A Gift from Jerry, who swears we should be more like Mississippi.
Just popped in to note that you can be bull-headedly wrong, and it seems pointless to try to educate you. Mississippi kids do BETTER
Of course then I went to the report card and found the following... So I do not know what the American Experiment author or Jerry are talking about...
156 comments:
More Detailed Info Here
The claim was that MINORITY students did better. The numbers were included in the cite. That also matches my personal experience. Apparently you are an "expert" on this, because you got it wrong just like the U of M "expert" did. :-/
Okay. I screen shot all the numbers. And yes MS did better in a few categories.
However they did worse in more categories.
I was more interested in the Free Lunch performance. MS did do better in Reading.
Maybe this is why???
Two percent of Mississippi residents are immigrants, while another 2 percent of residents are native-born U.S. citizens with at least one immigrant parent.
Nearly 10 percent of Minnesota residents are immigrants, while 7 percent of residents are native-born U.S. citizens with at least one immigrant parent.
Well per the last image I posted, apparently not even immigrants want to move to Mississippi. :-O
MN's 8.6% of kids who do not speak English at home is a definite disadvantage compared to MS' 2.5%.
Thoughts?
My statement was (long ago and now) that minority kids do better in MS than in MN. You continue (bull-headedly) to be wrong on that, trying to say that "excuses" erase the truth. You continue to ignore the fact that MN has one of the largest achievement gaps in the country, while, unfortunately, MS does not. On the other hand, MS is TRYING to improve achievement. I see no signs that MN public education is doing such, and you keep trying to excuse these massive failures.
As you know, I am more interested in poverty.
I will leave race issues to you and the Liberals.
Math:
MN: 270 and 302
MS: 267 and 295
Reading
MN: 247 and 273
MS: 250 and 275
Science
MN: 142 & 173
MS: 131 & 161
I am happy to see that poor kids in MS are doing better than I thought.
And if it makes you feel better, please feel free to ignore that MN has ~4 times the number of ELL students and families to deal with.
Excuses, excuses, and that after you absolutely INSISTED that my statement was untrue. Yes, MS kids have more poverty, and MN has more students in ELL, but MN spends almost 50% more than MS does. And again, while those 10% or so of ELL students in MS are falling behind, more than FIFTY percent of minority students in MN are behind. Where do you want to concentrate your efforts? And don't say eliminating poverty, or "holding parents responsible" since we've been around that muddy racetrack too many times. Apples to apples, MS does a better job on the "gap" and MN needs to step up and ask why they can't. Whatever the excuse is, address it IN SCHOOL.
I apologize for misunderstanding your initial statement.
Of course, things are more expensive in MN.
Now you did see that MN beats MS in both Math and Science...
It is only reading where MS is ~2 points ahead.
I think that is because MS has so few non-English speaking families.
The gap in MS is only smaller because their non-food program students score lower.
Not a goal I can support.
Differences
Math: MN vs MS: +3 and +7
Reading: MN vs MS: -3 and -2
Science: MN vs MS: +11 and +12
Gaps
Math:
MN: 270 and 302 = 32
MS: 267 and 295 = 28
Reading
MN: 247 and 273 = 26
MS: 250 and 275 = 25
Science
MN: 142 & 173 = 31
MS: 131 & 161 = 30
The "gaps" look pretty similar except MN Math.
By your lights, MS shouldn't even be close, so how do you propose to fix the huge gap both inter-racial and overall, in MN schools? We spend 50% more. Where is it going if not to improve academic achievement? Again, I can show you that, on average in MN, academic achievement is INVERSELY correlated with per-pupil spending. No more excuses!
Yes I understand that you want to believe that all kids and families are the same. Therefore you are comfortable showing pointless correlations.
And that is why you jumped on the silly MS vs MN comparison. You thought you could compare apples and oranges with no one noting the error.
Unfortunately schools in poor areas need to do so much more than just teach. I am happy I do not work in those schools.
Some interesting articles:
7 ways poverty impacts education
Schools: America's Safety Net
By the way, overall it is not even close...
Would you be happier if MN shrunk its gap by lowering the upper scores?
Are you happy that MN is doing NOTHING, despite all of the spending on "kids in poverty", to RAISE the lower scores? Do you really find 50% failure acceptable? Instead of political bickering and "solutions," (aka excuses), how about some real, workable, academic initiatives and incentives?
Let me be clear. For the kind of money MN throws at high-FRL schools, they should be able to adopt better programs to "teach kids from where they are" to "where they need to be." MS does that.
What would these be?
"how about some real, workable, academic initiatives and incentives?"
Where do you think the money is being wasted?
Not my job to solve the problem, nor your job to criticize my solutions. We should agree to criticize RESULTS and leave solutions to the "professionals." But because you apparently believe MN public schools can do no better, and you are unwilling to simply grant universal vouchers to everybody and let competition create the improvement, here are a few ideas. Get rid of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Set a standard and reward schools for achieving it, punish schools (give the parents vouchers to escape) for repeated failure (NCLB). Have an effective discipline policy, not the "equity" nonsense imposed in some districts. Fire all those excess administrators, especially the "diversity coordinators." Set up a teaching evaluation and pay system, maybe that rewards class size with discipline, as well as achievement. Maybe set up an "apprentice, journeyman, master" pay scale. Good teachers are very important. Split classes by "tracks" rather than expect every kid to learn at the same pace, from the same starting point (like MS does). Guarantee literacy by third grade, with RIF or whatever program works. I can't attest to it personally, because I learned look-say, but vast amounts of evidence says most people learn better with phonics. Do it. Get rid of non-essential and "woke" classes and concentrate on reading, math and science, and only later REAL history, geography, civics. Somehow home-schoolers get better academic results in half the time. Look at CAI for many classes. Fundamentally, I always ask "what are the incentives, here?" The schools and teachers get paid the same (and even more) for failing as they do for success. What can change that?
Lots of good ideas!!!
- though Unions are a reality
- some of your ideas have been deemed illegal
Of course home schoolers do better, their Parent(s) are engaged and interested in academics.
Are you ready to start holding Parent(s) accountable yet?
- kids in safe stable nurturing home
- kids fed, bathed, read to, do homework, be at school, etc
- etc
If good ideas are illegal (can't imagine which) then to achieve what is right for the kids we must change those laws. Simple as that.
And I will "hold parents accountable" some time after you agree to hold SCHOOLS accountable for their primary function-- their reason to exist-- of educating every child to their full potential. You cannot POSSIBLY tell me that is happening now.
And I am appalled you think this awful way about your fellow parents (and believe the answer is government coercion rather than real assistance). I'm waiting for you to point me to any significant number of parents who, when their failing school (as should be the case) is forced to give out vouchers, refuses to use the voucher and find a "better" school for their kid?
Oh well... Only time will tell.
Time will tell if you are defending a totally failed system? /I/ know that right now. How many generations of kids have to be crippled by their poor educations, before you demand action?
Right back at you. The Defender of irresponsible, incapable, and negligent parent(s)...
Are you ready to start holding Parent(s) accountable yet?
- kids in safe stable nurturing home
- kids fed, bathed, read to, do homework, be at school, etc
- etc
OK, I believe that 98% of parents love their kids and want the best (education) for them. Meanwhile, MN public schools are failing to deliver that education for FIFTY PERCENT of the kids. I will reluctantly excuse the schools and blame parents for 2% of the failures. When will you be outraged by the 48% irreparably damaged by the irresponsible, incapable, and negligent school system?
If all it took was love to raise a child well, that would be wonderful.
Unfortunately it takes so much more and many parent(s) apparently are not up to the task.
I have many concerns regarding schools, however I do not expect them to be miracle workers.
As my links above indicate, our society expects too much from them.
I've found your grave error. You say loving parents are "not up to the task." They ARE. What they lack are the MEANS to properly educate their children, and that would be decent SCHOOLS. Yes, food, clothing, shelter, early educational materials, etc. may be lacking but could be supplied either marginally (poor kids in MS almost always have a big garden), through charity, or through government assistance. But /schools/? No, you take what we give you and that's that. We've got some rotten potatoes and some flied rice here for you to eat, on that score.
