools would refuse to accept the unlucky and special ed kids because they are too challenging and expensive.
Do you have any data proving that kids in lower cost Private schools perform better than the Public Schools given an equivalent student body and parent(s) capabilities?
"While your private schools would refuse to accept the unlucky and special ed kids"
Not true. MY private schools accept all comers, assuming they bring their proper voucher amounts with them. Unlucky kids are already in public schools with very high per-pupil expenditures, and special ed kids have an additional, generally known cost assigned to their "IEP." Some schools would likely take in these kids simply for the profit motive (even as a nonprofit). If not, your solution is that since these kids would be left behind in the public schools, who must "take everybody," that NOBODY can be allowed to leave and seek something better. How do you spell oppression?
Actually they can leave at any time... This is America...
Do you have any data proving that kids in lower cost Private schools perform better than the Public Schools given an equivalent student body and parent(s) capabilities?
Do you have any data proving that kids in high-cost but failing public schools, trapped there because they cannot afford anything better (but are required by law to attend), do better than the better schools to which they would take their voucher, if given one? Are you saying EVERY parent who sends their kids to a public school because they cannot afford better, is irresponsible, dysfunctional, doesn't care about their kids? Shame on you.
You are so afraid of free choice that you must demonize a majority of the population to sustain your hatred of the idea.
You have an idea and no proof that it would work.
And no it is not every parent(s), half of the kids do just fine in these challenged districts.
And that is with 18% of their population speaking a different language at home, 17% of the kids having Special Needs, 50% on free and reduced lunch and 1% homeless.
I have an idea that is simple common sense. Give people a real choice of where to send their kid to school, and if they CHOOSE the public school, great. In fact, I would fully expect that for the first few years of a voucher program aimed at those "50% FRL" kids, that most would continue there, giving competitors time to build capacity, and the publics a chance to improve(become accountable). Isn't that better than simply telling parents "you MUST send your kids where we know that half of them will fail"?
You are certainly full of hope and passion, however...
You have an idea and no proof that it would work better or more cost effectively.
Show me the data... Not the dreams...
How can I show you data when you will not permit it to be tried?? And in places where something similar has been successful, you deny that it was similar enough, or that it was successful enough. So I ask you to call it a thought experiment. If I offer people a true choice, and all of them make the choice to stay where they are, has any harm come? If some of them choose something better, is that not an improvement? It is either no change or a positive; what's wrong with that? All you are really saying is that EVERY public school parent is too stupid to do what is best for their child, GIVEN the opportunity to make a choice. If you believe that, you are a hopeless shill for the unaccountable public schools, just like the unions.
It has been tried through charters across the country for decades and unfortunately there are mixed results at best. Definitely nothing magical happens.
Well except that the traditional public schools lose funding while their most promising kids depart, and the percentage of challenging kids increases. Not sure if that is magic or natural consequences...
As for the capability of parent(s) to pick the "best school". How exactly will they do that if the Privates do not need to share their data, demographics, performance, etc?
Remember that Trump U and many other Private schools took many students and families for a ride. How will you prevent that type of fraud?
"It has been tried..." NOT if you are referring to only public charters. Even then, some are better, so why would you deny every child that choice? You will not allow private or parochial schools to compete, because they might make the publics "look bad." Why do the unions fight SO hard to prevent the competition? Look at the latest MN budget, for example.
How will parents pick the best school? Because they =will= almost certainly publish test results (probably required as a condition of the voucher), demographics be ignored, as they should be. "I couldn't afford to give my kids books, but I want them to go to school with kids whose parents could."
"Not sure if that is magic or natural consequences.." Excuses, excuses, excuses. Give these "challenging kids" a voucher and they, too, may leave. Businesses that do not provide good value go out of business, losing out to competition (where it is allowed). That is the way it ought to be. Why are you fighting it? For those who are succeeding satisfactorily in the public school (many suburbs, for example) vouchers would change little. (Under the "failing schools get priority" proposals typically tried, suburban kids wouldn't even get them.)
Why do /I/ have to prevent "fraud"? Isn't the whole idea here that parents will hold the schools accountable? And that the voucher makes THEM accountable for choosing a school? Or do you prefer to simply Dictate from On High, for everybody?
"The voucher makes THEM accountable for choosing a school?"
Giving people who made / make big mistakes often even more money to squander is a very strange way of holding them accountable.
"You chose to have more kids than you could raise well...
You totally failed to get them ready for kindergarten...
Here is more money tax payer money to squander..."
The requirement to take the money to a qualifying school, including if they choose the PUBLIC school, while by law they are required to enroll the kid someplace, doesn't sound like "squander" to me. You manage to assume that one mistake should ruin entire lives, that every decision after that is also wrong. Wow, you are perfect, entitled to run everybody else's life.
