<p>*The schools have not been defunded by any stretch of the imagination. *</p>
<p>Zoosermom: Perhaps you live in a state that funds public schools. Both California, following Prop 13 and Oregon, in the wake of Measure 5, have dramatically dropped funding for schools as property tax rolls no longer bring in the same revenue.</p>
<p>The US spends more per student than any country in the world and we are spending 30% more than a decade ago. Education is hardly being defunded.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how much money you spend, or what kind of competition you create, the quality of public schools is not going to get better until the “quality” of the educators gets better. </p>
<p>At many many universities, schools of education require only a 2.0 or a 2.5 GPA for acceptance into the school of education. Often, the education major is the easiest program to be admitted into. </p>
<p>So, often what you end up with is the students who were least motivated or least capable in charge of educating the next generation. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that teachers don’t work really hard (they do) or that their hearts aren’t in the right place (more often than not they are). But I am saying that in general (there are some great exceptions of course), schools of education need to kick it up a notch regarding their expectations before we can expect anything to change in the K-12 system. </p>
<p>And, FWIW, I am a teacher.</p>
<p>“The schools have not been defunded by any stretch of the imagination.”</p>
<p>State aid in many areas of the country has been significantly reduced the last few years. Just google “cuts in state education budgets” and you will see article after article about this.</p>
<p>@tututaxi, No, I’m not saying I want to leave kids in a failing school. I’m saying rather than diverting funds from the public school to send some of the kids from the failing school to private school, the funds should be used to fix the school. Or would you just abandon the neighborhood school and tell all the parents “here’s a voucher - but you have to figure out how to get your kids to a private school that’s probably not in your neighborhood, and may cost much more than the voucher amount”. Not every kid can get transportation to a private school. Not every family can pay the gap between the voucher amount and the COA at a private school. What does a voucher do for those kids? You’re sill left with a failing school.</p>
<p>Although not all vouchers are used for religious schools, I would prefer that an inner city kid is given the chance to attend a rigorous catholic school with the help of vouchers than be stuck in a failing school to prove a point. </p>
<p>If the best and the brightest are using vouchers to escape the public schools, what is wrong with that? Why should they be condemned to a bad education so that some people would be better off? These kids need to escape the toxic environment that is not conducive to the pursuit of any sort of intellectual endeavors. </p>
<p>We should not sacrifice these kids in the name of public education. </p>
<p>Most of the time, I have observed that those adamantly opposed to vouchers are those that live in excellent school districts, so they are not really concerned about the people who are stuck in bad school districts.</p>
<p>And we can all google the amount of money spent per pupil and it is quite a lot of money. Money is not the issue. That’s just silly. You can spend unlimited funds, but unless the state choose to take custody of the most at-risk kids, things will not change. However, I’m not the one who thinks the public school system is failing. It strikes me as amusing when people say “it’s not failing but give more money because it’s failing.”</p>
<p>
I agree with you. I don’t support vouchers using public funds.</p>
<p>The Business Insider claims those numbers were calculated incorrectly, but still for adjustment the U.S. is fourth in the world. State governments are mostly responsible for school funding although I do believe the feds give 75 or 85% of transportation costs to each state.</p>
<p>Education has certainly been defunded in our district. Oregon has no sales tax and relies heavily on income tax. When the economy is in the toilet, there are simply no funds. For many years, teachers and classes were routinely cut each year until class sizes in 6th grade were topping 35. Some districts are better off than others, but I can assure you it’s not a pretty picture here.</p>
<p>[Five</a> basic lessons on public education (short and long versions)](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/19/five-basic-lessons-on-public-education-short-and-long-versions/]Five”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/19/five-basic-lessons-on-public-education-short-and-long-versions/)</p>
<p>The long version has all the footnotes and supporting citations, research, etc… The short version is positing that US schools are not as deficient as we are accustomed to believing, measured in several ways; also has some interesting points to make about the role of teachers and the role of families. </p>
<p>Personally, I think education in the US is a pretty simple problem. We fund our priorities, and education really isn’t a priority. Children are not really a priority. Business, profit, power, and independance — as indicated by our funding streams both nationally and statewide – seem to be what voters are most interested in. Thousands of children are abandoned, abused, neglected, undereducated, victimized and marginalized in this country, every day. State and Federal legislators are very responsive to persistant, sustained, widespread public pressure. There just isn’t any on child-related issues. </p>
<p>Don’t believe teachers and schools are increasingly underfunded? Move to PA, where 900 million dollars of public school funding has disappeared in the past 3 years, and the state has created a pension crisis by betting pension funding against a strong market – oops! --and then deferring payment for nearly a decade. Districts and colleges are forced to let go of everything but core subject teachers. Stable families flee to charters (which are funded by the public school coffers) which are more unregulated and their own cottage industry here. </p>
<p>No, I don’t think Matt is a hypocrite. He can support better pay and still send his kids to a private school. It’s a free country.</p>
<p>"It strikes me as amusing when people say “it’s not failing but give more money because it’s failing.”</p>
