NPR Supreme Court Could be Headed to a Major Unraveling of Public School Funding
A FB Friend posted the above link with the comment. "The attempt to theocratize America continues." And the first commenter wrote. "So sick of religious zealots stealing from the public to fund their indoctrination centers. People want to segregate their children from poor people let them pay to do that."
Then I added the following and we were off to the races... "As for segregating their children, millions of very Liberal people do that daily by "moving to better neighborhood", enrolling in a magnet / charter school, open enrolling to a different district, etc. Why should Christians who pay a LOT of these taxes be forced to pay even more to attend a school that is aligned with their beliefs? Especially since many of the public schools have been forced to become so sterile / no religion / fewer parties / events? Why again should all of our tax payer dollars only go to support a near monopolistic system that refuses to measure, change and improve?
Well I never did get very much for answers, but the original poster did take the time to write a lot regarding his perspective... And I am curious what you think?
Here were my initial thoughts in response:
In summary, the folks commenting in opposition to me believed the answer to closing the achievement gap was to go back to 1990, stop the testing, give the Publics Schools ever more money, get rid of the public charters and stay out their education system. In fact, I was in essence berated for even weighing in on the topic since I am not a teacher. Here was the list from one of them.
Here are some of the many links from these and other parts of the exchange.
Politico History of NCLB
NEA's Response to Race to the Top
G2A Blame vs Contributions
G2A Why are Poor People Poor?
MW Definition of Teach
BTA Economists Ate My School
G2A How to Win the War on Poverty
G2A AYP, NCLB, PDCA
MinnPost MPLS Data Teacher Equity by School
Wiki Public Employee Union History
VOX SCOTUS on School Funding
CSM SCOTUS on School Funding
Diana Ravitch Blog
Forbes Texas vs California
A FB Friend posted the above link with the comment. "The attempt to theocratize America continues." And the first commenter wrote. "So sick of religious zealots stealing from the public to fund their indoctrination centers. People want to segregate their children from poor people let them pay to do that."
Then I added the following and we were off to the races... "As for segregating their children, millions of very Liberal people do that daily by "moving to better neighborhood", enrolling in a magnet / charter school, open enrolling to a different district, etc. Why should Christians who pay a LOT of these taxes be forced to pay even more to attend a school that is aligned with their beliefs? Especially since many of the public schools have been forced to become so sterile / no religion / fewer parties / events? Why again should all of our tax payer dollars only go to support a near monopolistic system that refuses to measure, change and improve?
Well I never did get very much for answers, but the original poster did take the time to write a lot regarding his perspective... And I am curious what you think?
In 1991 I was a college graduate. Stung by the poor job outlook in 1991, I looked into going to work for the Federal Government. They had a program called the Outstanding Scholar program for college grads who met certain criteria, and it put you on a fast track to move up the first few paygrades in federal employment. Shortly after graduation, I was offered a position supporting the CFO for the US Department of Education (ED) In Washington, DC. At the time, I was a young moderate to conservative Republican who thought I knew everything (as is typical for the age) and I was excited to work in and around all the action in DC.
About that same time, Governor Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, was appointed Education Secretary by then president George H.W. Bush. After a history of conservatives bashing ED and wanting to shut it down (think William Bennett), Bush and Alexander believed that education is a priority and that the Federal Government did have a role in influencing education to make it competitive with the rest of the world.
Around that same time, ED adopted "America 2000", a set of education goals developed in a joint, bipartisan effort including the President and all of the nation's governors. It included six education goals. I do recall a couple of them: All students start school ready to learn, and a graduation rate of 90%. These were goals that the Government wanted to help the nation accomplish by the year 2000. We were all very excited about these goals, and the bipartisan way in which they came to be. And state and local schools would get funding from the Federal Government tied to adopting America 2000 and putting together plans to meet the goals. It seemed like a win-win proposition for everyone.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency and appointed Richard Riley as the Education secretary. I didn't know what to expect because I had really only known Republican administrations in my lifetime at that point, and I did not vote for Bill Clint on in 1992, nor did I vote for Mike Dukakis in 1988. As it turned out, it was a lot of the same. Bill Clinton had been one of the governors who had developed the national education goals, so they repackaged America 2000 and called it Goals 2000. They were largely the same with some changes.