And you are still blaming people for making "mistakes" when you haven't given them the opportunity to choose otherwise. Again, you are saying EVERY parent that lacks the means to move to the suburbs or fund a good private school education is incapable of choosing better, when that is NEVER an option you will offer them. Blame the victim, punish the innocent, and reward the elites doing the damage.
Jerry,
"qualifying school": Who again is going to "qualify" these schools with what reporting, what data, what performance criteria, what acceptance criteria, etc?
What rules regarding marketing, free steaks, free etc will be allowed.
No where have I ever said EVERY parent is unqualified... Unfortunately making it easier for more semi-qualified parent(s) to leave all the unlucky, special needs, etc kids behind in a challenged district is not a solution I accept.
And here we are. Because not all parents can afford to make the choices you have made, you deem them less "qualified" to be allowed any choice at all. You simply cannot imagine that a parent who can afford a "better" private school for their child isn't somehow, maybe in many ways, better than a parent who cannot. Classic liberal, that you must make their decisions for them.
And you "will not accept" any solution that allows "unlucky kids" (by YOUR definition and decision) to escape their "challenged" (aka failing) schools. Do you know how heartless and cruel that sounds? It doesn't make any sense from a moral, policy, or simple economic viewpoint.
Ah... But you forget that I left my children in schools that had challenging demographics and not ideal ratings. I gave and continue to give to help the unlucky kids of RDale.
This is why I know so well what happens to schools when the lucky kids flee them and their unlucky peers...
You also forget that "Unlucky Kids" has more to do with their home life than their income level. I know low income folks who are wonderful capable supportive parent(s), and like mine their kids do fine in RDale schools.
Please feel free to keep blaming the sins of the parent(s) on the schools, but I think we should hold them accountable instead. They chose to have and keep the baby(ies), they are responsible for caring for and preparing the child for Kindergarten and supporting them in K-12.
It seems you are part of the problem, or at least supportive of it
Which seems odd, since I assume you were a "spare the rod, spoil the child" kind of parent?
And here you are supporting the "Its not my or my child's fault" modern parent.
Do you also believe there should be no winners / losers at youth ball games?
Hooray for your side. You found a way for your kid to succeed with the limited choices allowed to you. But don't claim the moral high ground as if you had sacrificed your child to protect the unions and the incompetent bureaucracy. All I am asking is that other parents be allowed the same choices as you claim to have exercised.
You keep insisting we "hold the parents accountable" yet you DENY them the choices you think they should make. How exactly are you going to force them to do something that you make it impossible for them to do? When will you make a suggestion as to how to hold the SCHOOLS "accountable" for their "30%" of the problem? I'm really curious, since so far I've heard only nonsense about how "demographics is destiny," that poor or black or whatever kids cannot learn, regardless of what the "30%" does.
Interesting cite, though, about education not being like it was. Back when, schools concentrated on educating everybody in the basics, at least. There was strong discipline at school, backed up by discipline at home. None of this "hippie dippie do your own thing" stuff. I do sympathize with teachers in difficult schools. I agree with Laurie we ought to pay them a lot more and back them up with a strong discipline policy (the opposite of what we have now). But I also have to sympathize with the parents who complain that their child is not getting a proper education, because they're not. And unless you are willing to say that a 50-point achievement gap between white kids and black kids is all the fault of parents, and there is nothing the schools can do about it, you need to start making those suggestions, because the unions and administrators are NOT doing it. They get paid (extra) whether the kids learn or not. At least my suggestion is that they /not/ get paid for bad results, because their "customers" go someplace else. I eagerly await your alternatives.
"They chose to have and keep the baby(ies), they are responsible for caring for and preparing the child for Kindergarten and supporting them in K-12."
That is downright scary. Apparently choosing NOT to abort a child is irresponsible, and choosing to KEEP a child (the natural result) is a sign you are irresponsible, too. 98% of them ARE naturally responsible, have accepted that responsibility, and because they love their kids just like you do, are doing the best they can for them, within their limited means.
And how are they supposed to be "supporting them K-12" if they get no help from the "experts" the government puts in charge of their kid's education?
Actually, I had nearly unlimited choices and stayed with my status quo public schools.
I have explained that we need kids ready and healthy when the enter kindergarten. That means more pre-K and parent education for unqualified parents.
I think you should spend more time in the classrooms. Not sure where you got the impression that the teachers do not try to maintain order. Unfortunately there is ever more pressure to keep the most challenging usually unlucky / special needs kids in the classroom. Now maybe you want to let them use corporal punishment again?
That is a REAL BIG problem as I have said before. 3 of 25 unlucky kids in a classroom is much different from 12 of 25... What do you want to do with the EBD, ADHD, "Brats", etc when the parent(s) will not accept responsibility?
Making sure kids are ready for kindergarten, ensuring they are fed, get enough sleep, are clean, do their homework, etc is not that difficult. And yet ~30% of the parent(s) of the kids in our district struggle with these base parental responsibilities.
Ah... And public schools districts have many support systems. Unfortunately some parent(s) do not choose to use them, or do not know how to.