"Our society expects too much of them." of WHOM? Parents? or Schools? Schools get PAID, and handsomely, and demand they be given great responsibility, which they then proceed to shirk. Stop the excuses! Any business with a 50% failure rate should be OUT of business, more or less immediately, if competition were allowed.
So we should ensure parent's with 100% failure rates have no more kids?
Did you ever read these?
7 ways poverty impacts education
Schools: America's Safety Net
And are you willing to share the name of that miracle school that succeeds with all comers, and has no requirements for the parents?
How can a parent have "100% failure rate" when it is the schools that are responsible for the child's education? If you want the parents responsible for the child's education, give them the money and let them choose the school.
As for the "miracle school," it would be one that the parents choose and which does BETTER than the 50% failure rate of the public school they do not get to choose. As usual, you keep focusing on the 1 or 2% of the kids who come out of severe poverty (unaided by our "welfare" system) rather than the 98% who can benefit from a properly-run educational environment. You can NOT continue to tell me (but you probably will) that the 50% failure rate of some MN schools (80% for minority kids) is all their fault for having poor parents. Let the parents choose. If they don't want a school that demands some responsibility from them, that is their choice. Don't cripple all those who just need the opportunity. Either that or demand real accountability from the schools and let them figure out how to get there. They might even learn something from Mississippi.
It seems you did not read or learn from the links.
I DID read and learn from the links, just not what your determined, blinkered view did.
As for the topic, I think this settles it, and tells you that MN COULD do much better than it does, despite all the "excuses" you want to throw at it.
MN vs MS education The comparison page is particularly telling.
I know... Continue leaving the Unlucky kids behind... Oh well, I expect that from you.
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. What do you think the current education system is doing? What do you think "No Child Left Behind" (now completely ignored) was intended to do and was actually accomplishing (which is WHY it was neutered by the educracy)? Remember how the government-run welfare system was always supposed to "end poverty"? And how education was supposed to "educate every child to their full potential"? The road to 50% failure is paved with good intentions, but without realistic processes in place neither comes close. Halfway off is not close. You again dismiss any and all suggestions for how the public schools could improve, insisting on some magic elixir in the whole of society that would rescue every single kid rather than the 98-99% that would benefit just by fixing the schools, thereby condemning more and more kids to be crippled for life. Shame.
I have many of ideas for improving the public schools, but as you know, removing their funding is not one of them.
Especially when you want to send the money to schools that will not need to accept and keep all students that apply, be they have special needs, abused / neglected at home, not have a home, a different religion, etc.
Vouchers may work if all the schools needed to meet the same rules, standards, capabilities, etc. Unfortunately you want to give the niche schools the same funding as the full service schools.
I hear your objections to universal vouchers, and frankly find them ridiculous. First of all, why should the government-run school establishment have a monopoly on "free education"? Why should we DENY every kid that MIGHT benefit the opportunity? More than that, however, why should all schools have to meet some arbitrary set of rules for how they educate, if the results are equal or better without them? My vision of universal vouchers (with adequate compensation for individual SN students, etc.) includes removing all unnecessary regulation from the public schools as well, creating true competition. That means this "defunding" would be the result of poor performance compared with competition, and that is exactly what should be happening, rather than forcing kids into schools that guarantee failure. Government should not be subsidizing businesses whose products fail half the time.
But, I'm willing to give up the universal voucher solution for now, if you will enlighten me on your other brilliant solutions. Frankly, I'm amazed the public schools have NOT adopted them over the many, many years they have been known, and proven to work so well. :-/
Just as I see your desire to send tax payer money to "for profit", cherry picking, non-monitored, non-reporting schools as ridiculous.
It would probably be asfraud filled as Trump's Bailouts.
Unfortunately most of my ideas are blocked by the unions.
- compensation and job security based on position, challenge and capability... not years and degrees...
- teacher's and classes subject to parent surveys...
Of course since I only see schools as 30% of the problem...
The bigger challenge is how to ensure all children are raised well from 0 to 5 year old, come ready for kindergarten, and are well supported by their parent's during the next 13 years of their education.
Of course since I only see schools as 30% of the problem...
The bigger challenge is how to ensure all children are raised well from 0 to 5 year old, come ready for kindergarten, and are well supported by their parent's during the next 13 years of their education.
School's should be responsible for teaching the children academic topics.
Not for feeding, washing, clothing, social work, managing poor / violent behaviors, etc.
OK, so the abject failure of MN schools relative to MS is entirely due to the fact that MN has more kids in poverty, right? And those kids who escape the public schools to charters, homeschool, or parochial, and who do better as a result are because government welfare WORKS for those particular kids and not those left behind? OK, we will agree that teacher pay and performance should be linked, and the union wont' allow that. I'm always fascinated by the contention that teachers want to be treated like professionals (and should be), but then want to be paid and secured and ruled by a union, just like packing plant workers.
Government has been trying to eliminate poverty and its ill effects for 50 years, and we have just as much poverty (or at minimum its ill effects) as always. Likewise, government (and unions) have been in charge of education for at least that long, and no improvements have been made. Eliminating the unions would be a positive step, but without vouchers to create the competition, they will retain their power. The "reconstituted school" movement has something to offer, but it is also difficult, too late, and faces massive opposition despite working well.
And a question: how much of the social problem is resolved by just handing parents a voucher and told to choose a school? Wouldn't that make a parent more interested in getting the kid fed, washed, well-behaved and learning? Knowing the voucher could be rejected for behavior problems (a right I would extend to the public school)? I always consider human behavior according to the obvious incentives in place
Again you are comparing apples and oranges. A LOT has changed in 50 years that have nothing to do with schools. And the schools get to deal with the mess.
Personally I think most of the unlucky kid's parent(s) would never use the voucher. Just as they do not use the charter or magnet schools. These parent's are not focused on academics, and likely have a hard enough time caring for themselves. Let alone their children.
Unfortunately neither the Liberals nor Conservatives are interested in putting kids first. :-(
Fast Facts
Child abuse and neglect are common. At least 1 in 7 children have experienced child abuse or neglect in the past year in the United States. This is likely an underestimate because many cases are unreported. In 2020, 1,750 children died of abuse and neglect in the United States.
Children living in poverty experience more abuse and neglect. Experiencing poverty can place a lot of stress on families, which may increase the risk for child abuse and neglect. Rates of child abuse and neglect are 5 times higher for children in families with low socioeconomic status.
Child maltreatment is costly. In the United States, the total lifetime economic burden associated with child abuse and neglect was about $592 billion in 2018. This economic burden rivals the cost of other high-profile public health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes.
369 For Profit School Investigations
I'm guessing that "child abuse and neglect" like "special needs kids" are numbers deliberately inflated by those who want to get paid handsomely to solve those particular problems. But let us assume that 1/7 of all kids are "abused" and this affects their academic potential. That's 14%, so what about the other 36% of kids that are failing in the current system? To heck with them, they don't count? You are sounding like the cynic who claims "these poor kids can't learn anything, let's just give them the $180 grand when they turn 18, that we would have spent trying to give them an education." You also sound like YOU, totally unwilling to address the problem with the schools until all the problems of society at large are resolved. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Let's work to implement NCLB. Let's pay teachers for performance, and if that breaks the unions, so be it. We should prohibit lobbying by the teachers union, or at least their use of union dues to finance it. Demand transparency in curriculum. Require literacy by third grade or remedial classes. Concentrate on core subjects (and not Common Core). Require a REAL discipline policy in the schools, not this "equity" nonsense some of them have adopted.
OR, as you have always done, just accept the awful, horrendous, hope-crushing status quo.
Oh, and parents are REQUIRED BY LAW to have their kids in school. They would be able to simply sign it over to the local public school (and probably would until competitive schools became available) but I guarantee they would take a lot more interest. Once again, you want a system that works for the 1 or 2%, and won't adopt ANYTHING that might help the other 98%. How short-sighted and cruel can you be?
Now in MN, ~83% of students graduate.
How are you coming up with a 50% failure rate?
First cite I found included this quote: "“All parents want their kids to do well..." How irresponsible of them!