Over the next several years I got the opportunity to interact with some of the education gurus who came in to help promote the national education agenda, including Diane Ravitch (who was so well respected she was appointed under both administrations), who was appointed by Secretary Riley to serve as a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which supervises the National Assessment of Educational Progress. She was also an early proponent of "No Child Left Behind", which was the repackaging of America 2000 and Goals 2000 by the new George W. Bush Administration in 2002.
What happened from there, however, is really where problems began to develop. School districts became so focused on achieving the benchmarks dictated by the goals, in order to get the Federal money, that it changed teaching. I had left the Federal Government by then and had moved into working for Federal contractors in various roles. But I knew A LOT of teachers and I was married to one. They made up the vast majority of our social circle and many, many family members and extended family members as well. The joy and passion of teaching became harder for them to find. What they had been educated and trained to do, to inspire students to learn, became less important than meeting test score targets. There was pressure to not fail students who were poor performers because of graduation targets. Teachers, talented and passionate about education and learning and seeing their students succeed (not about pay), began to leave teaching.
Charter schools started to become a big thing, utilizing public education money to, in essence, create private schools where they could admit only the top performers and keep out poor performers. Then they started showing better test results (shocking). So they gained more traction.
Now what do we have? Schools still failing, still too may children being left behind. National standards that have bastardized and corrupted real education, the politicizing of education funds by far right interests who believe in this farce of "liberal indoctrination" (I can assure you that if it's not tied to the national education standards, it's not being taught).
And, if you take the time to read any of Diane Ravitch's retrospective (she has written and blogged a lot on this subject) on the national goals and standardized testing she helped create and promote, you will see that she now regrets it. She regrets what it has become, and regrets school choice, too. All things she promoted and was considered instrumental in starting at the federal level. She recognizes now that the best predictor of poor school performance is poverty. She now focuses her efforts on addressing poverty and racial segregation.
The attacks on teachers, teacher unions, etc. that you have bought into John, are all done for political gain. The real "fix" is all about having schools where all children have the same opportunity to learn, regardless of their socioeconomic status or their race. The national standards have failed to address those fundamental causes of poor achievement. Attacking teacher unions doesn't address those either.
Addressing the causes of poverty and racial inequality are likely going to gain the best traction toward improving educational achievement. If you want to really "Give to attain", John, then work toward influencing people to take up the cause of poverty and racial disparity in our country. Vote for the candidates who have plans to do this. Look for constructive solutions instead of looking to blame those who are in the trenches fighting the good fight every day. Vote for politicians and support organizations who are most committed to addressing poverty and racial inequality.
As for brief immediate answers... You now have stepped into the chicken vs egg problem because correlation does not mean causation... Poverty in and of itself does not cause failure in school, therefore giving people more money will not necessarily yield better results... It is the things that cause poverty that often drive poor academic results. Un / undereducated parent(s), irresponsible / neglectful parent(s), single parent, high crime neighborhoods, cultures that do not value education, addicted parent(s), racism, etc.
I know many low income folk who's kids did great in school, but that was because they had 2 parents who were serious about their child learning. (much like my friends in China and South Korea)
The US Education system was created to lift people out of poverty. To say that we must eliminate poverty to make it work is very counter-intuitive and counter-productive.
As for "the teachers are stressed" because their kids must learn... Halleulia !!! I am stressed because I must deliver everyday or my bosses will give me the boot. That does not mean that I hold it against my bosses that performance is why I am paid each month. It is nice to enjoy one's job, but it is also healthy to be pushed to learn and perform even better!!! Don't the kids deserve to learn each day and to be ready at 18 to be independent capable citizens?