OK, maybe you are correct. So what sort of discipline system do you suggest when you have "12 of 25" that are unruly? Would you do as StP schools do, and allow race to be a permission slip for bad behavior? What about simply establishing expectations? There are teachers who DO maintain order in their classrooms. Why cannot that be more universal?
"public schools districts have many support systems" I'm sure that's true. But NOWHERE does there seem to be any attention to actually educating these kids, it's all trying to fix those societal issues that government has been unable to solve for over 50 years. Meanwhile, the education gap gets bigger.
"we need kids ready and healthy when the [sic] enter kindergarten" Yes, that would be nice. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the public school system can make that happen? If they cannot teach K-12, what makes you think they can do Pre-K well?
"Making sure kids are ready for kindergarten, ensuring they are fed, get enough sleep, are clean, do their homework, etc is not that difficult. And yet ~30% of the parent(s) of the kids in our district struggle with these base parental responsibilities." My turn: source, please, or are you just making stuff up, again? Is this to some subjective standard, or simply your own "white privilege" talking?
Unfortunately the courts say that kids are all the same, kind of like you do. Therefore different outcomes / punishments are proof of racism / school failure.
I have no idea if there are high challenge classrooms where some teachers can maintain control. The problem is that teachers are humans and vary in capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Therefore results likely vary... It isn't like we pay for super women and super men.
Actually teachers would tell you that everything is too focused on reading, writing, arithmetic and science. The testing requirements have driven this for better or worse.
This is a bit dated but interesting.
"#4: Early childhood educational preparation and outcomes:
- Sixty percent of Minnesota’s kindergartners demonstrate readiness for school.
- Children from lower-income families, Latino children, and American Indian children have the lowest rates of kindergarten readiness.
- More kindergarteners are proficient in language and literacy and personal and social development than in mathematical thinking.
- About two-thirds of infants and toddlers and three-quarters of preschoolers in Early Childhood Special Education show greater than expected development.
- More than four in 10 infants and toddlers and more than five in 10 preschoolers exit Early Childhood Special Education programs with their development within age expectations.
So, the courts are wrong again. No surprise there. But what do we do when the courts defy common sense? We certainly should not be punishing all of the kids who MIGHT want to learn something, just so that some ridiculous ideological "equity" can succeed? Want to bet that those parents would LOVE to be given the means to pull their kids out of there?
Absent the "12 in 25" or StP scenarios, I have always said that teachers who can maintain order in a larger class size should be paid more. And perhaps even more yet, on some sort of "apprentice, journeyman, master" scale to teach the younger teachers their practical techniques.
They are right about "math readiness," but that is why I tutored kindergarten math; because it was easy to remedy.
I appreciate the report, but I think it is hiding something. If [only] 60% of kindergartners are ready for school, then what does "5 in 10 [50%] preschoolers within age expectations" mean?? Does it mean that left to their own devices, 60% of kids are ready, but with EC it's only 50% of 60%? or just 50%, period? Hardly seems a glowing endorsement. And studies have shown that the advantages of Head Start disappear before the third grade. [Just like the advantage of small class size.]
Leftist politicians have been pushing "universal pre-school" for what seems like ages, and my experience in Mississippi, where that is privately run, says that it should be done that way, rather than by the public system. I believe in MN there is a [limited, no doubt at the behest of unions] voucher system for such, and if we want to expand that to all E-12, or just to E-12 "failing schools" I would be all for it.
Unfortunately, the courts like yourself imagine that somehow schools / teachers are supposed to make up for all the bad things happening in the lives of these unlucky kids.
They insist that there should be no gap in discipline, grades, test scores, etc. Even though the gaps between their homes are the size of the Grand Canyon.
So we are left with what started this conversation, which is this:
"Over 50 percent of black students in Minneapolis public schools perform below state and national averages while black students from the same neighborhood that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools, perform above state and national averages of all students. These schools have waiting lists from desperate parents. Government agencies should not hinder impoverished parents of their choice of schools when local public schools fail students academically. We believe that choice in education is a civil right. ..."
Now where, exactly, do you want to disagree with this fundamental civil rights issue?
Yes you are back to my original pet peeve / questions...
What % of black students that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools perform above state and national averages?
What % of black students that attend Minneapolis public schools perform above state and national averages of all students?
What % of black students that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools perform below state and national averages?
And why are we comparing school performance based on race, when that is NOT a causal factor regarding how challenging a student body is to succeed with?
An Interesting piece regarding Ascension
"The decision to charge tuition at all – when it’s such a small piece of the actual cost of attendance – is indicative of the school’s attitude that it requires intentionality, responsibility, and communal hard work to enable students to succeed. Matias says charging tuition gives his families “skin in the game.” He says opportunities are treated differently when “we feel like they’re given to us versus feeling perhaps like we’re contributing to that benefit we’re receiving.” In addition to tuition, all families are required to contribute volunteer hours at the school.
