"Schools to select pupils by lottery"

[tako]

<p>

Plans to use a computer lottery to allocate millions of school places have rebounded humiliatingly on Ministers - and sparked a stampede to private education. </p>

<p>Under a controversial new Admissions Code, places at popular State schools will be awarded at random, without regard to whether a child lives nearby. </p>

<p>It means that children in middle-class areas will no longer gain automatic entry to a local school, but could instead find themselves being bussed to a failing or even notorious school across town. </p>

<p>The scheme is being piloted in Brighton. But parents there have launched an angry rebellion and enquiries to local private schools have risen by more than 100 per cent. Other parents say they will simply move away from the area.

</p>

<p><a href=“Schools to select pupils by lottery | Daily Mail Online”>Schools to select pupils by lottery | Daily Mail Online;

<p>Interesting concept -“to stop families using the housing market to buy access to the best schools.” In my district the housing market is definitely competitive because of access to local schools, but I almost want to say that families that buy these houses at such high prices deserve the education? Yet that’s simply promoting the gap between high achieving and low achieving students because of financial status, which is one of the problems we’re battling against. So perhaps this social equality is a good thing? </p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

[doubleplay]

<p>Kids need to go to school near where they live. Makes it easier for extracurricular, social, sports, arts, after school activities. That’s why we ended up paying more for private school- to keep from having our kids drive over multiple bridges/rivers to get to their school every day and return every night/weekend for sports and music practices.</p>

[jonri]

<p>I like the way the Japanese do it. Kids go to the local school. Every kid takes the same national exams. The worst performing districts are given more money per student by the government. (Japan doesn’t have local control over education.) Most parents still choose to live in the best school district that they can afford, but the government spends less per child in wealthier districts than in the poorest . Of course, most kids in the best districts also attend after school private cram academies. But parents-not government–pay for these.</p>

<p>As a resident of the City of New York, I consider the selective admissions public schools to be one of the best things about living in the City. There are special summer programs which are free and which aim to prepare the best and brightest of the kids from the worst performing elementary schools to take the “Sci High” exam. No matter how poor your family is, if you do well on the exam, you can attend Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Brooklyn Tech. Hunter, Townsend Harris and LaGuardia have different admissions procedures, but, again, they are open to all.</p>

[Princedog]

<p>

but could instead find themselves being bussed to a failing or even notorious school across town.

</p>

<p>Watch out for those notorious schools…?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Once again, equality encroaches on freedom by reducing choice.</p>

<p>What are the benefits of this modern-day busing policy?</p>

<ol>
<li>“Level playing field” through randomness.</li>
</ol>

<p>What are the costs?</p>

<ol>
<li>Transporting the students to more distant schools is not free.</li>
<li>Reduction of freedom by not allowing free choice.</li>
<li>Causing a “flight” phenomena where parents simply leave the public school system and choose private schools.</li>
</ol>

<p>Hmm.</p>

[Chedva]

<p>It will also, by necessity, reduce parental involvement with their children’s school, and it has been shown that student achievement is linked to parental involvement.</p>

[higherlead]

<p>Make it illegal for families making over $100K per year or with over $500K in assets to send their kids to private schools and divvy these kids up amongst the lowest performing schools in their metro area. Allow them to attend the nearest crappy school. </p>

<p>All other families get vouchers that can be used at public or private schools unless either parent ever attended an Ivy in which case they get treated same as the $100K+ families. Count income and assets of divorced or separated spouses or any livein domestic partners when doing the calculation.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Make it illegal for families making over $100K per year or with over $500K in assets to send their kids to private schools and divvy these kids up amongst the lowest performing schools in their metro area. Allow them to attend the nearest crappy school. </p>

<p>All other families get vouchers that can be used at public or private schools unless either parent ever attended an Ivy in which case they get treated same as the $100K+ families. Count income and assets of divorced or separated spouses or any livein domestic partners when doing the calculation.

</p>

<p>I hope you’re joking.</p>

[higherlead]

<p>Why should I joke about something like that? As long as the wealthy can opt out of a system they control it will never get better. From a personal point of view, and living in perhaps the bluest spec of political real estate in America I am flat out fedup with rich liberals creating an unimaginable educatioal mess and blithely consigning every poor and working class kid of every color to it. </p>

<p>If you want 20 million illegal aliens in the country who cannot speak English then send your kid to school with them. But no that is not how it works. Their kid goes to the rich school and does community service i.e. plays Lady Bountiful to the poor louts stuck in the school where 30 languages are spoken. Then because they have so wonderfully exhibited their “personal diversity” and have the right EC’s they go off to some beautifully Ivy covered college with a massive tax-exempt endowment to further develope their already highly refined sense of noblesse.</p>

