Jerry wrote this Back here.
So it is not possible for schools to be better than they are? Or one school better than another? Everything before kindergarten determines where they will end up 12 years later? So why is it that those kids who voucher out do better?
It doesn't even make sense. If the schools cannot close the achievement gap, that is, cannot help kids overcome whatever initial handicap they may have started with (and I remind you I have seen it happen time and again) then we need to let parents find a school that CAN. Even a test score "tie" with the public schools, if chosen by parents, is "Better."
But what really concerns me is that you want to concentrate on improving the "raw material" that goes into the schools-- fixing all the known social ills. My question is, WHEN are you going to start all this? Leaving aside the question of how, If the schools are creating a huge achievement gap based solely on race, which you cannot change, what will you change about the SCHOOL so it does not continue to create this gap?
I wrote this in response.
I have NO PROOF that those who voucher out do better.
And if they do, it is likely because they get moved to a school like Wayzata that has more resources, fewer special education kids, families that value academic achievement and are willing to work for it.
Of course your whole causal premise is flawed, therefore so is your proposed solution. "schools are creating a huge achievement gap based solely on race" Or are you saying that the police are responsible for arresting and killing so many black, brown, native American and poor people. Maybe we should privative the police?
So what do you think? Are the Schools and Police the CAUSE of our social problems?
60 comments:
You have a badly flawed analogy. Police deal with the guilty, schools with the innocent. Forget that.
"I have NO PROOF that those who voucher out do better." There is your problem. It is not up to you to have that proof. Parents get to make that decision and, with a little bit of web research, the proof is out there that they DO. It's marginal, perhaps, but there nonetheless. And considering most voucher programs are for LESS than the cost of the public school, not only does the public school actually GAIN by exporting students, but the voucher schools do as well or better with fewer resources. Level the playing field with the FULL value of the public school spending, and see what happens.
You are still saying that public schools do and should have ZERO accountability for results, and that allowing parents to hold them accountable by taking their kids elsewhere should be prohibited. "Moving to Wayzata" is NOT proof of parents who "value academic success." It is indicative of that PLUS having the financial means to do so. How unfair of you. It seems our public schools are designed and operated to maintain the economic class structure, rather than overcome it. Any sensible person ought to disagree, the great equalizer
Our schools need to teach better. How does that happen? I don't know of course, but I am sure there isn't just one answer, and that many of the multiplicity of answers aren't easy. Does financing other schools, make our schools better? Does it improve the quality of what teachers do in our classrooms?
--Hiram
Really?
"Police deal with the guilty"
So much for to protect and serve... :-O
Did you read your link? :-)
"Inequities in funding and educational resources place poor children (often those who need the most assistance) in low-performing schools with run-down facilities and often ineffective teachers. "
"The struggle to make sure a quality education is available to every child — and not just a privilege for a few — is one of the most critical matters for our country, and it unfortunately is not getting much traction. This is dangerous as America’s place on the global stage is already dropping and the world is rapidly changing. The US currently ranks 17th in the world in educational performance and we rank 54th in education expenditures or how much we spend on public education."
"Teacher experience and salaries vary widely. In schools with the highest Black and Hispanic enrollment, 15% of teachers were in their first or second year compared with 8% of teachers in low-minority schools. Teachers in high-minority elementary schools were also paid on average $2,251 less a year than their colleagues in low-minority schools in the same district. This highlights a major issue in American public schools. Schools are no longer differing by school districts nor is it urban schools versus suburban. Many times, there are schools being treated vastly different from their counterparts in the same district."
Yes, I read it over and over, and noticed the same things you did. That it is quite clear that it is the SCHOOLS that differ, not so much the students. If the problem is low-paid, inexperienced/ineffective teachers in urban schools, do as Laurie suggests and pay them a premium, especially the better teachers. Institute a more effective discipline policy so teachers don't feel threatened while trying to do their jobs. I've seen it; it can be really "discouraging."
I've seen federal civil rights cases hinge on the maintenance and condition of primarily black vs primarily white schools, and I believe we may already have a lawsuit against Minnesota alleging that unequal results-- i.e. the achievement gap-- is a civil rights violation. The remedy for that would likely be worse than the disease, like bussing a decade ago, but it ought to be a wake-up call for SOMEBODY-- legislature, unions, school districts-- to be correcting the problem, starting with a good, well-paid teacher in every classroom.
