- Grade level
- Gender
- Race/Ethnicity
- Free or Reduced Price Lunch Status
- English Language Learner Status
- Special Education Status
- Prior test score on New York state achievement tests
Now a Charter and TPS may be in the same community with similar student demographics, and have TOTALLY DIFFERENT parental demographics. Please remember that the TPS is the default
- The TPS gets every unlucky child who's parent do not make the effort or know enough to do anything special academically for their child(ren).
- The Charter will only have families where the parent(s) are aware, motivated and cared enough about academics to get their lucky child enrolled.
Just like when parent(s) who can afford it move to a more expensive neighborhood with "better schools"... Which we all know means "neighborhood with more capable people"...
So to me Charters and Vouchers have an upside in that more Lucky kids (ie good capable parents & no significant special needs) can get into schools with more kids like themselves. The downside of course is that leaves the TPS with an ever higher density of Unlucky kids. At which time the Charter school advocates:
- Blame the TPS for failing with the most challenging families...
- Praise the Charter for helping out the simplest families...
It is kind of like when people say that Wayzata district is better than Robbinsdale... Which is so silly since you are comparing apples and oranges. So my questions as always...
- Do some Charters do better than the local TPS because they have the neighborhood kids with capable responsible parent(s) and the TPS got the dregs?
- Do some Charters do worse than the local TPS because they have a much higher population of parent(s) who have low English capability? (family chose "Somali Charter school" to avoid change / assimilation)
- How do we really know which schools are doing well because of their systems, employees, curriculum?
- How do we know which schools are doing well because the have good capable family / parental / community support?
31 comments:
You are still missing the obvious. Those parents who want better for their kids get them out of the public schools, IF THEY HAVE THE MEANS. Give every parent the means, and find the available school capacity, parents WILL become "involved" sufficiently to make that choice. Of course that means /universal/ vouchers-- every parent gets them-- so that public schools not only can compete, but are automatically given a few years in which to modify their approach while competitive schools get built in those neighborhoods. In other words, "good schools" will go right on as they have, because parents will choose them, and failing schools will be out-competed if they do not do better, and will "go out of business," replaced entirely by charters or privates. In other words, an essentially free market in education, fully subsidized by the state government.
That is funny, since all 3 of my children attended school in a struggling public district and they are doing great.
I could have afforded many other options and yet this was the one that was best for our family and the kids. Maybe I just didn't want better for them... :-)
By the way, you avoided answering my questions... As for your voucher dream... You know my answers...
"The accountability of Parents choosing schools that they believe meet the needs of their children does have a certain attraction. That is if:
- every Parent(s) was responsible, capable, engaged, etc,
- we could determine a cost for each child based on their needs
- good school performance data was available."
Without these in place we just get more cherry picking and even worse off really unlucky kids..."
Fine, but who gets to decide whether parents meet YOUR criteria? Do you deny the very obvious expectations that giving parents a choice and the means to exercise it makes them more responsible and caring than not giving them any choice at all?
It's fine that you chose the nearby public school. How many others did NOT have that choice? Why do you want to punish people who are already disadvantaged?
And I'm still not understanding your "zero sum game." If some kids escape the failing school, do the ones left behind get LESS education? How? The ones that leave get more, sure, but that leaves reduced class size behind. It should also serve to "homogenize" the classes, so the problem of too much diversity is relieved. Isn't that better?
What do you mean by "better"?
--Hiram
1. Social Workers and Teachers can tell us if the Parent(s) are ensuring the child is fed, has a home, is clean, home work is done, the parent(s) show up for conferences, etc. My criteria is not that arduous.
2. Parent(s) who are on welfare and struggling to take good care of 1 child certainly are not ready to take care of 2, 3 or 4 children.
3. One chooses to be responsible and educated, it is not a factor of what money someone else gives you. Besides the fact that many of the issues I am concerned about occur before the child ever gets to Kindergarten.
4. Again, you see the local public school as a punishment. Given all the studying we have done... Most of the schools are similar.
5. Please remember that when Lucky kids leave a school, they take their money with them. Therefore the class sizes don't shrink, the class rooms just become filled with a higher ratio of really Unlucky kids with questionable parent(s).
6. Please remember that I think mix matters for Unlucky kids. When they make up a small percentage of the classroom, they receive big benefits:
- They are surrounded by Lucky kids who can be good role models
- Lucky kids are less expensive to teach, so a cross subsidy can occur to help the Unlucky and Special Needs kids.
- The Teacher have more time to focus on them since the Lucky kids require less assistance.
7. As for the Kids who leave getting more education. It is true that they have fewer troubled kids in their classroom... Good for them, bad for those left behind. Why do you think so many people move to or open enroll to Wayzata schools?
It certainly is not for the wonderful curriculum...