<p>I don’t believe our public school system is failing - but I believe there are failing schools and it is these schools which people want to take funds away from in the form of a voucher. It’s my opinion that to turn these schools around they need much more money then they are getting and they deserve to be turned around for the children who live in their community.</p>
<p>
I think that would be the ideal situation, but I’m not sure it is always possible. I think sometimes change can be very beneficial. I wouldn’t put public money into vouchers, but I do think that sometimes a particular model can be unsuitable for a particular time, place and population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, at some religious schools the rigorous education sometimes comes with unwanted downsides, such as anti-science science classes, revisionist-history history classes, and extremely limited literature curricula. Our kids will be at a severe disadvantage if religious dogma gets in the way of actual education, especially in the sciences.</p>
<p>As a conservative myself, I have never understood the rationale for vouchers. What business does the government have in subsidizing private or parochial school tuitions? Vouchers would only turn into another expensive middle-class entitlement program, like mortgage interest deduction. They would do nothing to transform American education or save failing schools, whose problems are a reflection of serious community issues that go much deeper than just getting Johnny out of a bad environment. Vouchers represent the idea of giving up on the concept of public education and making the money portable with the student. I’m not on board with that.</p>
<p>NJSue, the reason the idea of vouchers started was because the public schools were not doing their jobs. As for the concept of public education, I think the concept is really that all children should be educated. We contract with private companies to do work for public consumption, why should schools be any different.</p>
<p>"such as anti-science science classes, revisionist-history history classes, and extremely limited literature curricula. "</p>
<p>YES! We made the mistake of sending our D to a Catholic school for middle school only to learn that 1)they lied about having a gifted program, 2)I had to constantly correct the science teacher’s lies about biology, 3)everything was carved in stone and D was being so under-educated with regard to LA it made my head spin. But hey! She sure knew how to raise her hand “properly” and line up military style! And that counted towards the grade.</p>
<p>We got out of there the second we had the opportunity, and the middle school continues to shrink. But the elementary parents in the area still flock to the place because they think all the public schools around here are “bad” and don’t seem to mind the problems. And I say this as a former Catholic.</p>
<p>I know not all Catholic schools are like this, but the rigidity was just the completely wrong choice for us. Wish we could have those 1.5 years back. And no, I wouldn’t support vouchers for a school like this. I don’t know how graduates pass some of their subject in high school.</p>
<p>NJSue: As a liberal, I agree with everything you wrote in #314.</p>
<p>adding: schools in my state are being drastically defunded as we speak…</p>
<p>Somewhat off topic question, but can anyone clarify why it’s acceptable to use Pell or state grants at religious colleges, but highly controversial to use vouchers for private schools?</p>
<p>Sorry this is long. My district was/is still bussing. There was no assurance a kid could get into his neighborhood schools. No fabric to weave, Sally. Unfair on all sides, as kids who could benefit from community strengths and proximity were on busses (including public city busses.) Parents couldn’t get to meetings and etc. The union had strong protections, including approval for any changes that could affect their job status or site. </p>
<p>Consolation: *Typically, the kids that are taken out of public school and sent to privates are kids who are either middle-of-the-road whose parents think they need more attention, or kids with significant issues. *</p>
<p>Another poster already disagreed and so do I. Not in my area. I find it hard to generalize when each district can be comprised of different populaces, cultures and socioeconomic issues. What occurs in one geographic area is not what occurs in another area. </p>
<p>Ime, the kids who were moved out of significantly challenged schools were done so for opportunity. (The core requirement was they be reading at or near grade level.) The privates, including parochial, underwrite with aid. there is massive support and fundraising from parents of private school kids- for the charters and privates to be able to do this. The students who fell behind were/are not automatically dismissed. It’s not about adding a math genius, “inflating,” but about a mission to reach out and empower. It benefits us all. Unfortunately, spaces are limited.</p>
<p>I find it hard to generalize that religious schools are “indoctrination centers.” In fact, our three large Catholic based schools (each run by orders,) have a substantial percentage of non-Catholics, for the quality of the education. Their mission remains formed by religion, but the context respectful (not always the case, I know.)</p>
<p>The goal is not to dismantle publics, but to pressure them to shift with the times (all that that implies.) And, in the meantime, support the kids who can be offered better. The caveat is: and will make their efforts. </p>
<p>For the local publics, it took massive community attention and steam (yes, including from parents who sent theirs to private; just paying taxes is passive) to both insist changes be considered and to get past the first baby step. Many families in my neck would prefer to send kids to public, if (oh, as Damon says,) if we saw that as a viable option. The only reason we “won” with the local m/s is that it had to shut down for code violations. The local parents (again, many with kids in privates) sprung into action.</p>
<p>It’s been a long battle here and a long road yet to go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Might I suggest that the same happens in public schools. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, neither should be used at any private college, religious or secular. Instead, pump that money into state colleges, particularly jucos, and let HYPS spend some of their gazillion dollar endowments on the poor kids, that is, if they truly want them.</p>