The school offers more than just financial support to its students. Its partnerships with organizations like the Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ), Catholic Charities, and Ready, Set, Smile offer students and their families additional psychological, medical, and academic supports for a holistic support experience. “The school acts like a family. If you ever have any issues you can go to them and address them and they’ll try to push you in a direction,” said Anita Banks, mother of Jeremiah Russell, a seventh grader. In addition to the school’s supportive services, Banks says she also appreciates that educators have “control here in the building.”
"Most “scholars” live within five miles of the school, are of color, and qualify for free and reduced lunch. Only a third identify as Catholic. But unlike nearby public and charter options, more than half of their eighth graders test at or above grade level."
So, why would you prohibit parents from choosing to attend these schools? It doesn't make any sense. If parents are willing to pay and volunteer, and others are willing to contribute to the school's mission, that is success. What do you have, exactly, against allowing SOME kids to succeed, and why would you limit that success only to those who can afford the time and money? Are those on the waiting list unworthy, by your standards?
Suppose instead of a modest tuition, the kids came with a voucher for their full public school cost? Would that allow these schools, or those like them, to expand and serve at least the waiting list they have?
"And why are we comparing school performance based on race, when that is NOT a causal factor regarding how challenging a student body is to succeed with?"
It may not be causal, according to you, but it very much correlates. So if black kids do better, one can assume they are doing so despite their closely-correlated "causal factors." Notice kids with FRL also do better. Why are you so determined to say these schools should not be chosen by anybody, let alone giving more people that choice?
Because I have NO IDEA if the school is doing better...
They provide little demographics or performance data...
What % of black students that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools perform above state and national averages?
What % of black students that attend Minneapolis public schools perform above state and national averages of all students?
What % of black students that attend Ascension, Cristo Rey, and Hope Academy, private faith-based schools perform below state and national averages?
And why are we comparing school performance based on race, when that is NOT a causal factor regarding how challenging a student body is to succeed with?
If 80% of their kids come prepared for kindergarten.
Versus 40% in the status quo Mpls school.
They may actual be less successful than the Mpls school.
If they only have 3% special needs kids.
Versus 17% in the status quo Mpls school.
They may actual be less successful than the Mpls school.
If they expel any children / family who violates their volunteer mandate...
etc, etc, etc...
I answered your question about causal factors, which is essentially that demography is NOT destiny. You assume that all poor/black/whatever kids cannot achieve academically, and these schools prove it categorically false. Among other things.
"They provide little demographics or performance data..." And yet it is enough for objective observers (and parents) to declare these schools BETTER.
Let me get this straight: "If 80% of their kids come prepared for kindergarten. Versus 40% in the status quo Mpls school. They may actual be less successful than the Mpls school" /There/ is the serious hole in your reasoning. You are saying that, unless we pick up the whole student body from the public school and move them to one of these alternatives, and they all do better at the alternative, then NO child can attend there, or be successful there. You are reasoning for huge groups (of your own categories) and not for the individual children. Why would you deny ANY parent the choice between the public school and one of these alternatives, by denying them the means to make that choice? Simple proposition.
Quite simply because the schools in the most challenged neighborhoods need every dollar, every lucky family and every lucky child if they want help the unluckiest and the special needs children.
And I have absolutely NO DATA that proves the Private schools are any more effective.
It is admirable that you want to provide life boats for some of the children.
Yet it is sad that you want to leave all the most needy kids to the sharks..
"no data," eh? You cannot find that which you do not seek. And you will simply not accept any "data" that argues against your flights of illogical fantasy. Yet you say those kids who leave are "lucky," because their parents chose that school for them. That MUST mean YOU believe that school is "better," and in a way that parents also see. And the fact there is a waiting list says we should be expanding this kind of choice, while the public schools decline--a desirable and natural result of fair competition. Furthermore, that since this choice is not "free," like the public schools, you must admit there are many more public school parents who would opt out if given the means. Instead, you want to TRAP them in the failing public schools, just so the "unlucky" kids can SUPPOSEDLY be "subsidized" by them. If that is so, I want to know exactly WHAT is being uniquely done for these "unlucky" kids that will cause their performance to improve? I see no evidence that this "cross subsidy" is being wisely spent, because if it was, performance would improve rather than get worse, as it is getting, while even Mississippi is doing better.
And what is it you are saying about the public schools, that leaving kids (the "unlucky" ones to whom you will not give a voucher) there is akin to throwing them to the sharks? All the public schools need to do is educate every child to their full potential, something they claim to do, and if they need more than the princely sums they already receive, they should explain exactly why they need more, and HOW that will be spent effectively, to obtain how much performance improvement. Accountability, in other words. I have no data that proves the public schools are better than choice schools. Plenty of data that says some of them are terrible.
Actually to determine if a "school" is better or worse, we need the Privates to fully report regarding their families, student body and their results like the Publics do.