In summary, the folks commenting in opposition to me believed the answer to closing the achievement gap was to go back to 1990, stop the testing, give the Publics Schools ever more money, get rid of the public charters and stay out their education system. In fact, I was in essence berated for even weighing in on the topic since I am not a teacher. Here was the list from one of them.
If you want to build a better education system in this country.
- pay teachers better and support them 100%
- hire people that actually have experience in education that make policy for education.
- treat every school equal, and give every student the same opportunities.
- poor people vote to. Stop making policy that rewards the rich families.
To that my response and questions were. In MN we do not treat every school equally. The schools that get the most money by far are the schools with the most challenging student demographics. It may still not be enough but it exceeds $20,000 per student. And they still have the worst academic results.
- So how much should we raise that amount to?
- How much will the achievement increase?
- What should happen if the money is spent and things do not change substantially?
- Do we just keep increasing the funding or do we promote competition?
Here are some of the many links from these and other parts of the exchange.
NEA's Response to Race to the Top
G2A Blame vs Contributions
G2A Why are Poor People Poor?
MW Definition of Teach
BTA Economists Ate My School
G2A How to Win the War on Poverty
G2A AYP, NCLB, PDCA
MinnPost MPLS Data Teacher Equity by School
Wiki Public Employee Union History
VOX SCOTUS on School Funding
CSM SCOTUS on School Funding
Diana Ravitch Blog
Forbes Texas vs California
37 comments:
I don't think I have anything new to say on education. What would help the most is better teachers, but I think that would take a lot more money to attract higher performers into the field. I saw a story recently about how much farther behind teachers' salaries have fallen in recent years compared to other college grads.
But would higher wages keep the less qualified of teachers out of the classroom, or enable them to be removed?
To me it seems that higher wages without higher hurdles and expectations is just throwing good money after bad...
So how can we raise the standard of who we let come into and stay in the classroom?
Also, how do we encourage the higher paid teachers to work with kids who need them most?
As the Mpls data link showed, the senior /most expensive teachers use that seniority to get transferred to the easier schools / classrooms. Which makes sense for the teacher but certainly not for helping the kids who need the most help.
Letting judges run schools doesn't have a very happy history. But I think the role of judges will change anyway.
--Hiram
Part of the answer simply has to be competition. Allow any kind of education-- public, public charter, private, parochial, even home, to compete on the level playing field of same money, way fewer mandates on spending priorities, content and process. Funding based only on results and parental choice.
And competition for teaching slots, too. Forget arbitrary class size rules, establish a firm discipline policy to allow teachers to teach rather than act as prison guards, and teachers can be paid more generally. THEN, go to a system of grading teachers (just as private business does for employees) and allow teachers to progress through "apprentice, journeyman, master" or some such ranking, with increasing pay and responsibility. Unions must either be more "professional organizations" or have their excessive power eliminated (eliminating mandatory dues, as Janus requires, would be a good start).
Part of the answer simply has to be competition.
Does that mean taking money from rich schools and giving it to poor schools to even competition?
Competition is a big deal in Major League Baseball, and all it means that the teams cheat.
==Hiram
Hiram,
Today MN schools with more financially poor students do get more funding.
I think I would rather have a system where people care enough about succeeding that they try to push the bounds of acceptable behavior, than a system where people just enjoy themselves while millions of kids are left behind.
Jerry,
As usual your opinion has that big hole in it.
What do we do with the kids who choose not to behave in school / class?
And the kids who have emotional disorders, ADHD, etc?
Will all schools be forced to take and keep all kids for the same dollar value?
Free and fair competition means all schools need to play by the same rules.
What big hole? Everybody gets the same, but schools who can demonstrate a higher percentage of kids with need AND a plan to address those needs effectively, can get extra funding to do so, unlike the current system where "lucky" kids get deprived of funding so that it can be wasted on ineffective schools.
