<p>In addition, the dire statistics would not be that different for the previous decade. The uber-selective schools are not suffering, as rarity is an integral part of the attraction and perceived value. In the meantime, what is disappearing are the lower cost options that have served the poorest strata of our population. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it is never a bad idea to read what Mr. Finn has to say, even if not agreeing with much of his discourse. Here’s an example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that our student-teacher ratio has dropped (probably in the same ratio as our student achievement) might come as a surprise to many who see our schools as underfunded and overcrowded.</p>
<p>The fact probably is that in SOME places schools are indeed underfunded and overcrowded. And in some places, notably many cities, they are very well funded but graft and mismanagement means that the $$ are not seen in the classroom.</p>
<p>The growth of administration is certainly a problem at all levels, and even in private universities. Our district runs very lean in that regard, but even they had to hire someone simply to keep up with the increased regulatory burden of NCLB.</p>
<p>I should add that, when we moved here, we could have bought houses on or near the water in places where I would have felt compelled to send my kid to private school, K-12. Instead, we chose to live in a place where we could use the public schools, despite the fact that at the time he was at a private school. We were, of course, lucky to have that choice. Not everyone does. If we were wealthy, we would be able to pick the great spot with the less-good schools, secure in the fact that we would always be able to pay for private, just as Finn suggests.</p>
<p>I hope you realize that you just underscored the point … I was making about the inequities and injustice of the “system.” Obviously, I know that a number of school districts to perform adequately, and others to be abysmal. And, THAT is simply the basic problem of a system that is purported to serve everyone adequately, and devote the resources and interest necessary to accomplish the lofty goals set by a public system of education. Educating some and leaving many in the dust is not exactly what a country like ours should stand for. </p>
<p>Our failures are not measured by how well our best schools perform, but by looking at the masses we leave behind by failing to educate them, or hoping they will drop out. Nor should our success be measured by how well we educate the ones that are easy to educate because of parental support and access to education tools found … outside the four corners of a school. Thirty years ago, we were a Nation at Risk, and one famously posited that “the longer our kids stay in school, the dumber they become.” Superimpose the capacity of parents to complement the education received in school, and you’’ have no problem in finding the direct correlation.</p>
<p>Indeed! Hockaday, St. Marks, Greenhill, or ESD actually thrive when cheaper options are foreclosed. It would not be unusual for a couple of alums to donate a new gymnasium. Jesuit and Cistercian are not as flourishing, but will survice nicely. But how about the survival chances of schools such as Christ the King? And the above is confined to the “golden” areas of the city. What are the chances for smaller schools in poorer urban areas in the South of city? </p>
<p>The rich and selective schools are not dying out, any more than Harvard or Stanford will. The tragedy is happening at the lowest SES levels.</p>
<p>Nope, not a mistake at all. That is the price that a monopolistic system pays for having bargained to educate everyone in exchange of that precise monopoly. </p>
<p>The criticisms could easily be dulled by some form of progress in terms of curbing the inequities or increasing performances. The reality is that the “system” has degenerated for the past sixty years, and is not showing any improvement, and this despite a massive increase in terms of resources. </p>
<p>But heck, it is easier to blame the parents. Especially since it is easily demonstrated that the education starts to fail the students as soon as they are unable to shore up the deficiencies of the daily instruction. Yep, it is their fault!</p>
<p>We will always have a public system of education, and it will always come at a price. Public funds are not free.</p>
<p>What we deserve is a system that is affordable and performing well. And, unfortunately, that is hardly the direction we have been following. Take a closer look at the funding of education, and you will see a model that is starting to fail. Property taxes have reached a natural limit. Bond issues are routinely turned down. Simply stated, the free model of education might not live much longer. Especially, without changes to the inefficiency and corruption of the current model.</p>
<p>
Call me fooled. I thought that it is the usual refrain. What are the chances that I would find a version of “blame the parents” in this thread? Those lines are just as ubiquitous as my “criticisisms” of the “system.”</p>
<p>Let’s not bemoan the death of privates quite yet. During S HS years, his Jesuit school built 3 new buildings…to the tune of 100M. All private donations. Unlike most public sector projects…they will not break ground until 90% of the funding is in the bank.</p>
<p>Oh…about 20% of their student body is on FA.</p>
<p>“Take a closer look at the funding of education, and you will see a model that is starting to fail. Property taxes have reached a natural limit. Bond issues are routinely turned down.” </p>
<p>^That is a matter of priorities and, unfortunately, imo, education just isn’t one of them. We’d rather spend money on tax breaks for the wealthy, “job creators” and war.</p>
<p>I take it you believe there is a lack of “sufficient” funding for public education at the state level because more federal funds are not available to the states?</p>
<p>All true when it comes to priorities. For some spending on defense is incredibly important. Others believe in the power of a trickle-down economy. Considering how hotly debated those issues are, there is not much one can add in terms of definitive answers. This said, is that what we do know is that the US spends a high number of dollars per capita to educate its K-12 students, but a low number in comparison to our GDP. We could (and should) spend more, but not necessarily via the mindless spending of an inefficient system that has grown bloated through administrative spending, and lost track of the necessity of spending more on direct and universal education. There are several elements that could be incorporated such as segregating the cost of special education from the overall local and regional budgets, and transfer the costs to the federal level, when they are truly medical issues. </p>
<p>In the end, most of the game is one of semantics. Private schools will never grab the lion share of our education system, and the public system is not going anywhere. But this does not mean that the one-size-fits-all is working as it should. It is imperative to dedicate more resources towards education, but we should strive to see increased funding channeled to the correct destination, and the place to start is by reevaluating the percentage and level of salaries paid to a truly professionalized group of teachers, who come to the profession with adequate education and training. The current model of trying to attract lowly paid new teachers to compensate for the excessess of “tenured” teachers is shortsighted at best. </p>
<p>It will take more money, but the money needs to be spent much better than it has been for decades. And it will take a different form of taxation and funding sources.</p>
<p>“and the place to start is by reevaluating the percentage and level of salaries paid to a truly professionalized group of teachers, who come to the profession with adequate education and training.”</p>
<p>I agree with this, but it would have to be quite high for me to agree about getting rid of tenure. I would also like to see no class size be larger than 10 students.</p>
<p>And is it necessarily a “tragedy?” I don’t know. My kids attended a non “uber elite” private elementary school. It could easily have gone the way of some of the other privates being described, but current and past families feel so passionate about this school that they have not only saved a school which shouldn’t really have made it (it only goes through 4th grade and then kids must scatter to find spots at other privates which started at preschool and thus usually have few openings), it continues to thrive and give a great start and love of learning to its students. If a Christ the King sputters, what is the reason for that, as it serves a community similar in SES as the secular school my Ds attended; in fact many of my Ds classmates also had siblings at CTK and similar other Catholic schools. What is lacking? I’m removed from that world now (and never knew much about parochial schools anyway) and don’t know what has changed.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is why the evolution model will not work, and that a drastic change will be needed. Simply stated, the vested interests will not make the necessary concessions. The reason why no progress is made is because the forces that control our education system want to see the current situation to continue, and this to the bitter end.</p>
<p>Hoping for better wages, smaller classes, the continuation of the low education model with expected higher wages through mere tenure is none other than a pipe dream. And so is the model of doing a lot less for more pay. </p>
<p>We need to pay our teachers more, but not necessarily the ones we currently have created and protected.</p>