Then I found this: the real numbers
And you were half right. Overall failure in reading was only 44%, but for minorities in math it was 62% and would have been worse except for the Asians. Graduation rates don't mean much if the kid can't read the diploma. And even 83% is pretty dismal. Why are you trying so hard to define failure as success, and be so averse to making improvements?
Not if 10% are special ed and 7 % are neglected. :-O
I liked this quote.
"A few common themes emerge across these successful school districts and schools. First, schools are given greater autonomy. In New Orleans, the schools under the OPSB were replaced with independent schools that were directly accountable to the state’s RSD. In New York, the Promise Academy was given autonomy in implementing its own community and school programs. The report on high-achieving disadvantaged districts finds that school principals were given autonomy to lead, which helped attract, develop, and retain high-quality teachers.
Second, there is a focus on school quality. Research on the Promise Academy demonstrated that flexibility in teacher recruitment and retention combined with improvements in pedagogical methods led to better outcomes. A common theme in the high-performing disadvantaged districts study is a focus on school quality, including maximizing student learning time and using data and coaching to improve instruction.
Third, support services for students and their families correlate with enhanced education
outcomes. Students in the Boston Connects program receive individualized services that are
associated with gains in achievement test scores and reductions in dropout rates. Meanwhile, providing a variety of student and family supports is a key strategy to advancing student outcomes in the Harlem Children’s Zone."
These examples indicate that closing achievement gaps is challenging, but possible. "
The first indicates that State control and funds may help.
The second indicates that Unions are a big problem.
The third indicates that schools that have strong social support services may do better.
On the Other Hand,
We currently have too much state control, including detailed curriculum requirements, union contracts, detailed spending requirements (x for busses, y for food service, etc.). And the state throws gobs of money at poor schools using the incomprehensible state aid formula, yet analysis shows that the more money spent the worse the academic results. In other words, it doesn't seem to matter how much is spent, but HOW it is spent and many schools are wasting it.
Agreed, so how do you fix that? It's almost impossible to get elected to a school board without union endorsement, meaning the union sits on "both sides of the table" in contract talks and other things. And the Statewide DFL is frequently derided as "the governing half of Ed. MN."
And I have no objection to that, assuming it is in cooperation with the (probably needs to be reformed) welfare system-- no point in duplicating effort. But that MUST be secondary to getting the academic house in order. Better teachers, better methods including targeted learning (NOT OBE), high expectations both academic and behavioral. THEN it will become obvious where the "social services" are most needed. I can cite examples from my experience-- where the academic problems are how the social problems are discovered and targeted.
Now, I ask again, with all these obvious success stories out there, why do the MN public schools fare so poorly, especially with minority students? Why are they not adopting these best practices?
Not sure why you keep showing your ignorance with this statement?
"analysis shows that the more money spent the worse the academic results"
We know that the many factors vary between the student bodies, and yet you keep acting like the children are all "fuji apples". Definitely a flawed assertion.
As noted previously, MN does similar or better to other states with poor kids. Especially given our high number of ELL students. MN just does better than other states with kids from financially stable households.
Local school boards have a lot of autonomy regarding curriculum, methods, etc.
The state mostly measures their success or failure through testing.
MN has a large number of magnet, charter and private schools that do practice autonomy.
Unfortunately they have not been proven to consistently achieve better results... :-(
The schools and social service groups are trying to help the kids.
Unfortunately folks like yourself resist adequately funding them.
Or make false assertions like more money yields worse results.
"Not sure why you keep showing your ignorance with this statement?
"analysis shows that the more money spent the worse the academic results"
Now you are showing YOUR ignorance. I've told you over and over that I have done the exhaustive math, based on State DOE figures, and a fit of the data for all 400 MN school districts shows EXACTLY that. I should also note that, at the State average of spending, academic results vary by about 2:1, reinforcing the idea that spending is not that important but rather HOW the money is spent. And in that regard, the State DOE should be looking at the best practices from these highly successful districts and passing them around, rather than trying to top-down regulate for everybody. If you can't lobby for that, can you at least concede its merit?
"folks like me" (insult noted) "resist adequately funding them" because cost/performance is wildly out of whack. Folks like you believe throwing more money at these failing systems will magically make them better. Delusional.
I am happy you are not responsible for costing my projects. You apparently think one cost is correct no matter the difficulty or scope of the project.
But maybe these school districts face the same challenges? Not...
Wayzata School District
English learner: 4.0%
Special education: 10.2%
Free/Reduced-Price meals: 6.9%
Homeless: 0.1%
Mpls School District
English learner: 16.9%
Special education: 17.0%
Free/Reduced-Price meals: 48.2%
Homeless: 2.2%
By the way, no insult was intended.
No, they are not. BUT, the State aid formula is going to direct almost twice the funding (I haven't looked it up, but likely) to Mpls as to Wayzata. That increased funding is supposed to fully compensate for those differences. What I would really like to do is to offer every school the full amount of state aid (i.e. get rid of the formula) and then ask every District to come before the legislature and ask for whatever amount they need to properly educate every kid, considering those "handicaps." Specific programs/initiatives would be required, and results would be checked against those promises. Repeated failures would cause NCLB "penalties" to be enforced.
No insult was intended, but that is the result of your liberal belief system (no insult intended), which classes any opinion other than yours, no matter how well-founded, as stupid, or evil, or both.
I think you should study the formula and local funding before making claims.
Ooooh. Now I am a Liberal... I am sure those Left of Center will be happy to hear that.
I would love to see NCLB come back to life, unfortunately people did not like seeing how poorly their local schools were doing and they disliked being tested.
Just like you supporting your dream school that you are unwilling to name, because I would dig into how they really do and how they do it.
I have looked into the State Aid formula extensively, and it is basically incomprehensible yet is intended by the Legislature to "fully compensate" for things like SE, FRL, and ELL, so inner city schools end up with a LOT more money, to produce WORSE results. Like NCLB, I highly favor saying "a kid is a kid" for purposes of state aid (equal per-pupil funding) and then let each district come to the legislature (or the DOE as the administrator) and ask for W dollars for X program to raise achievement in Y class of students by Z percentage points over T years. And then hold them to it, or let NCLB kick in. Part of NCLB, BTW, was that schools could get additional resources to come up to "AYP." Like much of government, they got the extra money but never delivered on the results.
I would make one other concession. In addition to the formula, schools receive what is called "compensatory aid." This is an amount the State sends to schools which have a low property tax base, and can't raise additional revenue that way. It's essentially a "match" of "local effort" to compensate for the tax base situation, making combined state aid and local tax funding "equitable."
I don't think we have to look for a "dream school." Examples abound, including those public schools that do twice as well with half the funding. What is missing is the willingness to LEARN from these schools, so as to facilitate continued failure. The solution is to quit accepting excuses for that failure. It won't come without some outside coercion.
Please name these unicorn schools...
"schools that do twice as well with half the funding"
Sorry, they are not identified by name on my analytic chart of the 400 districts. But there were several. As I said, numerous schools were clustered around the state average (1/2 the highest) and among those, achievement varied by about 2:1. so some of them were doing something "right," and the others were (you will claim) just "unlucky." BS. Any little bit that encourages achievement should be duplicated across the board, even amplified. The notion that schools cannot "learn" to do better is both ironic and risible, were it not so toxic to the next generation. We worry about what "we" put into their bodies. Should we not care about what "we" put into their MINDS?
So as usual...
Lots of opinions and no proof. :-(
And how is one to learn from an unnamed school?
There you go again, denying all facts, logic and data just to sustain what is obviously your opinion, indeed FANTASY, that the schools cannot do better. The data I have just cited comes directly from the DOE, and that is where you could look to find this school for yourself. I didn't care. The X-axis was cost and the Y-axis was MN test scores in reading and math. It was a scatter-plot of all 400+ MN school districts, and the least-squares fit showed a very distinctive NEGATIVE slope. Don't believe me? Do all that math yourself.
The fact DOE KNOWS who these schools are should tell you they are NOT doing their fundamental job of "passing around best practice" and measuring the results. I've asked a couple of times why financial reporting to DOE is so rigid, and whether or not it could be changed to "program-based budgeting" so schools could get actual management information, and improve spending efficiency, rather than simple accounting. It's a start.
That's funny...