Well we do all agree that the problem should be fixed.
I like the Fed Reserves Proposal
Along with providing adequate funding, firing the incompetents, and paying based on challenge / results.
Only 8 Black Students Are Admitted to Stuyvesant High School
"Only 9 percent of offers made by elite schools like Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science went to Black and Latino students this year, down from 11 percent last year. Only eight Black students received offers to Stuyvesant out of 749 spots, and only one Black student was accepted into Staten Island Technical High School, out of 281 freshman seats."
I think these top competative high schools should accept minority students at a slightly higher rate. (knd of like a small quota)
The Secret Shame
Laurie,
It is disturbing that the crime, poverty and poor education results seem more common in Liberal cities.
My Conservative leanings would lead me to believe that is what happens when many people do not need to work to survive (ie too much welfare) and unions protect / over pay some highly questionable educators and administrators.
NY is really screwed up apparently
I don't know if you remember, but HCZ tried to start inside a NY public school. But the Union Teachers were so nasty to the HCZ staff that they had to move.
An Interesting Link
Especially this section...
"And perhaps no aspect of Harlem Children’s Zone’s work is as polarizing as its decision to pour its considerable financial resources into lottery-admission charter schools. The organization, whose board is populated by major philanthropists and hedge fund managers, spends thousands of dollars more per student than the average New York City district school does. While the majority of students in these charter schools routinely exceed statewide proficiency standards, it’s an open question as to whether the schools hold replicable lessons for programs partnering with neighborhood district schools, given the outsize differences in funding, as well as the self-selecting nature of lottery-admission schools.
“Harlem Children’s Zone has so much money that where there wasn’t local capacity, they just created it,” said Gallagher. This fuels concern over just how closely a national outreach initiative can follow the organization’s approach. “Do they have the appropriate model for groups of kids different than those they may have served in Harlem? Are they prepared to work with existing district schools?”
In reply to that question, Owusu-Kesse said, “Our commitment is to work with organizations that are accountable for delivering high-quality outcomes with a comprehensive strategy that includes quality education in all forms.” And, pointing again to the comprehensive approach required to tackle generational poverty, he added, “While quality education is essential to the strategy, it is not a silver bullet, and schools should not be the sole focus.
Indeed, Owusu-Kesse points to a reality all too familiar to those who have already embraced a cradle-to-career model: The issue of poor academic performance in low-income communities cannot be solved exclusively within the walls of any school building. The foundational work to build trust in the community and equitable partnerships among service providers and institutions is crucial. And it takes time.”
"The Secret Shame"
So the "conservative" way to reduce achievement gaps is just to have everyone do poorly?
Sean,
Please explain the rationale / logic for your comment.
I mean Laurie's sources make it pretty clear that DEM strong holds have big problems.
Not sure if I understand the causal factors, but I have always been against handing out money with no expectations and protecting / rewarding poor performers. I believe this promotes unwise choices, an entitlement mentality and poor results.
"Please explain the rationale / logic for your comment."
If you look at the conservative cities with low gaps in Laurie's link, for most of the cities it's not that they've unlocked solutions for non-white achievement -- rather, it's that their white students aren't doing as well as in the cities with larger gaps.
Do you have any source to support this view?
It's in Laurie's link, the "Detailed Results" section.
"It is disturbing that the crime, poverty and poor education results seem more common in Liberal cities."
Did you see murders in South Dakota in 2020? It's happening everywhere, not just liberal cities. (And by the way, crime rates are still significantly lower than they were 30 years ago.)
I took a screen shot of the tables and added it to this post.
You may have a point... I may need to do some calculating if time permits.
Sorry... But urban areas are just more violent... Not sure why...
SD has problems, but that is often because of Native American Reservations and how the USA screwed those folks up.
This is an interesting source
I tried to search for Dakotas and apparently they did not even make the list. :-)
"It is disturbing that the crime, poverty and poor education results seem more common in Liberal cities."
Reminds me of a Daily Show episode, in which a reporter did a stand up from Wall Street which she referred to as a high crime area.
--Hiram
Well after looking at those numbers some more.
The Black Kids in Liberal cities do seem worse off academically in many cases.