I tried to find that data for Ascension with no success.
I know that Wayzata schools are wonderful, but if you took the kids/families from North Mpls and swapped them... Would Wayzata still be wonderful or would they struggle like Mpls?
Same for Ascension, would they do better than Mpls if the children were not selectively chosen and the challenging kids weeded out?
You want to give tax dollars to schools that may be worse than status quo public schools, given the same student / family mix.
With that in mind...
There you go again. Because Ascension et al will not and can not take the whole student body from MPS, you want to deny EVERY MPS student the ability to go there.
"...would they do better than Mpls if the children were not selectively chosen?" YES, because that is what they are about. But that is the wrong question in any regard. The question is do they do better for those students who choose that school, and the answer there is a resounding Yes, absolutely. Why you continue to insist that none may succeed so that the poor kids can continue to be denied an education, is lunacy. Why do you want to punish poor kids because they are too poor to attend even a subsidized private school that might (likely) educate them better? Even if the only difference is the make-up of the student body, like transferring from Mpls to Wayzata, there will be an improvement in results. What do you have against at least SOME individual kids succeeding?
Oh, and as for that "tax dollars" plaint the unions are so fond of... Ask yourself how we deliver public goods like roads, sewer systems, school buildings, and military equipment? The government sets a requirement and allows private businesses to provide the service, usually at at the lowest cost. There is nothing in the concept of Universal public education that requires it to be done by government employees, in government unions, in government buildings, to unnecessarily complex government standards that nonetheless, if NOT met, inflict a penalty on the provider. Why should schools be different?
"Actually to determine if a "school" is better or worse, we need the Privates to fully report regarding their families, student body and their results like the Publics do."
It is getting so I am starting to laugh at this ridiculous notion. WHY? If the school is educating every kid as best they and the kid can manage, what do I care what color the kid is? The only reason we care at all is because of government fixation on such matters, through laws like NCLB reporting, and all that does is point to a problem, not a solution or even a cause. I doubt black kids do more poorly BECAUSE they are black, yet we see huge discrepancies (highest in the nation) by that measure, in the MN schools. If the schools report results as a whole, it's good enough for most people and purposes. If it is broken out by race we might see discrimination or the effects of some other co-dependent variable like poverty, but so what? The public schools have enough evidence of failure that whatever the privates do is going to look like success. Unless you have some magic wand to make the publics successful with their current student mix, you need to quit demanding that others succeed where they have failed, and give as many kids as possible the opportunity to seek something better.
As I said before, all you have is beliefs and no data...
You like and support privates / vouchers, therefore you think they do better...
Show me the numbers...
Then let's expand Wayzata and like schools, and bus more kids to them...
That apparently should fix the problem... I mean we have proof that they do much better than MPLS and Ascension...
You want local control by local citizens / officials, I am pretty sure they are not ready to out source their schools.
You want data? How about this, all the data you need: Private schools that offer tuition assistance to low-income students have /waiting lists/ of parents who are willing to commit the time and money to get their kids out of the public school they are currently "condemned" to attend. It is no stretch at all to imagine there are many more parents who, given the financial means to leave the public school behind, would do so, since those who DO have the means already do so.
Ha-ha. "You want local control..." YES. I want control by the the most "local"--PARENTS-- not "local officials" or anybody else. If the public schools are doing the job they are paid to do, like apparently Wayzata does, they won't lose very many students at all. But MPS and StP have some terrible schools, and you refuse to hold them accountable, either by demanding better results, or by issuing vouchers so the kids can escape. That decision should not belong to you, nor to some State, local, or union official. You want to make parents responsible, let them have the authority. I cannot see how you can justify your stance, whether on moral, ethical, economic or practical grounds.
Thankfully I doubt you will get your wish.
So you had better think of other ways to help the challenged schools succeed.
Which means making sure the kids are ready for Kindergarten.
I have thought of another way. Go back to the original NCLB. It required schools to make "Adequate Yearly Progress" (over a number of years) or the schools had to change something-- governance, curriculum, allow kids to transfer elsewhere or ultimately, be given vouchers to go elsewhere. The expectation was for all kids to be at grade level by 2014, 12 years (one K-12 cycle) later. By 2015, Obama succeeded in gutting most of the accountability in exchange for more "measurement," but all that has done is point out how achievement is FALLING. The one thing in the ESSA's favor is that it requires "evidence-based interventions" for "failing schools." Of course, if they aren't required by the State, or are watered down by powerful unions, it doesn't much matter what the good intentions were.
"Ready for kindergarten" How? Sending them to Head Start? Maybe you can figure out another way, because that isn't it. Have you considered the goal of "ready for first grade"?
We can agree on that.
But I think that GOP helped to gut accountability measures, they did not want the Feds forcing the States / Local districts to perform. Remember the speech "the local folks know best" even after decades of them failing the most unlucky students.
