<p>Thank you, NJSue. geo, the reason we don’t want private entities running our schools is that their interest (making money) is not the same as the public’s (ensuring decent education for all).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the product is producing a quality education for all and they can do it more effectively in terms of cost and quality, why is that a problem.</p>
<p>I’ve pondered my own question, and decided (again lol) that no, Damon is not a hypocrite. His interest appears to be in paying public teachers more and protecting his mother’s teacher friends from being evaluated. So choosing a private school for his kids may actually be consistent with his opposition to the way public schools are currently being run.</p>
<p>Maybe not solely an agenda. Maybe feeling strongly about public schools and where they are today AND considering the best way to meet his own kids’ needs.</p>
<p>I doubt he’s against them being “evaluated.” But the words I saw were against evals based on student test scores and/or improvements- which many feel runs counter to real education and empowerment.</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>This might answer your question. </p>
<p>[National</a> Coalition for Public Education Sign-On Letter to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Urging Opposition to a Voucher Proposal Termed “Pell Grants for Kids” | American Civil Liberties Union](<a href=“http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/national-coalition-public-education-sign-letter-senate-committee-health-education-la]National”>National Coalition for Public Education Sign-On Letter to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Urging Opposition to a Voucher Proposal Termed "Pell Grants for Kids" | American Civil Liberties Union)</p>
<p>geo, they’re not doing a better job in many cases. And again, some of us don’t believe that people should profit off the education of our children. (Many of us, actually, as evidenced by the opposition to for-profit colleges on this site).</p>
<p>This discussion is long and goes around and around. So, I’m going to simplify it:</p>
<p>you want to fix schools? Fix poverty.</p>
<p>That’s it.</p>
<p>Yes. And encourage birth control use among people who are not ready to be involved parents to their school-age kids.</p>
<p>Right garland. Like I always say, the only way to educate everyone is to take custody of the kids who aren’t learning. Otherwise, we offer breakfast, lunch, sometimes dinner, medical checkups, dental and hearing screenings, immunization, speech therapy, birth control and so on. The only thing not provided by the state is good parenting.</p>
<p>"you want to fix schools? Fix poverty.</p>
<p>That’s it."</p>
<p>Agree, and it’s a systemic problem with no quick fixes.</p>
<p>I agree with that also.</p>
<p>When each of you, personally, say “fix poverty” specifically what do you mean? What specific things would have to happen or would you have done iin the home lives of the children at issue? No fairy dust or rainbows, please. Concrete specifics.</p>
<p>How about access to family wage jobs, affordable health care, access to grocery stores and public transportation for a start. </p>
<p>Sex education, complete with birth control information for teens and classes on nutrition and cooking. These are all lacking in the communities closest to us.</p>
<p>Here’s something I’ve thought about that irritates me about Matt Damon. His experience as a parent in the school system is about 4 years, probably all in NYC. The way he described standardized testing as something so negative, just doesn’t ring true to my experience as a parent with 20 years experience (more if we count each child separately) in CA schools, both public and private. I guess that just means I disagree with him. His credibility should be suspect, if nothing else.</p>
<p>I am not sure how you can fix poverty, there are a lot of factors.</p>
<p>I agree, if parents are not poor, they can afford to move to a better district, but we also have to understand that better schools are, most of the time, a function of good and involved parents.</p>
<p>Agentninetynine, thank you for answering so seriously. Much appreciated. In my area, all of those things or the equivalent are accessible for the vast majority. What I think is lacking is the culture of valuing and prioritizing education. Those who do succeed and those who don’t don’t. Being white trash, myself, I am very aware of the outcomes of kids from families who aren’t poor but don’t care about education or achievement. The kids do as badly as the truly poor. In my area, there is a very generous safety net, but it isn’t possible to bestow values. My community is the home of the largest Liberian community outside of Africa. The people are poor, traumatized from surviving a horrific civil war, but their kids do better in school than other such poor kids because education is very valued in the community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But in the cases in which they do, then are you willing to go back to providing children an inferior education at a higher cost to prevent someone from making a profit. Because that is what you are saying.</p>
<p>Not just fix poverty; fix priorities. Poor people can be good parents. People not poor (by whatever standards) can spend it on consumer goods and not give a hoot about what the kid is up to.</p>
<p>And, there it starts to creep into someone or some entity getting involved- which scares many.</p>
<p>some x-post</p>
<p>A stable family life not beset by parental addiction, violence, mental illness and chronic unemployment.
Examples of adults working and supporting each other.
The ability to provide basic necessities such as meals, heat in winter, steady shelter.</p>
<p>Parents that stress the truly important things that help you succeed in life. Basic learning, keeping to your commitments, the importance of work. the importance of following rules.</p>
<p>Zoosermom: Even though I have witnessed some gut wrenching poverty in Mexico, I never truly understood poverty and its ramification until we moved to rural Oregon.</p>
<p>There are families who live in the hills who until several years ago did not have running water and their homes have dirt floors. Others live in rusted, filthy trailers with no heat.
Others live in town but the homes are rundown, rodent and flea infested. Children aren’t fed except what they get at school. They’re dirty and any health care comes from medical or dental vans. Drug and alcohol use is rampant, especially meth.</p>
<p>Thanks to volunteers and a very savvy nurse, there is now a health care clinic available for kids, but it only covers basic care and hours are limited. There are also a high number of mentally ill adults who receive care, but some just wander the street and many of these folks are at poverty level, too. </p>
<p>These are just a few examples of the real poverty-striken. This doesn’t even cover the working poor who struggle to make ends meet with low paying jobs. </p>
<p>The food bank is stretched beyond its limits, the women’s shelter is always full and hundreds of people show up to the twice weekly community meals cooked by a local church and service organizations. Many kids are now considered homeless, even though it’s not the traditional living on the street variety. They couch surf until they graduate or find some other relative to take them in.</p>