Maybe they have higher poverty or more immigrants, but it is pretty bleak for the "caring" cities to be failing so terribly.
We don't teach kids who are members of racial minorities as well as we should. I just don't think throwing money at private schools will help with that.
--Hiram
Hiram, that is not your call to make. We want parents accountable we have to give them the means to seek better, not lock them in a school we all know will fail them.
Jerry,
You really need to study the meaning of the word accountable.
Giving them $10,000+ of tax payer money to spend is just that...
Now how will you audit their performance and hold them accountable?
I mean you don't want to even hold them accountable when they bring screwed up, dirty and hungry kids to school.
"how will you audit their performance and hold them accountable?"
A. Not my job, nor yours.
B. If they pick a school (and they should be allowed to choose the public school), they have been accountable. After that, the schools are held accountable to the parents, rather than the failing bureaucracy. What's wrong with that?
C. And you seem to continue your delusion that there are millions of these "screwed up, dirty and hungry kids" who cannot possibly learn anything in ANY school. That's not the reality, and you are using it to excuse the public school "failure factories."
Hiram, that is not your call to make.
Sure it is. I am a citizen, a taxpayer, a voter, and a concerned member of the community. I get my say.
I think private schools are fine. They have their role. But they are a boutique form of education, costly, meant for the few, and heavily dependent on branding. I do my shopping at Costco.
--Hiram
As a taxpayer and voter, etc. you SHOULD have a say in how tax dollars are spent. So how much say did you have when the public schools were given huge amounts of money to fail to educate? Compare the average private school to the average Minneapolis public school for "costly." And what do you have against "the few" accessing a better education, if they can?
You do your shopping at Costco? Tell me, is anybody else allowed to shop there, or are we mandated to only shop at Target, regardless of price, quality or service?
Actually I do get a vote regarding my State and Local school issues.
Where as you want to send my tax dollars to places with no reporting, auditing, etc.
Unfortunately there are millions of children struggling in rough home environments.
I want to give my tax dollars to parents and charge them with educating their children where they find best. I do not like my tax dollars being spent to trap kids in an educational environment that will likely fail them.
And millions more kids trapped in failing public schools. Which is easier to fix via public policy?
I want to give my tax dollars to parents and charge them with educating their children where they find best.
That's one view, of course. Obviously I disagree. If parents want to privately educate their children, I think that's great, but that isn't a choice I should pay for. Just because I support public schools doesn't mean I have to support all sochools. And I just don't see how financing a second school system, helps public schools fail less.
--Hiram
What happens if you change the question by omission of one word-- "privately." Then it reads "If parents want to educate their children, I think that's great, but that isn't a choice I should pay for." How heartless and cruel.
And you contend we are somehow "financing a second school system" and I simply cannot see it that way. There is one set of children, and if the money follows the child to a choice of schools, that is financing but a single system. And even if it were "two systems," why would you want the failing system to participate? Why should it NOT "improve or die" like any other business competitor, especially one performing a vital public function?
Now, same question John avoids: If you want, and you should, public schools to "fail less" then how do you propose to accomplish that, other than by the introduction of competition for "customers"?
Usual answer, hold parent(s) accountable for doing their job.
Accountable to WHAT? Loving their kids? Keeping them well-fed with food they don't have? Getting enough sleep in homes they don't have? Choosing a school of which they have no choice? I still believe your percentages are way off. If the number of kids truly handicapped by their home circumstances exceeds 10% I will be very surprised. From what I have observed personally, it is 10% initially, but effective schooling quickly reduces that to more like 3%. So you have to explain to me why some public schools fail 70% of black students.
And you contend we are somehow "financing a second school system" and I simply cannot see it that way.
I understand you want me to pay for your kids private school. I just don't have much interest in doing that. I pay enough for public schools.
--Hiram
Jerry,
We give poor parent(s) food, housing, medical care, etc for their kids.
They could "plant that garden" you bring up occasionally.
So yes I expect their children will come to Kindergarten healthy, developed, clean, fed, and ready to learn. They chose to have sex, they chose to keep the baby, they should be help accountable for the basic care of the child(ren).