Maybe free childcare in high quality care / pre-school centers.
Somehow you have to get the kids spending a LOT of hours with positive role models doing development activities. Not sitting with their poor role model parent(s) doing little of benefit.
So you have a dream that somehow the Kindergarten Teachers are going to make up for 5 years of neglect during the most critical time in a child's life?
Have you not read all that information I have provided regarding brain development during the first 5 years and its long term impact?
Or the impact of ACE's?
Here is another one for you to ignore.
What do you think the households look like that we are discussing?
Often a single mother, maybe a parent in jail, housing / food insecurity, limited education, raised by similar, working a lot, sometimes addicted, multiple partners, etc.
These are not the "Leave it to Beaver" households. That is partially why the food program usage is SO HIGH...
Ten identified “Adverse Childhood Experiences”
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Emotional abuse
Physical neglect
Emotional neglect
Intimate partner violence
Mother treated violently
Substance misuse within household
Household mental illness
Parental separation or divorce
Incarcerated household member
And the Kindergarten year is so supposed to compensate for 5 years of chaos and uncertainty?
I remain convinced that you are using far too broad a brush, basically saying a kid is either "lucky" or " unlucky." Kids come with varying degrees of innate ability, including "brain development" (which is why programs like WIC are in place and important). They come with varying degrees of household education, from kids taught to read and write at 4&5 to kids "raised by Sesame Street" or even less. But I have personally watched some who did not know one number from another go to top math students, in half a year of kindergarten. I've told you how Mississippi USED TO (before federal intervention) take the most disadvantaged (WITHOUT public kindergarten) up to reasonable parity with the most advantaged by the third grade (by simple teacher assignment). We know there is a VAST difference between an effective teacher and one not so effective, good teachers and ways to make teachers more effective than they are, NONE of which are required of the public schools that do not "PDCA," aka "accountability." Yes, schools measure, but I see no evidence of the corrective cycle. Were it so, performance would not be going DOWN in these Minnesota schools.
So the question I keep asking is, how do we get such "accountability"? So long as we allow schools to blame all parents as defective it is unlikely to come from the union-dominated legislature. NCLB was "defanged" because of that same union domination. The only tool the PARENTS have to force accountability is to pull their kid out, if it's not too late, and send them elsewhere, but some cannot afford that. You want to throw those kids to the sharks, and it has never made sense to me.
One other thing. As far as making "good teachers," there was once a law in Louisiana that to obtain a teacher certification (after completing college), you had to pass a test in the subject you were qualified to teach. That lasted exactly one year, because 90-some percent of the new graduates FAILED the test. The law was repealed and those folks all became teachers. Someplace in the MN public schools we have some ineffective teachers, I would bet on it. Unfortunately, most parents do, too. Can you imagine the frustration and hopelessness?
This was an interesting quote from the link.
"Based on the findings from the Dallas Public Schools' Accountability System, the negative effects of a poor-performing teacher on student achievement persist through three years of high-performing teachers.10 The good news is that if students have a high-performing teacher one year, they will enjoy the advantage of that good teaching in future years. Conversely, if students have a low-performing teacher, they simply will not outgrow the negative effects of lost learning opportunities for years to come. Further exacerbating the negative effects of poor-performing teachers, the Dallas research shows that “lower-achieving students are more likely to be put with lower effectiveness teachers . . . . Thus, the negative effects of less effective teachers are being visited on students who probably need the most help.”"
If one year of questionable instruction yields that problem. 5 years of questionable parenting must be disastrous.
Not sure how to hold Teachers accountable as long as the Liberals keep shielding their poor performers, and the folks like yourself keep attacking their schools and denying that the Parent(s) owns most of the problem.
"If one year of questionable instruction yields that problem. 5 years of questionable parenting must be disastrous." Just can't let go, can you? No parent is good enough, in your opinion, but you are using the wrong criteria. Parents are supposed to teach basic life skills. Teachers are supposed to educate. Parents teach the social graces and how to care for oneself-- brush your teeth, etc. Teachers are responsible for reading, math, and whatever. If kids show up at kindergarten knowing how to tie their shoes, not to hit or talk back, and to eat their vegetables, parents have done OK. If the kid cannot read at grade level by third grade, it is the fault of the school/teachers.
"Not sure how to hold Teachers accountable..." Because you refuse to entertain the one surefire way to do it, by introducing true competition into the providing of the service. I keep hoping that somehow that can be done as a civil rights issue, or as a "fairness" issue, or by actually putting the teeth back into something like NCLB.
What surprised me about this was the extent to which a bad teacher, and PLEASE admit we have some, especially in the "troubled" schools, "handicap" a student. To me it explains why private schools and charters have trouble showing significantly better results. Take a kid who, for K-2, had three poor teachers in a row. Then send that kid to even an outstanding alternate school and it will be two or three years, at LEAST, before that handicap is overcome.
You have really low expectations for parent(s). :-(
And a total disregard for the devastating impact of ACES.