So your simplistic graph would show Wayzata Schools doing a WONDERFUL job...
And it would show Minneapolis Schools doing a TERRIBLE job...
Maybe Minneapolis Schools just needs Wayzata's student body, families and community then? :-O :-)
Are you being serious?
You slight me, sir. That graph was a great deal of work, pulling the data from the DOE website and having them help me with interpretation. It's not "simplistic" at all, since its sole purpose was to put the lie to the notion that "more money" produced better academic results, and it does. Overall, the correlation is NEGATIVE, but the variance, particularly near the mode, might argue that the /degree/ of correlation is not large, again proving the same premise. SOMETHING matters, but it's not money, and you can only speculate as to WHAT it is. The one thing you CAN know is that MN schools have one of the highest racial gap in the country. we are doing SOMEHING wrong.
And I don't have any idea about Wayzata schools, though I suspect Minneapolis, from what I know otherwise, is probably at the top of spending and DOES have the worst (or close to it) results, on average. You're still making excuses, and unable to prove that either school district is doing the best they can. A good business improves outputs, despite inputs.
If you spent much time determining that...
Schools with high levels of poor, single parent, special needs, homeless and ELL students get more funding and still struggle...
You wasted some of your valuable time... :-O
And actually a good business finds a new supplier if their supplier does not provide consistent quality inputs on time for an acceptable price.
More Gaps That may be Causal to the Education Gap
Obviously you completely missed the point. It is argued that schools with "unlucky kids" (your terminology) get more funding to compensate for that (and they probably should), so why does this money not compensate, but instead seems to produce POORER results? Very clearly the problem is not one of "inputs" but rather of the total ineffectiveness of the public school system in teaching these disadvantaged kids. You're saying these social ills may be causing the education gap. I argue it is the other way around. You are condemning these kids to continue the cycle of poverty and deprivation. I mean, let us look at the "solutions" being proposed. It's not a guarantee of literacy by third grade; it is ensuring that we hire more minority teachers who may or may not be effective. Is that really where education dollars should be spent?
"And actually a good business finds a new supplier if their supplier does not provide consistent quality inputs on time for an acceptable price."
And any customer who does not find a vendor producing a consistent quality product at an acceptable price finds another vendor. Unless that vendor is the public school, then you have no choice. And as might be expected, the price is too high and the quality is abysmal. As the buyer, I don't CARE about your supplier problems.
And I'm sorry, but I just laugh at your excuse that the schools have "supplier quality problems." My company went on a sort of "quality binge" many years ago and published a new standard for our suppliers. It required no more than 6 defects per 10,000 units (they were expensive, critical parts). So, the next shipment showed up on 2 pallets, 5000 each, and on top was a small box with six parts and a note saying, "We hope these were the defects you wanted." And for another supplier we bought an expensive press so that we could use material that was lower cost but with higher variance. The new press evened out the variance, maintained and even improved quality, and saved money.
Those are amusing stories.
In the first one the business did set quality requirements for incoming parts.
Kind of like what Private and some Charter Schools do. This is how they can operate at lower costs.
In the second one the business accepted that it would need to spend a lot of money to attain the output quality requirements with a wider variety of inputs. The same reason Schools with high levels of poor, single parent, special needs, homeless and ELL students get more funding and still struggle...
Thank you for making my point.
Consider an alternate interpretation:
In the first instance, the supplier was tasked with high standards, under penalty of losing customers, and they stepped up and delivered. What would happen if the NCLB precepts of AYP (performance improvement requirements), under penalty of losing their students to alternative (e.g. vouchered) schools? The schools are NOT the customer, they are the supplier.
In the second, the business made investments in process improvements to deal with poorer quality inputs. So yes, schools with high ELL, FRL, and SE students SHOULD be getting more money, and they ARE. So why, with all this money, are results WORSE than those schools without those disadvantages? You never hear the schools saying "we need more money to DO thus-and-so to raise achievement" or even to promise improved achievement at all. The idea of NCLB was that failing schools would be given extra money and help to come up to AYP. Why aren't we doing that, instead of just throwing more money at failing schools, knowing they will continue to fail?
Well technically the parent(s) are the supplier of the semi-finished materials and the partner in the on going improvement of the product. And us tax payers are the customer.
The assumption being that the children will be emotionally, physically, behaviorally, academically, etc ready for school. Preferably with a basic understanding of letters, numbers and the English language.
Unfortunately due to poor parenting role models, addiction, over stressed, over whelmed, etc a group of parent(s) are not fulfilling their responsibilities. :-(
Then worse yet... They fail to fulfill their partnering responsibilities for the next 13 years. (ie kids not fed, no stable home, revolving adults in their household, poor role modelling, unable or unwilling to help with homework, unable or unwilling to attend Teacher conferences, on going addiction, over stressed, emotionally unstable, etc)
It is a bummer that you obsess about the place where the kids spend a minority of their childhood... While fixating where they spend a minority.
I "obsess" about being forced to pay into a system (despite what may be mostly well-intentioned people in it) that is failing in its fundamental, and basically only, responsibility. I do not (thankfully) pay people to have kids, love kids, and care for them. In short, I am being forced to buy a defective product, and then shoulder the blame for the product being defective.
What is a bummer is that you want to obsess over a tiny minority of kids who are disadvantaged educationally by the circumstance of their parents, rather than the huge number disadvantaged deliberately by the schools they are forced to attend. Your only solution, once again, is to correct all the social ills of society, which we do not control, just to protect our dilapidated school system, which we DO control. You keep talking as if (realistically) nothing can be done. It's just not true. Florida requires improvement
As you know, I am fine with the State enforcing results per rigid criteria.
Usually you are the one who wants to leave it to the schools?
Here is a company who supports good ideas. I wonder how much they cost to "partner" with?
Thank you! You have found what I have been saying all along, that "poor" schools and poor students can do a lot better with academic rigor and high standards leading to improved discipline and better teaching. And cost is the unanswered question, but it seems to me it must be well worth it, don't you? And the curious thing to me is that there is no magic here, as far as I can tell. So why can't somebody in MN figure out how to do this, and DO it? Why hasn't it been done already?
Poor folk and their parent(s) do not have much of a voice in the legislature.
Union folks want job security and income.
Conservatives want low taxes and spending.
Well to do families want arts, sports, nice schools, etc...
Who is lobbying for the most needy kids?
You want to send their funding elsewhere...
Oh, now don't be that way, just when we were onto seeming agreement on a good solution.
Yes, doing the right thing is not the usual priority of those in power. It's either self-serving (some would say corrupt) steering of money to entrenched special interests, or virtue-signaling, sending the money down unproductive and grossly inefficient ratholes. My suspicion, as indicated by the actual data, is that our public schools are prime examples of both sides of that coin.
Quit telling me what I want! I want our tax dollars spent to educate every kid to their full potential, the almost ludicrous claim made by our "educrats" every day, when they aren't making excuses for their own massive failures. Florida seems to be showing the way. How about we go down to the legislature and demand that MN do the same? It seems all it takes is some of the money we already throw away, and a willingness to do what's actually best for the kids' education?
Please remember you are reading "results" as posted by the "supporters" of the plan.
It would be good to see some unbiased analysis.
And of course you lobby every chance you get to cut the funding of schools in the most challenged neighborhoods. And the cutting of taxes in general is always your interest.
See, there you go again. No debating the subject at hand or recognizing good solutions, but just making me the bad guy. You want unbiased, look at the NAEP results. I did, and they seem to confirm exactly what the "supporters," including all the FL state and local education boards and departments say. Any objective observer would reach the same conclusion, and the article YOU cite shows WHY it is possible. (There but not here?) Also note the INCREASED funding going to these schools to help them improve.
I "lobby every chance I get" to MOVE the funding from FAILING schools to schools that work for kids. Exactly what FL and NO have done, with excellent results, while MN schools are getting worse, with no accountability or remedy at all. And you defending those failures every chance you get.
Please remember that MN's overall scores are still better than FL's...
I will need to do more research.