"I understand you want me to pay for your kids private school."-- Hiram
Wrong. I want you to pay for my kids PUBLIC school, even if it is privately operated. Government made a commitment to "universal public education." Nothing in that worthy goal requires it be done by government employees, in government buildings, to strict government rules.
"I expect their children will come to Kindergarten healthy, developed, clean, fed, and ready to learn. They chose to have sex, they chose to keep the baby, they should be help [sic] accountable for the basic care of the child(ren)." And everything I see is that, by and large, they ARE. We have child protection services for those few cases where this is not the case, just as we offer food, shelter, etc.... What you continue to deny is the basic humanity of these parents who find themselves in poverty, or in a racial minority. The same as you deny that the promise of public education was that it was the great leveler, helping these kids OUT of the poverty to which they were born. That isn't being done in too many cases. Once more I ask, if you know how to [preferably quickly] improve the SCHOOLS without subjecting them to simple competition, spell it out.
I understand you want me to pay for your kids public school which someone privately operates.I just don't have much interest in doing that. I pay enough for public schools that aren't privately operated.
--Hiram
If you don't want to send your kids to privately-operated public schools, and prefer the massively-failing government-operated public schools, feel free. Don't tell everybody else they have to make that same choice. And I remind you, the taxes you pay for schools do not go for YOUR kids, but to help all kids, whether you have kids in school or not. I would like you to have a choice for your kids, and I would like everybody else to exercise that same choice. So long as my tax dollars go to educate kids, preferably WELL, I don't care who provides the service.
Jerry,
Yep... Just a couple of kids are suffering in bad / unstable homes...
"Every year more than 3.6 million referrals are made to child protection agencies involving more than 6.6 million children (a referral can include multiple children).
The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect."
And you just want to give them more ways to screw up their kids. :-)
Let's see, 70 million kids in the country, and 3.5 million have serious home problems. That's terrible, but it is 5%. It doesn't even come close to explaining why 70% of black kids are failing in school. You just want to give the public schools more money to screw up more kids.
You seem to be forgetting that:
- it was 6.5 million kids per year
- most of those kids live in low income high population density areas (ie urban)
- And 10+% of kids suffer from special needs, higher in poor communities
And this is just plain old wrong. "70% of black kids are failing in school"
Many Unlucky kids in poor high crime areas do not succeed in school, and these have a high percentage of minorities. However millions of minority children succeed in other communities.
It is so strange how you want to make it hard for these folks to vote, and yet you want to make it is easy to pick schools?
It was 5% of families, and the question still remains: In those schools in high-poverty/high minority areas, where 70% DO fail, why are you condemning these kids to that environment?
What makes you think it is "easy" to pick a school? If my income is $26,000 per year and I have two kids, my choices are: A failing public school near me, or (maybe) a failing charter school near me. Period. A private or parochial school is priced out of reach, and moving to the suburbs is pure fantasy. Seems like YOU are the one limiting choices, here, and to what purpose?
I would like those who are LEGAL to vote to do so, without having their votes "cancelled" by election shenanigans. I am really into "voter suppression" ONLY for dead people, non-existent people, double voters, and non-citizens. Nice deflection, but false, and an insult.
I am not condemning the kids to that environment, they unfortunately were born into it.
If someone has 2 kids and a $26,000 income they probably should get a room mate, have that garden you talk about, get married, live with their parents, other?
And by the way, many suburban apartments are cheaper than downtown. And rural are even cheaper. And I assume the child payments move with the kids.
You fought against having apartment owners distribute voter registration forms.
Face the reality that the GOP and yourself fear the votes of the minority citizens and are willing to do almost anything to minimize their impact.
From gerrymandering to fewer hours for voting to fewer voting stations in urban areas to even worse. It is sad how the GOP is resistant to our democracy.
As I explain to the DEMs, if you want more votes propose more popular solutions. Same goes for the GOPers.
"I am not condemning the kids to that environment, they unfortunately were born into it." An excellent piece of rationalization, that. Why are you condemning them to being unable to ESCAPE that environment, the fundamental purpose of universal public educaton?
"If someone has 2 kids and a $26,000 income they probably should get a room mate, have that garden you talk about, get married, live with their parents, other?" Fine ideas, all, because that lets schools avoid all responsibility for the quality of their service and their fundamental reason to exist. WHY???