<p>Meanwhile back at the ranch the kid stuck with Pedro, Muhammad, and Alexi in his cooperative learning environment is busy trying to teach Pedro, Muhammad, and Alexi how to speak English and add, subtract, and divide while the rich kid is taking differential calculus. Then when he applies to college he finds out his SAT’s suck, his course work hasn’t prepared him, and oh yeah he hasn’t done the right community service. I haven’t even touched on Pedro, Muhammad, and Alexi’s problem with this screwed up system yet. But at least folks have a vague notion that they might be underperforming.</p>

<p>When the wealthy start carrying some of the social burden then they can get out of education hell. Until then if I am in charge that is where they would be.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Either you’re really good at satire or you’re one of the most socialist people I have ever encountered. I’ll say the former is true.</p>

<p>In case the latter is true, your proposal constrains freedom by reducing choice. Parents should be given the freedom to decide where to send their children to school. Simply because they are wealthy is not a reason to limit their options.</p>

<p>What’s more, your proposal reduces the incentive for people to pursue high incomes. Who wants to be rich if it means a reduction of freedom? I certainly wouldn’t. You’ll end up assigning vouchers to everyone because no one will desire a six-digit salary.</p>

<p>As a historical reminder, the CCCP dissolved in 1991. Socialism doesn’t work in the real world.</p>

[higherlead]

<p>“your proposal constrains freedom by reducing choice”</p>

<p>My proposal reduces choice for those who currently have one but increases it for all of those who don’t. It is a net plus for freedom. In fact even the wealthy still have a choice. It will just cost them more in that they will have to pay to fix the inequalities in the system so the bad schools are no longer bad.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt my proposal would reduce the demand for six figure salaries. Good schools are not the only perk that comes with money. I suspect what it will do is increase the demand for less inequality between schools. I am firmly in the capitalist class.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Simply because they are wealthy is not a reason to limit their options.</p>

<p>As our incoming superintendent reportedly said at an city luncheon in Charleston.
" You have choices= they’re called private schools"</p>

<p>I can see her point- the wealthy do have more choices-</p>

[idad]

<p>It is interesting how busing is a problem until one’s child is in a program for “gifted children” that takes them clear across town. It is not the bus nor the distance, but where it is taking one’s child that is truly the issue.</p>

[JHS]

<p>Four of the five top-ranked students in my son’s public high school class were born outside the US and not native English speakers. (The shocker was that the #2 person was a native-born WASP – that hadn’t happened in years.) They were almost the precise equivalent of your “Pedro, Muhammad, and Alexi”. Believe me, they were the ones helping my son with math, not the other way around.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I attended suburban public schools that I could walk to ( although I eventually also attended an alternative school in the same district, that I walked to, even though it was almost 3 miles away)
I appreciated the choice of schools- and would have appreciated earlier and more choices even more.</p>

<p>We moved to the city to raise a family, although we were young enough ( early 20’s) that we weren’t cognizant of what impact that decision would have on our family and our kids.
My husband had grown up in two different neighborhoods in the city, and we returned to one of them, as it was familiar ( and affordable)
However- while the district did have choice of schools, and while our neighborhood school was probably better than some, not as good as others, the K teacher suggested we looked elsewhere.
<a href=“she%20eventually%20entered%20a%20private%20school,%20that%20determined%20admittance%20by%20%20iq%20test%20-%20psych%20report,%20&%20interview-%20she%20also%20contributed%20economic%20diversity-%20it%20was%20undoubtably%20in%20her%20favor%20that%20the%20psychologist%20who%20tested%20her%20as%20part%20of%20a%20high%20risk%20infant%20study,%20was%20also%20on%20the%20school%20advisory%20board”>i</a>*</p>

<p>Currently the district has some choices for schools, tiebreakers are distance, & siblings, they are currently waiting for the court decision that will allow them to use race when assigning kids to schools.</p>

<p>They have in the past used waitlists, enabling those to transfer even months after school has started, however that has been all but eliminated, which brings more certainty to the process, but I would think, more frustration as well.</p>

<p>Transportation is a huge expense for districts, some more than others. Our district supplies yellow bus transportation for most K-8 students. When students aren’t attending schools in their neighborhood it takes away dollars that theoretically could have gone into the classroom ( I could also say the same thing about the dollars that have been spent for legal services over the years for race based assignment)</p>

<p>But- when students from a disadvantaged neighborhood, consistently do not do well at their neighborhood school ( or ask to be transferred out, as they can be with NCLB), more needs to be considered than just giving that school extra money ( in the form of local/state/federal grants)</p>