Be careful with your research. It appears that MN scores were much better than FL, until about 2015? Now, apparently, they are only slightly better, meaning FL has made terrific improvement, while MN has actually declined a bit. [In fact, it appears to me that FL 4th grade numbers, formed entirely under the new system, are better than the 8th grade numbers, partly formed under the older pedagogical style.] The other thing at play is to note that, in FL, only the FAILING schools get these "turnaround" services, thus bringing the bottom up rather than trying to improve overall. You can bring up the average a lot quicker (and more beneficially) that way.
And please do not lose the forest for the trees, here. What is so ironic in all of this is that MN SCHOOLS cannot seem to /learn/ from other states, and not even from each other. Why not?
Well I blame that on "local control"... As I mentioned earlier, the "haves" often have an outsized influence on where the money is spent.
And our Unions are also problematic.
And God knows local politics have wasted a TON of school money in out state MN as people fight for their hometown school.
Are you for or against local control? I can't tell, but from all I have experienced, it isn't a very big thing. State government mandates a curriculum, mandates behavioral standards (see "anti-bullying") dictates how much local boards can tax and EXACTLY how it must be spent, reporting back in a specific chart of accounts structure. They require local boards to have a union contract and penalize them if they don't. The solutions here, such as Program-Based Budgeting, are quashed by State directives, and local Boards are neither paid enough, nor have the authority, nor the information needed to say "no" to parents who want everything. The one thing the State could do to further curb their authority would be to require Board elections and referenda to be during general elections. The off-year and special elections give immense power to the teachers and unions, so "local control" isn't really control by the local voters at large, at all.
Having said that, Florida seems to have removed a lot of local control to create a highly beneficial result. Much as NCLB created a federal control-- call it accountability-- Florida did it with State law. MN COULD do that, but has not. Why not?
Actually MN districts choose their own curriculum, where as in FL the state is meddling in local curriculum.
I am fine with higher level control to ensure funding goes where it is needed and improvements are made.
It made #1 and #2 on my list.
Their are requirements, such as 2 years of foreign language, and state standards (currently under revision to be extremely 'woke') that dictate in detail what gets taught. The State tests, one assumes, align with those standards, as do the textbooks that the districts supposedly "choose."
My problem here is the micromanagement that goes on. I much prefer some very general statewide standards of achievement that can be measured effectively, and then leave it to individual schools and even teachers (with vast amounts of support, guidance, respect and pay) to figure out how to do it.
It was not obvious that "your list" was about education-- the title is about poverty and I thought we had moved to the point where the cure for poverty was to give every kid a good education that would eventually END the poverty cycle. All for ending poverty but the War on Poverty is over and Poverty won.
How about we try a little thought experiment? Assume for a moment that I wave a magic wand and the Legislature adopts something akin to NCLB or the Florida model. That is, every school is given a grade every year-- letter or percentage, whatever.
--Schools that fail the first year are offered additional funding and assistance to make "AYP" whatever THAT is defined to be. That assistance might include hiring outside help like your example.
--Schools that fail a second year are required to develop and implement (with assistance and guidance) an Improvement Plan and that makes AYP every following year.
-- Schools that fail a third year MUST make provisions to a) reconstitute the school, b) hire outside management, or c) provide Pay students to transfer to a choice school.
All of this works in Florida, I can't see what it wouldn't work here, other than the "magic" of getting over the political obstacles.
Or, let's try another. I'm going to wave my magic wand and this time the Legislature is going to pass a "universal voucher." Every parent gets one for every kid; it is for the full amount of State aid, plus an adder for SE, ELL, and FRL (supposedly just like the public school now gets). These checks come to the parent with a lot of instructions, including the requirement that the kid MUST receive schooling, and a comparison list of schools available [personally I would include online and homeschool groups, but...). What do we believe will be the result?
As shown, the State does post every public schools results every year.
And parents keep sending their kids there though charters and magnets abound.
Unfortunately a LOT of poor parents apparently do not prioritize academics.
Maybe that is why they are poor...
Not vouchers again... What a terrible thing...
Prove to me that the number of charters and magnets "abound," are easy to access, produce superior academic results, and have excess capacity to cover the 50% of kids that MIGHT want to escape their failing public schools. There is a monumental difference between parents trying to find how their schools rank, find something better, and then get their kids into your "dream schools" versus handing the parent a $10,000 check and a list of schools that would accept it. But, if you adamantly insist vouchers can't work (I can't imagine your logic), how about simple accountability, Florida style?
I am not proving anything.
They abound and have the freedom you seek.
The results are what they are.
And if there was a market and the schools are so over funded... I am sure more would become available...
In fact, maybe you should open a charter and show folks how itis done. :-)
You are correct. You are not proving anything. We have a difference of opinion, where you claim there is plenty of school choice available, and I claim there is not. I would be interested in the basis of your opinion, so perhaps you could show me my error in assuming that a) parents are not told how their school ranks, or where to find the information. b) They may or may not be informed of programs that might benefit their kids, or the kids in general, c) there is no notice to parents that they HAVE a choice, or what that choice might be, d) the option of private or parochial schools are NOT available because the funding does not accompany the child, e) Charter schools are not funded adequately by the state creating an equitable competition, f) Charter and private schools do not have capacity for many more students, and cross-district enrollment is highly restricted, g) there is no transportation provided for students to attend alternative schools, h) There is no requirement that the public schools improve, or offer alternatives if they fail to do so. We can have opinions, but we should debate on facts. I'm simply going by the known facts that the MN schools ARE failing, that Florida's new rules have created an apparent rapid improvement that MN schools have not but could, and that in many places, when alternative schools become available through a lottery, parents apply by as much as 100:1-- i.e. demand vastly exceeds supply.
In fact, maybe you should go into a public school and make them successful, just to show that alternatives are not needed. Show us how it's done.
It is a typical liberal conceit to believe that human beings do NOT respond to incentives and disincentives.
So who do you think should be hand holding these uneducated parents?
I mean the state maintains a MN Scchool Report Card site for a reason.
Now if parent(s) are unable or uninterested in viewing it, that seems a problem with the parent(s).
You claim that the Public schools get more than enough money to succeed.
And yet you say the Charters do not get enough?
Even though the charters and privates take almost no special needs kids.
I mean who would bring their special need kid where they do not have the resources to care for them?
And MN Charter schools org has a map.
And then there is google
MN DOE Explains All the Choice Options
Or are you saying these loving parent(s) can not use the internet.
It would be interesting to compare MN Special Ed to other states, since that is where a LOT of the budgets go.
One last reminder...
It easier to improve when you are much lower on the "success" list.
"are you saying these loving parent(s) can not use the internet."
Well, we learned during the shutdown that many poor families do not have access to the internet so "remote learning" was a complete bust for them. Even those that do have access, I assume have never been given a URL, or told that this "report card" exists, and even if it did, what are parents supposed to do with the information? "Oh, my kids are in a failing school, what do I do now?" No answers are offered, and they are certainly not required as they would be by NCLB or FL law.
A couple quotes from your cite:
"They employ licensed teachers and offer services to special needs students. "
"Parents are encouraged to contact charter schools directly to find out about the type of programs offered."
What was her name that occasionally commented here, the charter school teacher? She said the charter schools don't get the same funding.
OK, but surely an "F" school in Florida is almost as bad as an "F" school in MN, if we had such a ranking system? Yet FL's F schools have rapidly improved. Any evidence of such in MN? (If you look hard enough, you can find an answer)
Mpls
Is that acceptable to you?
Oh haven't you heard from the conservatives that every welfare mom has a smart phone?
And then again there is the library.
Yes, the charters only get the state funding. But since you think that is great plenty and charters do not get many special needs kids. Especially the serious cases, that should be great plently with the correct discipline and academic rigor.
I think you are forgetting that many of the MPLS reorganized into magnets and charters.
Then the capable, responsible and academically minded sent their kids there...
Which left "guess who" at the community schools... Kind of like your voucher system would.
Magnet and Charter schools are public schools. Per your demand, they are subject to the same rules and measures as the other public schools. Performance IN TOTAL continues to decline. Yes, they are theoretically "free" to adopt "correct discipline and academic rigor" (though causality tends to run in the opposite of that order), but they obviously do not, as seen in the results.