Yes, same rules for everybody, which will be a terrible shock to schools currently failing massively, and a big boost for charters and such who could actually benefit from more funding. "playing by the same rules" means that some of those rules need to be relaxed to allow for competition to take place.
Yep. Same big hole. And no answers to my questions.
At least you and the status quo school supporters have that in common... :-)
Today MN schools with more financially poor students do get more funding.
Sure they need more money. One of the best things about high performing students is that they are cheap to educate.
Competition is fine, but at some point all it means is that you end up with Houston Astros and the whole system comes tumbling down.
--Hiram
I am pretty the Astros did not spell the end of the baseball system...
The system caught them and punished the wrong doers... Just as it is supposed to.
Hiram, Do you have any answers to my questions???
The schools that get the most money by far are the schools with the most challenging student demographics. It may still not be enough but it exceeds $20,000 per student. And they still have the worst academic results.
1.So how much should we raise that amount to?
2.How much will the achievement increase?
3.What should happen if the money is spent and things do not change substantially?
4.Do we just keep increasing the funding or do we promote competition?
Let's look at things the other way around. Let's find out what works and then decide how much we want to pay for it.
--Hiram
What would help at my school is higher pay for teachers- so we could better keep the good teachers who have worked for us and left.
My school might have the most challenging demographics of any school in the state in terms of high percent low income and high percent English language learners. Teachers at my school deserve to be paid more. As a charter school we can not compete with the salaries of traditional districts.
Hiram,
We somewhat know what works.
Unfortunately neither side wants to hold parent(s) accountable.
The Liberals are adamant about protection the public employee unions.
The Conservatives fear the government and don't want to fund the programs.
The Bible Banger fears sex education and readily available low cost highly effective birth control.
As long as we let as adult rights are more important than children rights we will have a problem.
Laurie,
You have to remember that the Status Quo Public School supporters that I was exchanging comments with see your school as a cancer on "THEIR education system".
Thus their goal is to starve the charters until they wither and die.
You are the ENEMY. :-(
They weren't very happy with my description of Status Quo Public Education as a "Near Monopoly Business"...
"Please remember that a Not for Profit business is still a business...
Why are you against schools being considered a highly regulated business?
I mean they receive revenue based on the number of customers they serve... They receive more money if they get more customers... They get less money if a competitor steals their market share... They fight to starve their competitors of customers and revenue... They market themselves to prospective home buyers, open enrollees, people interested in Magnet schools, etc.
They have employees who want pay raises, better benefits, more job security, more control, etc.
They demand more money if their customers are more challenging and expensive to care for... (ie poor, special needs, etc)
They are a lot like the healthcare industry in many ways..."
Schools that serve at risk students should do this:
Science helps Minneapolis school turn the page on reading skills
I caught some if it on the radio the other day. It was interesting.
It is surprising to me how many schools (including mine) still do a bad job of teaching reading. I think it is starting to change a little.
It looks like Common Core stresses Phonics
"The schools that get the most money by far are the schools with the most challenging student demographics. It may still not be enough but it exceeds $20,000 per student. And they still have the worst academic results." --John
Demography is destiny? Really? Why have public education at all, if it fails to lift the next generation out of poverty?
So how about we take the facts on the ground, and work from there? REGARDLESS of "cause," the simple fact is that the correlation between cost per pupil and student achievement, across all 340 MN school districts, is NEGATIVE. More spent, less learned. Yet schools at the state average of spending have academic achievement spread across a 2:1 range. START with finding what these cost-effective schools are doing right and replicate it everywhere. The "hole" you keep worrying about is where we are throwing the money that SHOULD be used to improve academic results, but now is largely wasted on a bunch of irrelevant and useless mandates.
From personal experience, as kids get older they may be able to read the words but lack comprehension. They are slow at reading so they use the internet to do their homework. Skills need to be practiced in order to improve and if kids are not reading for pleasure outside of school their reading skills won’t improve. Instead of reading instructions on how to fix something, they can just watch a video.
