Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

To reply to the comment made from the writer responding to the subject 'more of the same isnt the answer' what do you mean by
'The problem with our children's educational performance has to do more than anything with the lack of involvement with parents. It's much more about our culture and the kids' home environment than about anything a school can do.' What are you implying??

Parents & teachers can raise achievement by raising their own expectations and "raising the gaze" of the children in their charge. This is certainly part of the reason that homeschooled kids achieve results far above their local gov't schools. They often spend less time in a traditional class environment or activity, yet home-schooled kids have won the national spelling bee several times in recent years, despite their small numbers. They regularly & consistently score higher on standardized college entrance tests like the SAT, too.

Teachers can achieve the same results by expecting more of their classes and teaching on the assumption that the kids will rise to the occasion. Parents should understand their complimentary and reinforcing roles. For instance, parents can ensure that homework gets done and ratify the discipline meted out by teachers.

Unfortunately, some schools teach to the lowest common denominator. This bores the smarter kids and turns them away from academic achievement. It drops the average level of achievement, and makes the environment more conducive to social promotion of kids that would benefit greatly from remedial work earlier in their education.

Anne,

In addition to the correct comment by Kevan McNaught, let me answer your question about what I am "implying"...and let me start that I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it directly:

Most poor performance by kids in school is due to bad/absent/incapable parenting and a home environment that is not conducive to learning, and is not due to bad teachers. Of course, it does not help that a huge percentage of money spent on schools is wasted by bureaucrats, but even if more money gets spent on public schools the quality of outcome will not improve.

Indeed, part of the problem is that just having a kid in "another public school" is demotivating for parents. If we had vouchers and parents could have some involvement in the choice of a school for his or her child, that parent would suddenly have more interest in the kid's success and probably take some more involvement in his or her education. I believe that even a tiny bit of additional involvement would be enormous in many cases simply because it shows the kid that the parent cares.

So, for many reasons, I support school choice and I oppose spending more money on government schools.

Kudos to Rossputin for having the guts to say it.

The most socialized sector of the U.S. economy is education. Small wonder it's also the sector where costs rise, results fall, & accountability is lacking. The secondary effects of converting a private service into a public right are more sublime, the real travesty to which Rossputin speaks.

Consumers of education have come to believe it's a right best provided by gov't. Since the consumer/ parent doesn't pay directly for it or choose the provider, they feel entitled to the service, but not entitled to demand excellence, value, or accountability. From here, it's a short distance to disillusion & disaffection. Emasculated as consumers, yet pressured as taxpayers, parents feel that they "ought" to pay higher taxes ("it's for the kids"), but can't demand results or change providers.

This is a systemic problem, not the fault of teachers. Many teachers would readily acknowledge the problems. In fact, many teachers would find their expertise in high demand and their salaries on the rise if vouchers & parental choice replaced the government monopoly in education.

Kevan makes good points--particularly schools and teachers appealing to the "lowest common denominator" as one of the large challenges presented in our education system today. This is how programs such as teaching subjects to students in a bilingual format came about in California. What a dismal failure this was. What a waste of time for those students subjected to it during its run--time they can not get back in the lessons lost. Other programs instituted in the name of "progressiveness" have also been counter productive (i.e. "Chicago Math" and many others).
Jay P. Greene released a book, "Education Myths..." early last year focusing on other myths which hurt our productiveness in educating our youth. Parents are mislead by bureaucrats (read N.E.A. et al) everyday on such variables. If one does not believe this, it only requires a visit to that 18 story building in downtown Los Angeles which houses thousands of paid "staff" for L.A.U.S.D., none of whom are charged with teaching any students. That bureaucracy alone is obscene and complicit in the below par education provided in public education.

I homeschool...I'm lucky enough to have the choice to do that. My husband makes enough money to support us while I accomplish this effort. I like the idea of school choice also. Perhaps schools should be competing for the students, instead of the other way around.

The issue I have with that is as follows...What about the single parent, the one who lives in an area of a city or town which isn't the greatest in terms of crime and schools? In that situation, the parent wouldn't be in a position to allow for school choice. What do you do when you can't stop working to homeschool and all of the schools in your area are failing?

Great questions, Michele.

Parental choice & vouchers would not be a panacea for every ill of the current system, but it'd be a huge improvement, especially for the parent you just described. Vouchers simply allow money already collected by taxes & allocated by the state to instead be directed by parents.

In Colorado, Amendment 23 sets the base amount per pupil & mandates that it increase by the inflation rate plus 1% per year. For the 2005-06 school year, the base was $4717.62. Money is added to a district's base for "compensating factors" like local cost of living & the school's historical personnel costs. More money's added for "catagorical funding", i.e. numbers of poor & at-risk kids, gifted & talented programs, special ed, etc. That's just the state. Federal gov't kicks in more money, & property taxes add to that. According to the National Center for Education Studies, in 2002-03 Colorado schools received an average of $8379 per pupil. It is certainly higher now.

Different jurisdictions pass laws to fund vouchers differently, but it's usually mandated that any school which accepts vouchers tp accept them as payment in full. In my area of Northern Colorado, this amount would be roughly double the tuition rate charged by the six largest private schools in the area.

With such a funding bonanza, existing private schools would have every reason to amp up their marketing, expand their curriculum, & pay to attract the best teachers. Public schools would have to respond with innovation & higher teacher pay, or face a drain of pupils & teachers. New schools would pop up to exploit any student populations not being served by existing schools. In other words, capitalism would exert its inherent pressures to raise quality, test innovation, and lower cost.

In short, vouchers would bring the same educational opportunities to the single mother at no extra cost to her that are currently available only to rich suburbanites in a two-parent household. That is more fair to her. It also helps the children to better realize their individual potential, and that can only be good for society as well.