And you continue to insist that a school choice system (which you deride as "vouchers") would leave "guess who" (what obvious bigotry!) behind. You overlook that most voucher systems go ONLY to poor kids in failing schools. Your solution is to leave EVERYBODY behind?!
We should allow competition, and allow those who want a better education to get it, at government expense. THEN, we need to insist that all public education providers be accountable to higher academic results, giving them the help and freedom to deliver it. So simple, but there are adamant defenders (ahem) of the miserable status quo.
I think so far the only thing I am against is vouchers...
Accountability is fine with me.
For both the schools, social work system and the parent(s).
Whereas you believe parent(s) should not be held accountable for the care and raising of their children.
It is really strange...
- you think women should have to deliver a baby because they got pregnant
- you think the man should pay child support because they got them pregnant
- and yet you don't think either should be responsible for preparing their children for kindergarten and supporting their education from then on?
Oh well, I should be used to Far Righters by now. They only care about the baby until it passes the cervix.
You have absolutely no idea what I think or believe, let alone what your mythical "Far Righter" wants public policy to be. For example, I'm pretty sure that the pregnancy crisis centers being attacked and damaged by Far Left crazies are pretty much Far Righters in your estimation, so you are simply wrong.
But I am confused. You are against "vouchers" but surely it is just the word? Because if you are against school choice you are decidedly in the minority, and the only way parents will have school choice is if government subsidizes alternative schools the same way they do the publics, on a per-student basis. Call it "money follows the student" or simply "school choice."
You say you want accountability for the schools; I agree, but then you oppose any means by which they might be held accountable, which can only be by removing students and funding from them for failure, thereby introducing true, simple and fair competition.
You see equivalence in demanding parents be "held accountable" but that sounds very much like discrimination, government coercion, and blaming the victim. It isn't the same kind of accountability at all. Not only that, you seem to imagine that huge segments of the population are so irresponsible, incapable and uncaring that they would NOT send their kids to a better education if it was offered to them "free" like the public schools are. Isn't that misanthropy painful?
I think you just confirmed my summary.
- you think women should have to deliver a baby because they got pregnant
- you think the man should pay child support because they got them pregnant
- and yet you don't think either should be responsible for preparing their children for kindergarten and supporting their education from then on?
I assume that is one of the reasons Robbinsdale Schools used to have ~30,000 students and now they are down to ~11,500. That and the aging community.
I think you just confirmed my statement that you have no idea what I think, or else are deliberately misunderstanding what I have told you repeatedly. I am not your straw man.
And you seem to have some strange ideas:
"Minnesotans have the freedom to:
- move to another district
--pay for a private school"
It's true, that anybody that can afford to move to a better school district does so (#1 reason realtors cite for most home sales). So doesn't that leave behind all the "unlucky kids" whose parents do NOT have the wealth to move? Aren't poor people by definition those who can NOT pay for private school? How about giving EVERY child (or at least those in poverty) the equal opportunity to find a better school? Why punish the poor folks?
"And everytime the child moves, their old school loses funding and their new school gets the money." Really? I don't think so. State aid, probably, and assuming the new school has the same formula applied. But local taxes are in mills, and go to the public schools regardless of number of students.
I'm curious where those 18,500 Robbinsdale students went. Did huge new private schools pop up? And was there something wrong with Robbinsdale schools driving this? I can't find a source for your 30,000 number. I only find about 600 students open-enrolled out.
What do you disagree with here?
- you think women should have to deliver a baby because they got pregnant
- you think the man should pay child support because they got them pregnant
- and yet you don't think either should be responsible for preparing their children for kindergarten and supporting their education from then on?
The State funding is the bulk of the money.
The local citizens choose what their local public schools receive.
Or are you saying Local citizens should not have that power?
The 30,000 was LONG ago... When RDale was a newer community with more younger families. And before all the "Haves" fled the "Have Nots" for nicer and safer communities.
A lot of families open enroll to Hopkins and Wayzata, or attend one of the many charters in the area.
That is what I keep asking you... Why punish the poor folks?
You want to make it easier for the last of the normal families to flee the really unlucky kids.
Of course, then you will complain why the schools performance drops even further !!! :-)
It is a viscious cycle...
"What do you disagree with here?"
- you think women should have to deliver a baby because they got pregnant. I DISAGREE COMPLETELY WHEN YOU PHRASE IT THAT WAY. I support Roe v. Wade or something like it.
- you think the man should pay child support because they got them pregnant. I AGREE there ought to be this requirement, as a simple deterrent, and that the welfare system should be reformed to ALLOW families to form without loss of benefits. See Sen. Daniel Moynihan.
- and yet you don't think either should be responsible for preparing their children for kindergarten and supporting their education from then on? I AGREE parents are responsible for food, clothing, shelter, nurturing and some socialization of their kids. Their EDUCATION is, by law, the responsibility of Government. Are you really going to tell me that the parents of a 16-yr-old are responsible for teaching him beginning calculus?
"The local citizens choose what their local public schools receive.
Or are you saying Local citizens should not have that power?" Absolutely, local citizens have that power, but some districts are property-poor and cannot raise as much money as others. SO... State government, wisely I think, offers "compensatory aid" (not the correct term, I think) where the State adds funding in line with "local effort." That is, if local taxes raise $300/pupil at whatever that percentage is, and the State limit (there is one) at that percentage is $600, the State gives them $300 more. BUT, obviously, it depends on local votes and "local effort." Again, "funding follows the student" should, IMO, include this local funding as well.
"That is what I keep asking you... Why punish the poor folks?
You want to make it easier for the last of the normal families to flee the really unlucky kids."
I don't understand this fantasy world of yours. Ignore the word "vouchers" for a second, and recognize that most voucher programs START with the poor folks, since the normal-to-wealthy folks are already more able (and likely) to "flee" failing schools? What you are suggesting is that not only should the poor folks remain trapped in failing schools, but that every other kid should remain trapped with them. THEN you refuse to do anything that would make those failing schools improve.
Calculus... No...
However basic reading, writing, counting, math, history, behaviors, respect, self control, art, singing, socialization, etc should certainly be part of the parent(s) job.
Unfortunately many parent(s) agree with you that food and clothing are their only responsibilities. :-(
And unfortunately that limits the child's chances of success right from the start. :-(
I am happy I was incorrect regarding your abortion position.
Well if you support local control, then you should accept that the citizens of the Mpls school district think they are doing okay. As you have noted, they get State funding and Local funding.
I assume the citizens of Burnsville are okay with their schools also?
I mean ultimately they are responsible for their vote and their district.
I am happy to help the kids in my school district.
I support and vote for additional funding.
Historically I have even given charitable donations.
I vote for school board members that will focus on the students.
Maybe you would be better off focusing on your own school district?
I focused intently on my own school district. I served on their Budget Advisory Council for a time, and recommended some $3MM in cuts that would not impact students. Those ideas were dismissed out of hand. I pointed out some "Program Based Budgeting" numbers showing which programs were completely unreasonable costs. AFAIK, those suggestions went wanting and apparently, PBB became terra incognita after that. I was able, by participating in the listening sessions (The District actually does a fair job of /appearing/ transparent and responsive) to drop a bond referendum from the initial $300MM request down to the essential $60MM, and then helped pass it. I've tried to elect better Board members, but the union vote is just too strong, and Board elections (and referenda) are ALWAYS off year, so that, for the most part, only union households turn out.
And I moved here because I wanted my kids in the better schools here. I try to keep it that way, but I also have this great concern for all the rest of the kids in the State, the ones who cannot afford to move to better schools, and who, from lack of choice, are trapped in the public schools that are "free" to them. Yes, absolutely, some kids come to school disadvantaged by their home life. Are you going to simply condemn them to continue the cycle of poverty, or are you going to hold the schools responsible for at least trying to give them the education they (and we who pay for it) were promised? You keep fighting the very fundamental idea of school choice, either saying it already exists in sufficient quantity, or that it isn't needed because the public schools are doing such a terrific job already. Regardless of which you believe, I cannot accept that it reflects reality. If it did, the following would not be true:
67% want more school choice
So your idea of helping the unlucky kids was to lobby to reduce the school district's funding?
Instead of proposing a way for the district use that money to help the unlucky kids escape poverty?
