<p>“But clearly, all school teachers and officials are trying to create bad schools to cheat you and your children.”</p>
<p>No, if they tried they probably would fail at that do. By the way, I was happy to quote a capitalized sentence. Your agenda should include learning the basic capitalization rules and … trying to understand this issue beyond the surface. You should thank John Stossel to try to help you.</p>
<p>“Let’s face it, since few if any private schools would ever agree to operate under the conditions the vast majority of public schools MUST operate under
on a daily basis then yes I am opposed to public funding of vouchers for private education. You show me a private school who agrees to accept those terms and I will gladly agree that they too should be included in school choice.”</p>
<p>Thank you for confirming my conclusions on your position. It’s all about the money and hegemony.</p>
<p>The quote you are referring to was not in my post.</p>
<p>“The quote you are referring to was not in my post.”</p>
<p>No, but the quotation was, unless you did not type your post #200.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, one thing I’m pretty sure of, you’re not going to get private schools “to operate under the conditions the vast majority of public schools MUST.” That’s why they are private. Even the public charter schools here do not have to do everything the other public schools do. In fact, many private schools are set up as a reaction to what is going on in public schools, and they try to do the opposite of some things the publics are required to do (think Montessori, Waldorf and the like).</p>
<p>In our area, at least, one problem with the voucher idea is that the tuition at most private schools is much higher than the likey $$ amount that would be assigned to a voucher. My kids go to one of the cheaper private high schools, and tuition there is currently around $11,000. A couple of schools that I know of are slightly lower, and many are much higher. I don’t know of anyone suggesting to give kids enough in vouchers to cover tuition at these schools, in which case, the poorest kids simply would not be able to use them.</p>
<p>mstee,</p>
<p>I disagree. All of the colleges operate this way. They all receive Federal money for education and must comply with certain regulations. I see no major distinction in extending this model to K-12 schools.</p>
<p>Thank you for confirming my conclusions on your position. It’s all about the money and hegemony.</p>
<p>If that’s what you choose to believe then obviously there is little if anything I can say to change your perception. My position is that until private schools agree to the same conditions imposed upon public schools we are comparing apples to oranges.</p>
<p>Anti-choice educators are always talking out of both sides of their mouths. They claim that they would lose too many students if there was choice. Why would that be if they are offering a quality product? The public universities don’t worry that they lose students just because Pell grants, etc, can be used at both private or public. The fact that there are “other choices” in tertiary education that encourages public colleges to offer quality education. </p>
<p>Great public school teachers should be saying “I’m not afraid of a little competition. I know that my colleagues and I can offer as good of an education as any private school out there. We are dedicated, we are smart, our kids achieve!!! Parents will choose OUR public school because their kids will get a great education, bus service, AND the parents won’t have to subsidize their vouchers to meet private school tuition costs.” Teachers who are confident in their own and their colleagues abilities are NOT afraid of choice!!! Public school teachers reveal their profession’s insecurities when they fight choice.</p>
<p>The anti-choice claim that they would support “public school choice” but not the inclusion of private because private schools don’t have to accept all students. For one thing, there are public schools that don’t accept all students and the anti-choicers permit THEM to receive gov’t money. Public tech schools, Public Fine Arts schools, charter schools, etc, all turn away thousands of applicants every year ( and some don’t use a lottery system – some USE (the hated) merit basis!!!). Plus, anti-choicers whine that “poor kids” won’t have transportation to the schools of their choice so we can’t have choice. SO why allow these elite public schools that don’t provide transportation and don’t enroll all that apply??? Why don’t the anti-choicers get upset over that??? BECAUSE those teachers are nearly all union dues paying teachers!!! It is ALL about the money — union money. The union hacks just don’t realize that they are “useful idiots” for the union thugs.</p>
<p>Eagle79: You are right on the money… Besides, those who complaint that choice schools won’t accept everyone and everybody are ignoring the obvious: SCHOOLS shouldn’t be “one size fits all” – that’s why “high tech” public high schools have been created and fine arts public schools have been created. Choice in education should be like doctors and hospitals – some hospitals and their doctors are burn specialists, some are vascular (transplant) specialists, some are maternity-minded. If hospitals tried to be “one size fits all” – none would excel in a specialty. Choice in education would allow some public and some private to specialize in “special needs” OR “high tech” OR "dance and fine arts OR Classical curricula OR whatever! Each child’s gifts are different so why would we think that one size fits all status quo public education would be best???</p>
<p>oops “complain” not complaint (that’s what I get for changing my words and not rereading before posting!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This simply isn’t true. Most, if not all, countries have flaky parents, single parents, drug-addicted parents, selfish parents, clueless parents, undereducated parents, etc, yet other countries are doing better than we are. No excuses. Teacher of the Year Jaime Escalante proved that if you demand excellence from underachieving and poor students, you will get excellence. (By the way, the teacher’s union disliked Jaime and his principal for proving their thesis. Where was the teachers union when Jaime and his principal got “jerked” around by their district??? The union was nowhere.)</p>
<p>this reminds me of one of the teacher hiring commitees I have sat on for special education.
Union requires that only members who have reviewed all the resumes and have attended all interviews get a vote to hire.
Unfortunately only 3 of us met that criteria- we had 5 candidates- by far a woman from NYC stood head and shoulders above other candidates- this was for a dept in a district that had a poor compliance record, none of the IEP money could be tracked because it was put into general fund, and according to the principal, the sped kids benefited from the money being spent that way.