"Face the reality that the GOP and yourself fear the votes of the minority citizens and are willing to do almost anything to minimize their impact." That is some badly warped sense of reality you have. Republicans are making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Democrats are howling mad at that reality, and afraid that minorities are swinging away from them, as in last election. Polls show a majority of minorities favor voter ID, yet Democrats are dead set against it.
Do you have any other ideas regarding how to help these poor unlucky kids?
Oh Lord... "Republicans are making it easier to vote"
Please explain how they are doing this?
Do you pay no attention whatsoever to the news? Texas, for example, will have longer (24 hour) early voting, for more days, more dropboxes. Same in Georgia. What the liberals rant and rave about is a requirement for ID, making it harder to CHEAT. Obviously they WANT to continue to cheat. Why is that so obvious to everybody but you and your fellow Biden sycophants?
I don't know why I NEED any "other ideas" for the schools. Simply allowing a "free market" choice of where parents spend their education dollars ("universal public education dollars" provided by the State) and the resulting competition should be sufficient. BUT, if you insist on imprisoning kids in the government-run monopoly schools, then do as Mississippi did. Track the kids by ability, putting the least-advantaged in a class with the best teacher (paid accordingly). The most-advantaged kids get the new teacher, but NOBODY gets a bad one. That means thinning the union ranks so not politically easy. But then, at the end of each grade, the kids get re-sorted and the teachers again assigned accordingly. If it goes like it did in Mississippi, by the third grade the initial gap is gone. Now if we could just insure good teachers the rest of the way, ... That would be where the "apprentice, journeyman, master" rankings for teachers, with pay accordingly, would serve well.
Looks like they are making it harder to vote.
And trying to give State GOP more power over local elections.
Georgia Law Summary
Texas Law Summary
I doubt if they closed the gap by 3rd grade.
But I agree with many of your ideas.
Doubt all you want. I was there, I saw it. And I have seen how quickly a good teacher can bring a "bottom of the class" kid up to "top of the class" kid. I've also seen how a poor teacher can make a top student fail. Teachers need to be rated, paid and "promoted" accordingly. And don't tell me it cannot be done (except that unions would hate it). Almost every kid and every parent knows the difference. And comparative test results over the year would be an objective measure.
I read your one item on voting laws, and almost laughed myself silly. What it says is, these laws are "anti-democratic" (or maybe "anti-Democratic") because what they do is to reduce the possibilities for cheating! I mean, if the election is so secure and immune to fraud now, then what is the harm in making the law reflect that? The other objection seems to be that the law was created BECAUSE of suspicions of fraud and therefore we should not write laws to reassure ourselves that fraud cannot occur. It's the typical liberal double-think.
Writing laws to prevent crimes that did not happen seems like something GOPers would usually be against.
I mean aren't you one the supporting Local governance and fewer regulations?
GOPers are definitely the most hypocritical party. They preach against big government and regulations and then work hard to pass them...
Writing laws to prevent something that COULD happen makes good sense. Insisting that we do not need laws to prevent things that COULD (and presumably does) happen does not. If your/Democrats' argument is that the last election was without flaw, under existing law, and 40% of us think it was not, then what is wrong with laws that simply codify what you claim is existing practice? And that the rest of us claim "closes loopholes"? If we are wrong, no change and no harm done. If you are wrong-- that is, that the law doesn't need changing-- then fraud will continue.
And this "local control" is a red herring. The States (unless DC Democrats succeed in pushing through HR1) control election law. MN has some of the most lax in the nation.
Then we had better start passing more rules and regulations...
"Writing laws to prevent something that COULD happen makes good sense."
It is good that you now support laws to prevent pollution, global warming, other?
As I said GOPers are hypocrites.
You are changing the subject. Restrict yourself to election law, please.
Or looking at it another way, manmade climate change can NOT happen, so laws against it are foolish. We have laws to prevent pollution of certain kinds.
Address the question: Are MN election laws sufficient to minimize improper voting?
Yes.
I have faith in local election officials and MN residents.
I believe you have faith. What you do not have are facts. MN election law is riddled with "loopholes" and in practice it is even worse. MN residents may be trying to have an honest election, and maybe believe as you do that it is so. It is not and cannot be.
Continued at comment 4 over here
Post a Comment