To me it seems you are a hypocrite like many of the Liberals. You say you want to help the truly unlucky children, while you are more worried about your own children and your money.
What was your rationale for cutting spending instead? I am truly puzzled?
A poll by a group that lobbies for school choice? Really?
And you are the one who denies school choice exists, just because vouchers are not offered.
Minnesotans have the freedom to:
- move to another district
- open enroll to another traditional public school
- attend a local Magnet school
- attend a charter school
- pay for and attend a private school
"Yes, absolutely, some kids come to school disadvantaged by their home life. Are you going to simply condemn them to continue the cycle of poverty, or are you going to hold the schools responsible for at least trying to give them the education they (and we who pay for it) were promised? You keep fighting the very fundamental idea of school choice, either saying it already exists in sufficient quantity, or that it isn't needed because the public schools are doing such a terrific job already. Regardless of which you believe, I cannot accept that it reflects reality. If it did, the following would not be true:
67% want more school choice"
So, your response is to slander and accuse me of the opposite of what I said, to believe the myth that schools wisely spend every dollar for the kids, and then repeat your great delusions about choice. Not to mention the nonsensical notion that schools should be spending money to help kids escape poverty, in some magical way OTHER than giving them the education which would allow them to do so. If you don't like my sources, find one that you DO like, because it will tell you the same thing, that there is NOT enough choice in the school system, and therefore the "monopoly" leads to high costs and poor quality. You seem to believe that there are some laws of economics and of human nature that can simply be ignored. So you continue to defend the failing system of government-run schools. WHY? You've never said.
You did not answer my questions...
And I have been very clear why I disapprove of vouchers...
OK, but to answer your questions I would need to agree with the premise, and I simply do not. I deny the premise. .x.
"So your idea of helping the unlucky kids was to lobby to reduce the school district's funding?" You slander me. Helping the unlucky kids involves HOW the money is spent, not the amount. And I'm perfectly willing to spend MORE, if necessary, to bring up the lowest WITH an effective program for doing it (which is obviously not the status quo).
"Instead of proposing a way for the district use that money to help the unlucky kids escape poverty?" Asked and answered. IF the District wants to divert money from frivolities to real educational achievement for those kids struggling, I'm all for it, since that is what they should be doing. The great promise of public education was it would break the cycle of poverty, and it is failing to do that.
"You say you want to help the truly unlucky children, while you are more worried about your own children and your money." Not a question, just another vile slander. I don't even HAVE kids in the public schools, and I don't have a choice about paying the taxes.
"What was your rationale for cutting spending instead?" I did not. My rationale was to see the money well spent. Why should I not expect full value for what I pay to educate ALL kids?
"I am truly puzzled?" You most certainly are. I might use other words for your obstinate defense of the indefensible.
"Really?" Really. You have been very clear why you disapprove of vouchers, in what seems to me a delusion serving a fantasy. I don't care about MEANS anymore, I am looking for RESULTS and cannot see any way that government-run union schools are providing the "public education" that we all want and are entitled to. A large majority of parents and others want a CHOICE in schools, and to allow competition to improve results, just as it does in every other endeavor. Now my question: Why are you defending this failing system?
Correct. And it seems you wanted to cut the budget, not change the way in which it was spent so that it would help the neediest students..
"recommended some $3MM in cuts that would not impact students"
If your district was failing kids, why would you ask them to cut their budget?
I assume you joined the Budget Advisory Council as a Conservative who was hoping to find waste? Not with the goal of helping the unlucky kids succeed. We had some of those older conservative folks at RDale for awhile. No policy improvement ideas, they just wanted to reduce costs and their taxes.
I am not sure the education system would see me as their defender, since I am anti union, anti-tenure, anti-steps / lanes, pro-NCLB, etc.
I do however support local schools, local government, supporting my community, etc.
And from my perspective, vouchers simply take funding from the community while offering little in return.
Hmmm. Perhaps I /was/ unclear. Always easier when you know what you are talking about then trying to convey it to someone else. The $3MM in savings was to come out of the projected INCREASE in spending, for which another operating levy would be needed. If the saving were realized, coming as they did out of "fluff," students would not be affected, and the budget would be "saved" from having to be cut in other, more important areas. It had nothing to do with the "poor kids," but rather with keeping the whole District afloat.
And here is the problem, from my perspective. You see vouchers "taking funding from the community" and I see them as "funding a child's education." There is nothing in the "common good" of "public education" that requires it be done in government buildings, by government employees, to a government-mandated standard and methodology. And if that "system" is NOT performing as it should, it NEEDS to be re-imagined or defunded.
If vouchers "offer little in return," then what, pray tell, does continuing the status quo do for us?
The vast majority of us and our children benefitted just fine from the existing systems and options.
They are managed and operated by the local communities via our elected representatives. There is direct accountability for the use of the tax dollars.
And you want to put these core local organizations at risk for an experiment that may do no better and sends tax dollars to organizations that do not report back to the voters?
Definitely not worth the risk.
Wow. Seems like rationalization.
"The majority" (yes, let us completely ignore the continued failure of public schools to reach minority kids.) We all know "black kids cannot learn" despite massive anecdotal evidence to the contrary. You like No Child Left Behind, you say, but obviously don't believe it.
"benefitted" (past tense). Do you really think CRT, CSE, and "woke" has made education better than it was? It seems obvious that those of us educated years ago know more math, science, civics, reading and writing than kids today.
"There is direct accountability for the use of the tax dollars." Perhaps not even as true for School Boards as it is for the Legislature. The unions tend to overwhelm every election, and turnout is always low in these off-year elections. "Representative" is not an accurate term.
Yes, I DO want to put these "core local organizations at risk" in favor of "organizations" which are accountable DIRECTLY to parents. And if those local organizations are doing what parents individually prefer, they will continue unbothered, while those who continually fail their "customers" will lose those customers, as they should.
Which are you trying to protect and serve, the kids, or the public school system?
Well I did stay involved in my local schools and had my girls attend them even though the school / student body had their challenges. I understand that if people do not fight for their local community and schools, those communities and schools will fail.
Unfortunately folks like yourself seemingly speak of helping the needy while you run from them with your kids. I personally have never understood that.
My last child graduated ~3 years ago and her education was much more robust than what I learned in the 1970's and 1980's. Especially in Math and Science.
"Black Kids Can't Learn", "CRT", "CSE", and "woke"
Those statements show how off skewed your perceptions of reality are. It is like listening to FOX news.
Now what amazes me is that you want to give proven irresponsible or overwhelmed people even more money and authority. Please remember that it is just those parent(s) who can not even have their children ready to attend kindergarten. Or be counted on to keep them fed and do their homework.
Just curious.
Do you think the police in urban centers are incompetent and wasteful because there is much more violence and death there?
Maybe you want to give all the citizens checks to hire their own personal security. :-O
"Black kids can't learn" is your formulation, not mine. You said "the majority do fine" and continually blame poor single parents for school failures-- those folks are overwhelmingly black, unfortunately. I prefer NOT to blame the victim (of our silly welfare system), here, and I certainly think government OWES the kids the education they are promised, that we pay for, and that would lead them out of the intergenerational poverty cycle. There is no excusing any other result.
So you are going to tell me that CRT, CSE and "woke" has NOT taken away from core learning? Nonsense. We've all seen it to one degree or another. It's bad enough the core subjects are not being taught well, but taking time away from math and reading to help 7-yr-olds figure out what gender they are, well... it's just nuts.
Interesting analogy about the police. I don't think the police are incompetent judging by results. I observe that there are police in an area where there is more crime, as it should be. [It's NOT racist!] The incompetence is in the SYSTEM, not recognizing that high crime areas require a different approach to policing to address. Good teachers/police in a bad education/policing system produce bad results. The solution is to change the "way things are done." Policing, however, is a government function and cannot be left to competition. Education is NOT and CAN be improved by competition. Now if you think results can be improved without competition, I would be curious what magic you propose to do that, since the genii of the Education Establishment has not found it in 20 years.
Race is your thing, not mine.
I am happy to help people learn how to raise their children, no matter their race or background. However I am certainly not going to make excuses for them like you do.