Too bad for the kids.
So, the effect of "ACES" is the sole determining factor in a child's education? And it is EVERY child, no degree of effort short of perfection matters? I'm looking out for the kids that CAN be saved, perhaps even in spite of a few family distractions. In a free market, if the government monopoly is broken up, then those who are failing to do the job SHOULD go out of business, replaced by somebody that CAN do the job. You seem perfectly willing to not only ignore the schools' failure, but to reward it.
As I said before...
It is admirable that you want to provide life boats for some of the children.
Yet it is sad that you want to leave all the most needy kids to the sharks.
"I" want to leave kids to the sharks? I'm in favor of lifeboats for everybody, by the simple expedient of "funding follows the child." And that is starting with the kids who can't swim. Moreover, as we have just learned, the "sharks" are the many poor teachers in the public schools.
Which makes me think of at least one alternative to vouchers, since you HATE giving ANY kid a "lifeboat." [What you have against them, I'll never know.] That is to go back to a plan first proposed by Gov. Pawlenty, which is merit pay for teachers. There would be an evaluation set up, and good teachers would get paid more and poor teachers would be given opportunities--training, etc-- to improve. I was especially hopeful for the notion of a "career track" for teachers-- "apprentice, journeyman, master" so they could advance in pay and responsibility without going into administration. The idea being that "master teachers" would not only teach students more and better, but that they would tutor the apprentice teachers how to do the same. Of course, THAT idea was fought tooth and nail by the union and their DFL lackeys.
In short, figure out a way to FORCE accountability on the schools and we will have a potential agreement. Just "expecting" it is not enough. Excusing its absence is worse.
Prof. Harold Hill taught us much. "Friends, either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a [public school] in your community."
As I keep saying, open a charter school if you think there is easy money to be had and children to help.
OK, you force me to get you some "data." I went back to your MDE stats and found this:
Accounting for the major risk factors, we find Wayzata schools at 22.5% "unlucky" kids, and Minneapolis at 86% "unlucky." But those scoring less than proficient are 15% in Wayzata and only 56% in Minneapolis. Very interesting. Almost exactly 1/3 of "unlucky kids" succeed, in both environments, when according to you, that cannot happen. Perhaps it is because the State Aid formula "fully compensates" for these known "risk factors"?
I keep wondering. If a parent picks up their pre-K kid and moves to a suburb with "good schools," (number one reason given to real estate agents) does that child do better than one "left behind" in the local public? One way to know is to look at what happens when subsidized housing comes to an affluent area. We find that the kids do NOT do as well as their neighbors, especially the older kids who spent time in the local publics, but nonetheless substantially better than their peers left behind. It simply makes sense-- better teachers get paid better in the suburbs. Since all kids cannot be moved, we need to somehow make the local public school (or an alternative) perform better with the students they have. One way would be to make "unlucky parents" a "gift in kind" of being able to AFFORD a better school, without having to buy a new house.
I would much rather open a private school, assuming I could get the funding needed-- easy if "money followed the child." All I would need do is get good teachers and pay them well, insist on certain discipline and a sound curriculum. I'm betting I could easily break even, if not make a profit, probably preferring to spend everything on the kids. If you think there are kids who need help, figure out a way to get them an education in your failing public schools. So far you're mucking it up rather badly.
First of all... Not all Free and Reduced Lunch Kids are Unlucky. There is just a greater percentage of them who are Unlucky. Just as not all the other kids are Lucky. Screwed up parent(s) / families exist at different income levels.
I think you are forgetting that most of the Wayzata kids scoring less than proficient are the Special Needs kids. And unfortunately Mpls has even a higher percentage of these.
Main problem we have is quantifying and identifying a "better school".
You just want to give people money to go to the school they want... Whether it is better or worse.
One could make an argument that all the SE kids account for the "not fully meets" group-- the numbers are very similar. But I find it hard then to justify that we give ALL that money to SE kids, only to see them fail, similar to the way we give all that money to the other "unlucky kids" only to see them fail even worse-- "does not meet."
You seem to have no problem declaring Wayzata a "better school" than Minneapolis, based solely on test scores, which is our best way to measure. But that is not your or my decision to make. By all rights it should belong to the parents to determine, GIVEN a real choice, which school is "better" for their particular child. If indeed funding follows the child, considering the full State aid formula, then any school will do as well as any other, regardless of the official risk factors the child has. And if this school can hire and retain better teachers, better discipline, better curriculum, and better parent involvement (by the simple act of accepting the voucher, if nothing else) then they will be highly likely to be better for that individual child. Again, why you want to prevent that is beyond me.
Same challenge-- find a way to make public schools truly accountable for results without "opportunity scholarships" for poor kids (50% of MPS) and we can talk about that. So far...
The courts have decided that all kids deserve an education, no matter their disabilities and challenges... Thus we will keep spending to help them.