Molly
Jerry,
Demography is not destiny... But Parent(s), friend(s) and community unfortunately somewhat are. :-(
That is why we have the sayings like "the apple does not fall far from the tree". :-)
And why abused kids often become abusers themselves. :-(
And why generational poverty is so hard to stop.
As I have quantified so many times before...
- parent(s) & community birth to 5: 43,800 hours
- parent(s) & community k -12: 97,880 hours
Sub-total: ~141,000 hours
- schools k - 12: ~16,000 hours
And unfortunately parent(s) / community get 100% of the most critical years when the brain is being formed. :-(
And you wonder why I lay 70% of the problem at the feet of the parent(s) / community?
Molly,
The unfortunate reality is that the truly struggling kids have almost no role model / support at home. Their parent(s) often do not value education like some of us. :-(
And even in Laurie's school, they may have stable families and caring parents. But the parent(s) likely are not fluent in English and therefore read / speak their native tongue at home. It is quite the mess. :-(
John, we will continue to have this argument because your "solution" of making every family into your ideal is impossible to achieve. BUT, changing the education system so that each child is moved from where they are, gently guided by a firm discipline policy and high expectations, towards their "maximum potential," IS possible, and many schools do it. That's a FAR cry from what is being done right now, and obviously the excuses of bad parenting and not enough money (despite huge amounts spent) cannot be allowed to prevent us getting that very easy "30%." Besides, if you break the cycle of poverty by giving kids a proper education, the next generation WILL provide their kids with more advantages.
As always... Please identify these mystery schools.
"gently guided by a firm discipline policy and high expectations, towards their "maximum potential," IS possible, and many schools do it."
I would like to learn from them...
And you never answered my questions as usual. Here they are for your convenience...
Jerry,
As usual your opinion has that big hole in it.
What do we do with the kids who choose not to behave in school / class?
And the kids who have emotional disorders, ADHD, etc?
Will all schools be forced to take and keep all kids for the same dollar value?
Free and fair competition means all schools need to play by the same rules.
Now you did make a weak effort at it.
It sounded like you wanted to take money from the schools with the most challenging student(s) / parent(s) and give it to the schools with the least challenging student(s) / parent(s).
Which leaves me the original concern... What happens to the kids with behavioral issues, special education, etc really screwed up parent(s), etc?
Will high dollar private schools be forced to take them for lower dollars?
Minnpost Campaign to Halt Charter School Growth
This is a fascinating research document that seems to show that charters perform similar to the status quo publics. Page 10 - 12
Page 29 is interesting also.
Let me make another "weak effort." I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Every parent gets the state average per-pupil for that district, to use at any school including public. Local effort adds to it, for the public schools, if needed, and beyond that public schools can apply to the State for compensatory aid to provide programs to achieve academic success, providing they offer guarantees of satisfactory progress or risk losing the money.
The kids with discipline problems would be subject to discipline. The simplest forms of peer pressure and reasonable expectations can be effective early. Those who have already passed that stage, the school should be able to threaten the parent that their "universal voucher" may no longer be accepted, but that for an added price the child's mandatory attendance requirement can be met at a school specializing in such cases, at THEIR cost.
And of course the State money should come with absolutely minimal strings like what percentage has to go to food, bus service, etc., that apply to schools today and hamper better ways of allocating the money under local control.
This attempt to paint charters as "no better than" the public schools is just attempting to defend the indefensible. What is missing in these considerations is that the parents get to CHOOSE this charter school, thereby creating real competition. The public schools HATE that. They should be forced to compete, and ALLOWED to compete.
States Are Burying Damning Data About School Funding
Laurie,
The Mpls school staffing link shows this clearly.
"The resulting perception is that higher-need schools are indeed getting much more funding. But high-need schools often rely on a revolving crew of underpaid, novice teachers still learning their craft, and salaries are directly linked to experience. So although a given high-need school might get a few additional staff positions (as a result of the 1.2 calculation), high-poverty schools still often end up spending roughly the same or less than affluent schools because their inexperienced teachers get lower pay."