As I said, to much paranoia. I am pretty sure that it is easy to have effective math, science, social studies, etc curriculum that acknowledges that boys, girls, transexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc do exist. Only folks like yourself want to deny reality and science. And worse yet, you want to tell young children that their thoughts and feelings are abnormal and wrong.
Crime is higher and more violent in the same neighborhoods where the schools fail. I think you are rationalizing.
And of course we could privatize policing and security, there is an industry dedicated to doing those things.
Security, yes, but it is very difficult for government funding to "follow the protected individual" because we don't do policing by the individual, like we do education. Moreover, "security" can be privatized, yes, and many public officials do so for themselves, sometimes at taxpayer expense. [hypocrites!] And many public officials, including teachers, DO send their kids to private schools, leaving the "unlucky kids" behind. Let's agree that's not right.
And BTW, "security" is one thing, but "enforcing the law" is a GOVERNMENT function, it has to be. OTOH, there is nothing in the notion of "public education" that says it must be DONE by government, only funded so. Roads and bridges are government responsibilities, it only makes sense, but when a new road needs to be built, government sets the requirements, provides the money, and contracts OUT to private enterprise to do the work. Why should education be any different?
And you still haven't accounted for the fact that something like 2/3 of parents think there should be more choice than now exists. Why do you think your opinion should override theirs?
"...you want to tell young children that their thoughts and feelings are abnormal and wrong." And you want to tell young children what their thoughts and feelings ought to be, before they even have them. NOT the job of the schools, and it is obvious child abuse that has no part in (at least) elementary education. 95% of gender dysphoria goes away after puberty. You want to catch them before that, give them life-altering surgery, and hide it from parents? I don't need to know a 7-year-old's "gender identity" to teach them to read and do math. Nor do I need to know their race. They are individuals and education works best when the system recognizes that.
"I am happy to help people learn how to raise their children, no matter their race or background." Who asked you?! Next thing you will be telling them they HAVE to send their kids to the local, failing public school, and that they have no choice.
It seems you are forgetting that your 2/3rds number comes from a very biased source.
Then the child will stop relating to the trans child and start relating to the boy / girl sex when your dysphoria goes away... Acknowledging the reality that there are transexuals, gays, and lesbians in the world in no way equals trying to sway a child...
Next you will say that acknowledging different races and religions in curriculum is an attempt to brainwash white kids to become black kids... :-O :-)
By the way, only the parents can give the children medical treatments. Those parents who you say you trust to do what is best for their children.
OK, it's not 2/3. What is the real number? When people turn up for a lottery (free) admission to a private school at 100:1 for each slot, there is more demand for "choice" than there is supply. Of course, you have to DENY that so that you can imprison the unlucky kids in the unlucky schools.
My acknowledgement that there are people who say they are gay, and adults who behave accordingly, in no way gives schools the right to tell kids that this behavior is normal and common. Even moreso, they have no right to tell my little girl that she must become a boy, or require she call her little friend Susie "John." It's child abuse, so why are you accepting it?
And let's not confuse promoting dangerous sex change surgeries with fighting racism. It's a red herring and you know it. Now, how about offering REAL school choice to poor kids in failing schools? They won't get better by themselves, you know.
Worth Reading
My guess after looking at various surveys... 40% support vouchers, 40% are against and 20% have no clue.
Nobody is telling kids who they are, and yes they have a responsible to respect a child's sense of self. Of course she should call him John if that is what he prefers. Why would she do otherwise?
Again... No surgeries or hormones without parental support and approval. Trust the parents?
You do understand how insane you sound?
You apparently think there is a conspiracy by teachers to screw up the lives of children by brain washing them to believe they are transexual, gay or lesbian. Each of which comes with its own issues in our society that is filled with people like yourself.
Why again would teachers do this?
In MN they have easy access to the report card and dozens of other school rating websites.
I have said that we reduce their welfare benefits if they do not learn and fulfill their basic parental duties. And we stop baby Mommas and Daddy's from making more kids.
Unfortunately neither Conservatives nor Liberals like those basic common sense ideas. For some reason, they think it is a right for stupid / lazy / emotional scarred people to make more of their like.
I haven't forgotten our discussion; just have not had the time to read this interesting article. It is a pretty good rehash of the pros and cons but to me boils down to a definition. As far as I am concerned definition of open public education is education of the public, a public good paid for at public expense. That does not require that it be done in government facilities, by government employees according to strict government rules. The simple way of doing this is the universal boxer, where every parent gets one for every child and can take it to any school, including the public school. The only requirement would be some sort of test that the kids were actually in school and we're learning something. Not exactly sure what that would look like. For ordinary private schools, charter schools, etc it could easily be standardized tests. For homeschools it might be a bit more difficult but that is where students usually Excel.
Jerry,
Until you are willing to make all the schools play by the same rules...
The discussion is pointless.
That depends on what you mean. I am perfectly fine with allowing all schools, public and private and etc. to be free to teach effectively, discipline effectively and even refuse vouchers from chronic troublemakers. I believe the voucher should include an additional amount to cover the true cost of Special Ed for those particular students. Whether the private school wants to offer SE or not, the public school must-- I see that as the only exception. Not sure you realize how bound up the public schools are in all kinds of, IMHO, unnecessary regulations. I would be happy to see them (and the charters as well) freed of most of those, to compete "fairly."
And I am still appalled that you think it OK to hold most of the kids hostage, in a failing system, just to preserve that failing system! I am convinced that a universal (locally adjusted) voucher would find good schools retaining 90% of their students. Even failing schools would keep almost all they have now, until more alternatives became available, responding to the economic incentives. That gives time for the public schools, under the /new/ rules you insist on, to become competitive before they are out-competed. What's wrong with that?
"unnecessary regulations" ???
Do you mean little annoying things like laws, consent decrees, court settlements, other?
I am sure many of the schools would love to not have all that burden.
I often wonder who the wise people are who will assign the "true cost" to each voucher?
That kindergarten screening will take on a whole new level of importance. :-O
As usual, I am equally appalled that you have no desire to hold parent(s) accountable for the meeting the basic needs of kids... Oh well...
Back to the original thought. Just heard (do not remember the [reliable] source, that something like 50% of Minnesota students cannot read at grade level. Meanwhile, Mississippi has gone from last in "literacy" to first in the nation in just 8 years. Maybe because they don't have all that "unnecessary regulation"? And I have to ask, if these "regulations" are preventing kids from learning, why do we have them? What is the purpose of the public education system?
Source please.
Roads are meant for us to drive one to get somewhere quickly.
Yet there are many driving rules, stops signs, etc...
Why?
Because driving rules are necessary. Many school regulations are NOT. In MN and other places, they have forgotten their primary responsibility and purpose. Just heard we have schools in Mpls where students openly roam the halls at class time, deal drugs, assault each other and teachers, and nothing is done because the school CHOSE to remove "school safety officers" aka police from the schools. Unnecessary regulation? Counterproductive to the purpose?
So rules are not necessary to ensure kids are treated fairly and equally in schools?
Segregated schools, no Special Education and all...
You do really want to go back to the 1950's...
These folks say the officers are still there.
Here is the first link again
So let me get this straight: We removed police officers from the schools, and we find there are far fewer incidents where students get involved with police officers in schools?
Were the officers replaced by a strict [some would say magical] discipline policy, where the beatings of teachers and fellow students, drug sales by non-students wandering the halls, and rampant verbal abuse were not tolerated?
You seem to have some crazy notion that all regulations are good by definition, and the plain and simple truth is self-evident they are not. What is the educational benefit of mandating that some students cannot be disciplined because of their race, for example? What is the educational benefit of mandating that a certain percentage of each schools budget must be spent on food service? How about free meals? Or race-specific classes or curricula?
Back to the original thought. Is it acceptable to you that Mississippi schools outperform Minnesota schools in terms of reading achievement, or even that, regardless of Mississippi's recent improvement, Minnesota's reading education is absolutely abysmal?
Ah... This did sound familiar...
We discussed it this all above...
It was another one of your apples and oranges comparisons... Oh my...
And not all rules are good, unfortunately the courts have ruled that they are necessary. So the schools need to live with them.
Post a Comment