Here is an interesting and timely opinion piece
Again, why do you want to prevent kids from getting a better education, just to prevent those left behind from getting (according to you) a WORSE education than they already get? What, exactly, is wrong with letting every kid go to school B? Or helping/making school A become school B?
I think you missed the point of the post and the link...
Wayzata schools are not necessarily better than Robbinsdale schools...
School B is not necessarily better than School A...
A Charter school are not necessarily better than a TPS...
Why would you want to divert Lucky kids / families, and critical funds away from the Unlucky kids who need every assistance we can offer them?
Especially when the Charter school results are all over the map...
If these CHOICES do not necessarily lead to students attending a "better" school, then why oppose choices, or support choices? If parents can choose a school that is better for their child, individually, does it matter that this may not be universally true, and if it IS, shouldn't school B succeed and school A "go out of business"? How will you know, unless all parents have the choice between the two?
In every school, public, private, charter, even home, some kids will do well and others will struggle. We can look at averages and declare that one school is better than another, or even that one /type/ of school is better than another, but we cannot declare how any individual child will fare. That is a job for parents and it is only possible if those parents are given real choices. It is the sum of those individual choices that provides the best value in a competitive free market. We trust people to vote, with their dollars and time, which beverage to drink. Heck, we even trust them to vote for politicians. Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose something far more important?
"That is a job for parents"
Based on our single Parent family numbers and our criminal incarceration rates, a lot of Parent(s) are incapable or neglectful of fulfilling their "job duties"...
And yet you want to give them more tax payer dollars?
By the way, please remember that a lot of these folks do not fulfill their obligation to vote either. Or the DEMs would control the country.
Ah, but they can CHOOSE to vote, can't they? We put strings on the tax dollars we give them, do we not (Section 8 money goes to housing, food stamps for food, child care subsidies for child care, Medicaid money for health care)? So why should education be the ONE area where we do NOT give them the money and let them choose, at least within the bounds of what is available to them?
Yet again you are harshly judging people you do not and will never know as "incapable or neglectful." That comes off as judgmental at best, and hateful at worst. Is it not possible that these people have simply been denied choices throughout life, such as receiving a good education when they were young? What is the saying? "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." The status quo-- "forcing failure"-- is not the right solution, and that is what you are arguing for.
Jerry,
It is ironic that you are using welfare spending as a justification for giving more tax dollars, since you are against those programs... :-)
Please remember what I keep saying...
"The accountability of Parents choosing schools that they believe meet the needs of their children does have a certain attraction. That is if:
- every Parent(s) was responsible, capable, engaged, etc,
- we could determine a cost for each child based on their needs
- good school performance data was available."
Without these in place we just get more cherry picking and even worse off really unlucky kids..."
With this in mind... I see huge differences between Welfare and School Vouchers.
First: housing, food and healthcare are immediate needs with immediate benefits.
Second: housing, food and healthcare are highly regulated
Third: audits can be performed (are people eating, can they see a doctor, do they sleep inside...)
So how again would we the tax payers know that our tax dollars were being used as we deem appropriate?
By the way, no one is forcing anyone to attend these schools...
We have people from Central America packing up everything and marching across Mexico for the good of their children. I have faith that American citizens can:
- move out of the urban centers
- possibly to rural MN
- enroll in a magnet, charter, etc
- open enroll to a different school
Please feel free to keep making excuses for deadbeat and/or incapable parent(s).
People can move out of urban centers?? How?!? Buy a nice house in the suburbs? Put everything on their back and walk to rural MN, where there are no jobs, no family or support?
These are the incapable people, remember? Yet we do not tell them where to live, what to eat, which doctor to see? Remember that school attendance is mandated by law, and at present only the neighborhood public school is offered for "free." Replace food stamps with local free grocers and you would have an analogous situation.
Oh, and once again you insult, saying I am against welfare programs. I am against them only as currently operated, as "warehouses" for the poor. Replace the many systems with a voucher or negative income tax, with incentives and customized assistance as charities do, and I'm all for it. What we are spending now, on either welfare or education, is simply inefficacious.
Yes... I think they can and should move if they are dissatisfied with their community... Just as the Central Americans do and our ancestors did...
In no way are they forced to stay in their chosen communities.
And we have many free education choices as I noted... (ie charters, magnets, open enrollment, etc) Just not the extremist one you support.
And one does not need to buy a home in the burbs to go to school there. One just has to rent an apartment...
What are your thoughts about tax dollars subsidizing rents so families can afford to live in districts like Wayzata? I mean that is real freedom...
Families get to escape the crime, have access to good grocery stores, and get great schools to boot. Well probably similar schools, but better looking with much better and more capable class mates. :-)
So, folks dissatisfied with the schools their children are forced by law and circumstance to attend have three choices.