Actually I said I have no idea if Wayzata or Mpls is the "better school". You are the one who believes test scores define better.
Where as I believe one needs to factor in the challenges each school faces.
actually, the courts are about to step in and demand that public schools do better, to reduce the largest-in-the-nation achievement gap between black and white students. There is a proposed Constitutional (State) amendment that would establish a child's "Right" to such an education and require whatever expenditure is required to insure that, which as we all know is not possible because expenditures do not correlate with academic success.
"And you are the one who believes test scores define better." And you are the one who doesn't, nor do you believe that parents have a right to define better for themselves. So, if you can't decide, why NOT leave it to parents, giving them a true choice?
As your own data shows, "factor in the challenges" seems to be automatic. Schools receive extra funding for challenged kids, and generally 1/3 of them succeed, one way or another. But these are both public schools, which have numerous regulations that private schools may not find necessary, allowing them to do better with all kids. And again, Mississippi was SO far ahead on this, even in the public school, somebody ought to be taking notes. Results CAN be improved, regardless of demographics. And SHOULD be.
It will be interesting to see what the courts do.
Because it is my tax dollars.
Mississippi children do worse... Get over it.
Well, the courts have ruled that "so long as the primary purpose" of the tax dollars spent is met, there is no reason to deny private and parochial schools participation in the voucher program. That is, so long as the Catholic school, for example, teaches all the 3 R's well, if they want to have Bible study along with it, and parents make that choice, it's OK.
Mississippi has a lot of "unlucky" kids, yet by simple teacher assignment they essentially erased the achievement gap, while MN has the highest gap in the nation. And the black kids in MS actually outperform black kids in MN, and are getting better, not worse as MN kids are. This is what you are defending? For shame.
Well it will be interesting to see how the Conservatives respond when the Jewish and Muslim schools start getting tax dollars to support their religion. :-O
MS Black Kids do better than MN Black kids? Prove it... :-)
So long as those schools are teaching the required subjects, I doubt we will have any objection, just like the courts do not.
Proof is out there. A simple search, which for some reason you refuse to do, finds this: takechargemn
Look at the DETAIL Sources
OK, so by some measure, MN black kids fare worst in the nation. Is that acceptable to you, or do you think we should try to change that? Obviously MS does better on that measure, so what do they know that we refuse to acknowledge?
Yes, apparently we don't just give HS diplomas to just anyone... Is letting people graduate whether they are capable or not a good thing from your perspective.
Now let's look at actual academic capability.
"Without that context the statement isn’t accurate.
According to the Education Opportunity Monitoring Project, organized by a team of researchers at Stanford University, Minnesota does pretty well when it comes to test scores.
Researchers used nationwide test scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and broke them down by state, race and ethnicity.
The research team found that Black 4th graders in Minnesota ranked 3rd in the nation for math and 16th for reading.
Black 8th graders ranked 30th for math and 24th for reading.
So, among younger students, Black students in Minnesota are nowhere near the bottom when it comes to test scores.
This research project only focuses on younger students.
To find out where Black high school students in Minnesota rank among other states we looked at SAT and ACT scores.
In 2018, Black students in Minnesota scored an average of 200 points higher on the SAT’s than black students nationwide.
And with the ACT, Black students in Minnesota typically score around 17, based on scores from the last five years, and that average is on par with Black students nationwide."
"Yes, apparently we don't just give HS diplomas to just anyone." Actually, we do. We once had a "graduation standard" but when so many failed to meet it, the union-driven DFL legislature gutted it. We don't know if Mississippi has one, but all things seem to be equal if they do not.
And your statistics are no doubt valid, but I do not see a COMPARISON, certainly not apples-to-apples by demographics, as you insist on doing.
And again, why are you settling for mediocre, for anybody? Doesn't MN have "excellent schools"? Our scores are declining. How is that "progress" worth rewarding? I ask again, If we are to keep the public school monopoly, how are you going to make them more accountable?
I have no idea what challenges MS schools face, I just know I am happy I live in MN.
And I have no idea why the MN Graduation rate is relatively low... My guesses:
- Our welfare systems and jobs are pretty good.
- Our academic standards are pretty rigid and high.
My view is keep testing and reporting. Then Parents have the data to make informed choices.
Unlike someone who wants to send money to non-transparent schools. :-)
"Then Parents have the data to make informed choices. " So we're back to that, insisting that all parents have choices? Then why the GOP (and Kendall Qualls') push for school choice, the overwhelming support for it, especially in the "black community," and the dogged resistance to it by the DFL?
I looked at your cite. I usually do. And what it tells me is that MN public school performance is DECLINING. Academic standards haven't changed, but the accountability of the schools to them is entirely absent. How are you going to change that?
The parent(s) have choices, just not the one you want.
Maybe if the Privates start reporting how they are doing against the standards?
And with which students?
Well you know my answer...
The standards may not be changing, but the society is...
Post a Comment