The teacher candidate had written curriculum for special ed that was being used nationwide, had a great resume and was relocating to be closer to her adult children. She had good energy, although this seemed off putting to the 3 teachers in the room who wanted to be present for this final interview although they were not allowed a vote. (One in particular the principal went through a great effort to force out at the end of the school year- which was well deserved)
IMO because the dept historically was lethargic, out of compliance and wasn’t working for a lot of kids, the staff was threatened by the possiblity of a new teacher shaking them up a bit.
The head teacher- abstained from voting and although the two of us who did vote, voted to hire, she decided to leave it up to the principal, who wasn’t present. ( who hired someone who better fit with the status quo-)
It wasn’t about who would be best for the school and the students.
This is at a district who claims that people move HERE for the special ed services</p>
<p>There is a little bit of a “voucher” system in place in our district for those with certain types of handicaps that can prove the local school is not providing their children the education they are required by law to provide. I know one bi-polar child and one severely dyslexic child who are going to private schools, paid for by the district (tuition is exorbitant, upwards of $20k). However, the district does its best to keep these options hidden. Just thought I’d throw that out for discussion.</p>
<p>mstee: One of our school board members confessed that the district is paying $100K per year for ONE child who is so severely handicapped that he will never be able to feed himself, much less add 1 + 1. That child will cost the district well over a million dollars by the time the child “ages” out of the district. The school board member is frustrated that there is no assessment allowed to determine if this is just a complete waste of money – why spend over 1M to essentially babysit this child for 13+ years? The bottom line is there aren’t assessments done to determine if the education for “severely special needs” kids to see if the expense is cost effective. It may be more cost effective for the state/districts just to put $100,000+ in a bank acct for each of these kids when they are 2 years old and let the money grow and pay for their future living expenses as adults. Parents who insist on these pricey ed programs for their severely ■■■■■■■■ child may think differently if their child could have the invested money paid out in yearly allowances when they turn 18.</p>
<p>“why spend over 1M to essentially babysit this child for 13+ years?”</p>
<p>Because by law public school systems required to do so. Primarily it is the result of litigation over the years.</p>
<p>whar: I KNOW its because of laws – but stupid laws need to be changed.</p>
<p>It is b/c each child is entitled to a free appropriate public education. This is b/c your district is receiving federal tax dollars. What is decided as appropriate is determined by a team consisting of various school district employees with some knowledge of evaluating and/or teaching someone with this disabliliy, and their parents. This is all guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Before there were laws for educating those with disabilities, or providing access to education, children with disabilities were sometimes denied an education. Your district is even supposed to find children before school age who may have a disability and access them (aka Child Find). This free appropriate public education can continue until the child is not just 18, but 21 years old, and can begin through the school system at age 3. Prior to age 3 there are other programs available for disabled infants/toddlers. There apparently are more children in these programs than before b/c of premature babies surviving and the apparent surge in children diagnosed with autism.</p>
<p>OUr district I am sure is paying for students to be institutionalized-however many many students are recieiving minimal instruction disproportinate to their ability to learn.
I have heard many many stories from parents 
I have heard the districts attorney, now the CFO say that is is less expensive to allow some to sue- ( assuming that many will never go that far) than to provide a legal appropriate education.</p>
<p>Our state has extra money for districts that have overspent their SPED funds. OUr district has never applied for it- despite constantly arguing that they don’t have the money to provide these students with their federal legal right.
The reason? the money is put into the general fund for schools, so the schools and the district can’t prove they don’t have enough money, because they can’t track what it is being spent on.
When districts have the money to build professional quality sports facilities, have state of the art computer labs you can’t tell me that they don’t have money to educate kids under IDEA</p>
<p>Districts can take advantage of the fact that public tax dollars pay for the district’s attorney, but most parents cannot afford to hire an attorney and specialists to fight with a school system. When it comes down to hiring your own specialist to help your child, or hiring an attorney to fight with your school district, you will probably feel the dollars are better spent on directly helping your own child (who is not getting what you feel he needs from the public school).</p>
<p>I knowseveral people who have moved to get better services from their childs district- one woman highly educated ( she is a psychoanalyst) moved to a district that was very affuent and didn’t have a comprehensive special ed program, they were too happy to pay for her child to attend a private school that met his needs- I guess it was cheaper than providing the services themselves.
but our district- has a disproportiate number of students of color, of students for whom english is a 2nd language and for who are low income. These students are more likely to be placed in special ed, yet their parents are not able to thread their way through the system to determine if the placement is appropriate or even necessary.
I agree numbers are increasing- I wonder if it is we are getting better at diagnosing or if the percent is actually going up.
I was a premie as was my oldest daughter- but both very different reasons ( mine was my mother had preterm labor that stopped, since dr was already at the hospital they induced- D tied her cord into three knots)-
I will attempt to get the thread back on track- watch this-
my D who was a premie was also determined to be very gifted- although she also has learning differences- not known if it is related to her prematurity or not- doubtful actually.
The district, told me that there was not a place for students who were gifted but learning disabled, although I had found several alternative schools that I was sure could meet her needs. Unfortunately, teh schools were so popular she didn’t get in, and we opted for private school. Private school met her needs with flying colors- but I feel for the parents and kids who don’t have a choice- they don’t realize that when private schools value economic diversity they have scholarships, or they don’t have a choice to move to another district with better schools. We need all students to have choices, not just families who can afford it</p>