1: Emigrate to another country that will accept them and give them an opportunity to start over economically, or
2. Find housing in a better school district, at a much higher price, and without the local community support, such as it is, where they now live.
3. Try to find an opening in an a "choice" school. It seems apparent that there are not nearly enough of these, so good luck.
Such magical thinking is preventing the better solutions from being fully tried. We have forced "housing choice" in the suburbs, throwing disadvantaged kids (with parents who want better for them but have been "crippled" by time in the public schools, into suburban schools where they are far behind their peers. We need to start with "neighborhood schools" that take the kids where they are, that are freely chosen by parents because they at least have a chance to do better than the publics.
You keep claiming parents have choices today, and I do not believe it. Until it is offered to every parent, or certainly every parent in a failing school, I don't think you can reasonably make that assertion. no creaming
And again, no parental accountability ideas.
are you kidding? I want to make parents responsible for spending $10,000 of the taxpayers' money. They are already responsible by law for sending the kid to school, and morally responsible for the child's upbringing. What else do you want?
And don't just tell me the child should never have been born. We've got a few million horses out there that have already left that barn.
So your answer to parent(s):
- failing to prepare their child adequately for Kindergarten
- and failing to support their child(ren) in keeping up with their homework
is to give them more control, responsibility and tax dollars...
When again do we get to some form of accountability where irresponsible, incapable and/or neglectful parent(s) experience some negative consequence?
I mean poorly raised children cost our society plenty... (ie criminal costs, welfare costs, etc) It seems that the ineffective parent(s) should be bearing some of that burden.
It seems to me that Florida has a long way to go before I will hold them up as a good example.
Florida does a little better here. But much worse than MN
How about comparing individual school districts in MN? Don't we have a few "Floridas" here as well?
Would you suggest that people in FL be allowed to send their kids to MN for a "better school"? How would you fund that?
No, just noting that the MN system is pretty good...
And I am certain we can find terrible districts in both states...
Mostly where parent(s) struggle to raise their child(ren) well.
Parents "struggle"? That sounds like an admission that some, perhaps many, are trying to be responsible but lack the means to do so. And instead of theoreticals where some kids are never born because their parents should never have been born, etc., what specifically do we do with the 10-year-old kid who entered kindergarten behind his peers, and has fallen further behind every year? Are we going to cut benefits to the parents now, or is there something the school can and should be doing?
We accept that the 10 year old is likely screwed and focus on helping the 2 year olds.
Even HCZ learned that as they were starting out. I think they started with a K - 5 program and learned that they could not push the 5th graders hard enough to recover.
I think this piece touches on it.
Here is another source
"Many critics have also pointed to the relatively rocky start of the Promise Academy middle school as an example of the differences in population between charter and public schools. Promise Academy I should have had a senior class in 2010, but the entire class was summarily dismissed at the end of the eighth grade “after three years of consistently dismal test scores.”[44] A former principal labeled a third of these students as “troublemakers” with parents who were not actively involved in the school system.[45]
Critics say that the Promise Academy I Middle School evidently was not effective enough in reaching this particular group of students, and the choice to dismiss them shows some sort of selection by the administration in determining the makeup of their student body, making it less representative of the overall population and therefore skewing the available educational data. "
Remember how important those first 5 years are.
"3-5years – By school, a child’s brain development is built upon the now solid foundation created in the first five years. It is more difficult for children to take advantage of learning environments, such as school, if they have not had optimal early learning experiences or a nurturing home environment."
"We accept that the 10 year old is likely screwed"
Unacceptable. We should have known in K or shortly after that this child had difficulties and, regardless of cause, moved to correct them. Better yet, earlier, but that isn't possible now. Perhaps if the school identifies "where they went wrong" in trying to repair this student, they can avoid making that error for all the "new models" coming into the system. Otherwise, the new system will just be turning better raw material into the same old junk.
Whatever happened to RIF, for example?
"Better yet, earlier, but that isn't possible now."
That is so sad... Again with the parent(s) aren't responsible or capable soft bigotry of low expectations.
Sorry... But responsible capable parent(s) can tell when their children have issues and they work to resolve them no matter the age...
We got our youngest into speech therapy pre-K because the doctor and we could tell she needed a little help with a few sounds.
Going back up to this comment...
"Parents "struggle"? That sounds like an admission that some, perhaps many, are trying to be responsible but lack the means to do so."
I have no doubt that many of these parent(s) want the best for their kids, unfortunately they just have no clue or lack the ambition necessary. I mean they are broke, have been raised in screwed up homes, may have been abused, adult role models have poor educations / poor attitudes, etc...
And these are the folks that you want to give carte blanche control over little babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers during their most formative years. No wonder the cycle of poverty continues.
Post a Comment