<p>In an attempt to increase economic diversity ( without mandatory assignment), the district has instilled sought after programs in schools that formerly were underenrolled/struggling.
The high school where my daughter ( and my mother) attended- has strong science and music programs, and was the official school of the students who had been in the citys top gifted 1-8th program.
As a result it is very popular.
The high school where my husband attended, now has an International Baccalaureate program. It hasn’t been going for very long, the first IB class hasn’t yet graduated, but already economic diversity ( and racial) has increased as has enrollment.
( since schools don’t get dollars for kids who don’t attend, this also increases funding)</p>

<p>In our city- I have been arguing for assignment for economic diversity,
it is legal-( & it doesn’t have the legal fees associated with fighting for it in court)
it addresses a piece that is directly related to student achievement
at the same time it increases diversity in the community
[and it seems to work](<a href=“http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1332”>http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1332&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

[texastaximom]

<p>We used to live in Rockford IL, which instituted “controlled choice” back in the mid-90s as the result of a desegregation lawsuit. It was a lottery type system, and unfortunately it just ended up costing the tax payers a lot of money and did nothing to desegregate the schools because the people who could move out, did so. The tax issues were further exacerbated by the dual layer of administration, one local, and one overseen by the courts. It caused another lawsuit because tort monies were used to fund the excessive cost of busing, mandatory programs and so forth, which almost bankrupted the school system. They have now achieved “unitary status” and are dumping the choice system, but really nothing was improved.</p>

<p>In the ruling for unitary status, the judge found that if a the population redistributes itself after redistricting, the school district does not have to change the system again…or something to that effect. I think Port St.-Lucie FL had a similar issue. </p>

<p>Charlotte NC used to have “mid-pointing” to deal with the discrepancy in neighborhood schools.</p>

<p>Everywhere we’ve lived the housing market has been tied to the school system.</p>

[PA_Mom]

<p>As someone who was bussed back in the seventies, I can tell you it is not the answer. I was actually bussed to a much nicer school in terms of the facilities, but would have preferred to stay in my neighborhood in my local school. I was forced to give up a sport which I loved because I did not have transportation home after practice ( about a 40 minute drive each way). I was not able to be involved in any other school activities which required time outside of the regular day.
For those that think this is the answer - and seem to have resentment towards those in the affluent areas - think of this side of the story for all kids concerned. The kids that are from the least affluent families are the ones that will have a more difficult time being involved due to transportation issues and will be hurt in many ways.
There has to be a better way.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>We live in NYC and have spent probably over $100k in private school tuition over the years and will be moving our last child into public school this fall so he can be in the best shape to get into a good public high school program. The difference between private schools and the top programs in public schools is staggering. My daughter was offered scholarships to private schools and gained admission to Stuyvesant, but chose the IB program in our local high school. The school is predominantly black, in a terrible neighborhood, and very poor. The principal is an amazing, energetic black woman who wants college for all her kids, so she has grants and partnerships out the wazoo. Every student gets a free SAT prep class for the first three years of high school, as well as an amazing menu of other tutoring and enrichment well beyond what most private schools do (at least for free). She has had very good results. That said, my kid is in the IB program which is over 90% white, in a school that’s about 75% black and hispanic, and the students don’t mix at all. The kids in her program are overwhelmingly middle to upper middle class. I’m not sure how her presence in the school does anything for anyone else. But I’m not that bright.</p>

[mstee]

<p>Forcing people to go to bad schools will make those schools better? Has this ever worked anywhere? Limiting opportunities for those who care about education – what does that accomplish?</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>*Everywhere we’ve lived the housing market has been tied to the school system.
*</p>

<p>I wish</p>

<p>1/4 to 1/3 of the kids who live in Seattle attend private schools/homeschooled.
We have the lowest number of children in any big city except for San Fransisco</p>

<p>Its apparently jobs that are fueling the increased demand ( and prices) for housing in Seattle- however- jobs that you can get with a high school diploma or a year or two of college- even if you have 30 years experience, won’t pay you enough to live there.</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/homevalues2007/2003714481_homevalues20.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/homevalues2007/2003714481_homevalues20.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Our house is reassessed every year, increasing annually about 10% to 15% in value- of course since taxes are dependent on what your property is “worth” that goes up as well.</p>

<p>Too bad our income doesn’t increase with COL ( most recent COLA comes out to less than $1.00 per shift* before taxes* :p)</p>

<p>However- we are happy we didn’t move to farther out in the burbs when we started a family- because transportation costs would be ridiculous!</p>