One of the reasons that Union rules frustrate me so greatly.
Excellent link by the way... Hopefully the data becomes clearer and more readily available.
Jerry,
As long as your system treats every child as the same, it is doomed to failure.
"the school should be able to threaten the parent that their "universal voucher" may no longer be accepted, but that for an added price the child's mandatory attendance requirement can be met at a school specializing in such cases, at THEIR cost."
I think you are missing the point that the parent(s) of these unlucky kids do not come to school and have no money to pay for anything. :-( Often they do not have enough money to ensure their kids eat before school.
Let's say that these troubled kids with their troubled broke uneducated parents don't straighten out, behave in class, do their homework, etc? What happens next in your system?
I am still waiting for the names of the miracle schools...
Now I do agree that vouchers would help some more people escape their screwed up neighbors and children.
Just as good neighborhoods, magnet schools, some charters, open enrollment, etc do.
But at some point the chosen system needs to deal with the screwed up parent(s) and screwed up kids. Just ignoring them is what we have been doing forever. :-(
So how does your system deal with them?
Facts and Data
"Approximately 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect involving almost 5.5 million children are reported each year. The majority of cases reported to Child Protective Services involve neglect, followed by physical and sexual abuse. There is considerable overlap among children who are abused, with many suffering a combination of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and/or neglect."
And these are only the worst cases. :-(
John, the status quo is that the education screws up kids that do not need to be screwed up, but helped. They need to be taught a little self-discipline and self-respect and respect for others, along with the other 3 R's.
So long as people (like you) keep giving the schools the excuses of demography and lack of funding, they will never NEED to improve actual results. They will continue to spend more and educate less. Only competition does that, and the beauty of universal vouchers is that it gives good public schools what they always had, and gives bad public schools both more ability to compete (fewer mandates) and the time to improve, before competition can develop the competing infrastructure.
One of those mandates MUST be allowing schools to administer effective discipline (without regard to racial equity nonsense, for example), and to actually refuse the voucher for the most disruptive students. It's a slightly milder for of expulsion, since the parent still gets the voucher. But the added cost of the mandatory attendance might be an incentive for the parent to instill a bit of discipline at home.
And you admit "some people" would be helped by vouchers. I think ALL people would be helped by universal vouchers, for several reasons. It would enable parents who want to move to better schools but lack the means to do so (biggest single benefit). It would force public schools to improve, get them more freedom to do so, and give them time to do so before competition came in and "put them out of business" (which is what should happen to failing schools that refuse to improve). That competition will see new programs and new ideas that will help all while closing the "gap." It would let successful schools go right on doing what they were doing. It should see more rational and effective discipline policies. It should improve teacher pay, and at least retention. Isn't it the case that we need to try SOMETHING? And this could be done almost immediately.
Well, at least you are consistent...
A few more lucky kids can escape their unlucky peers...
And screw the unlucky kids left behind in even a more disruptive school or without a school at all...
So what will you do to the parent(s) who do not / can not enroll their troubled kids in that more expensive school?
Please remember that you are the one who does want them held accountable for ensuring their child is fed, clothed, washed, housed, homework is done, etc. Now you expect them to come up with thousands of dollars a year for some special school?
So your solution is to leave every last one of them in a school with rampant discipline problems and no hope of receiving a good education? How about this: How about we simply pass a law that every parent guarantee their child is "fed, clothed, washed, housed, homework is done," imbued with self discipline, given adequate intellectual stimulation and emotional support, AND pay the full cost of their child's education? Doesn't any part of this highly beneficial law strike you as unlikely to achieve the desired ends? Despite the flaws you see in the alternative, it is easily done by law, and the results will be better for some, and more if the schools react favorably to the new, more competitive environment.
Post a Comment