Barack Obama on public education:
In fact, his only proposal seems to be recycling tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice. Now, I’ve been a proponent of public school choice throughout my career. I applaud AFT for your leadership in representing charter school teachers and support staff all across this country, and for even operating your own charters in New York. Because we know well-designed public charter schools have a lot to offer, and I’ve actually helped pass legislation to expand them. But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.
Yet:
Obama’s daughters attend the University of Chicago Laboratory School, a private school.
Hmmm.
Indeed, we shouldn’t have public vouchers because only the children of rich lawyers deserve a good education. Bah
Sigh. Go here.
I'm not arguing that he's hypocritical for voting against voucher programs.
I'm arguing that he's hypocritical for lecturing the rest of us not to walk away from public schools while he personally is doing exactly that.
You are aware that he's not arguing to shut down private schools, only that public taxpayer funds not be used to support them, right? And you are also aware that because he taught at the University of Chicago, it's dramatically more affordable for him to send his daughters there, right? And you are also aware that pupils in Chicago receive roughly half the funding per student when compared to their suburban counterparts, right?
Keep peddling private schools as the answer and follow that argument to its logical conclusion. So what comes next? Private roads? Private sources of water? Private police and fire departments?
"You are aware that he's not arguing to shut down private schools, only that public taxpayer funds not be used to support them, right? And you are also aware that because he taught at the University of Chicago, it's dramatically more affordable for him to send his daughters there, right? And you are also aware that pupils in Chicago receive roughly half the funding per student when compared to their suburban counterparts, right?"
Yes, yes, and yes. But he's still lecturing the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while doing just that himself.
It seems to me that you're arguing (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's reasonable for him to think that Chicago Public Schools aren't the best choice for his own children. Is that correct?
"It seems to me that you're arguing (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's reasonable for him to think that Chicago Public Schools aren't the best choice for his own children. Is that correct?"
I am arguing that he's doing what's best as a parent in his position -- acknowledging that the local, chronically underfunded schools in his neighborhood need improvement. But in the short term, he was fortunate to have a viable alternative for his children. That doesn't mean we should all aspire to be in such a position where a private, more costly alternative is a better choice as a parent -- it means we should fix what's broken in the first place.
"But he's still lecturing the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while doing just that himself." He's not "walking away" from public schools by sending his girls to private schools. He's advocating for improvement in public schools (especially when taking into account his support for more charter schools) across the board, while doing what was best as a parent in his position.
Again, I'd ask -- what's the logical conclusion of using public taxpayer money to fund private alternatives for those who apply for vouchers?
The logical conclusion is there are no public schools, and everyone gets a voucher to spend at private schools. Some will supplement this voucher, some will not be able to afford to do so. And the AFT membership is crushed.
"He's not "walking away" from public schools by sending his girls to private schools."
I disagree. That's exactly what he's doing.
So I guess you'd attack him if he suggested that there was a bad neighborhood in town that should be cleaned up if he didn't immediately pick up and move to that neighborhood?
Do NOT criticize the "Messiah" He is infallible and knows it all! Just ask the media, they were doing everything but throwing underwear at Him on His road trip, 97 days to the rapture!
"The total, yearly expenditures divided by the total students brings a cost of about $10,500 per student in Chicago public schools, as opposed to $7,800 per student for Chicago Catholic secondary schools."
What Would A School Voucher Buy? The Real Cost Of Private Schools
He's saying that our money should go toward fixing public schools rather than giving it to private schools through vouchers. I don't see what that has to do with where he sends his kids to school based on his own situation.
"So I guess you'd attack him if he suggested that there was a bad neighborhood in town that should be cleaned up if he didn't immediately pick up and move to that neighborhood?"
No, but I would criticize him if he lectured us to "not walk away" from the neighborhood while simultaneously moving his family out.
"He's saying that our money should go toward fixing public schools rather than giving it to private schools through vouchers. I don't see what that has to do with where he sends his kids to school based on his own situation."
Ah, yes. The inevitable translation explaining that Obama didn't really mean what he said, but rather meant something else entirely.
I recognize his argument against funding vouchers. I'm not criticizing him for being hypocritical how he's paying for private schools - he can afford to give his kids the best possible education, and he happens to think that's not at a public school, and I'm in to position to disagree with his parental decision.
I'm criticizing him for telling the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while he personally is doing just that.
For the record, Chicago Public Schools has the budget where they spend $11,673 per student.
Naperville Community Unit School District 203 spends $10,905.
That's from quick math from their websites and their budgets. Both provided "round numbers" for the number of students. I couldn't find the quick ISBE spreadsheet that lists per-pupil spending per district, if I can find it I will post it, but it sheds light on the unmitigated amount of BS on the claims that Chicago is so dramatically underfunded ZONOESWEREALLGONNADIE!!!!!!!111!!1
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.
So you're saying that
"We shouldn't spend public money on private school vouchers, thus walking away from our public schools"
is a bigger stretch than
"We shouldn't spend public money on private school vouchers, and walk away from our public schools by sending our kids to private schools"
I'm the one saying that Obama meant something he didn't say?
I'm criticizing him for telling the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while he personally is doing just that.
You're interpreting what he said in a way that's not really supportable in context. Individual choices are one thing: societal choices are another. He's speaking of the latter. Your reading ability is colored by your ideology, which leads you to make mistakes like the one you've made here.
I don't think Obama's kids ever went to public schools, so he didn't exactly pull them out right before saying this. I guess next time McCain talks about needing to focus on rehabilitating forgotten parts of Appalachia, he should sell all his mansions and buy a shack in West Virginia.
"I'm the one saying that Obama meant something he didn't say?"
Well, yes. He said, "We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."
You're insisting that the only thing he coud have meant by "throwing our hands up and walking away from them" is embracing vouchers, which is an interesting definition to insist upon.
"You're interpreting what he said in a way that's not really supportable in context. Individual choices are one thing: societal choices are another. He's speaking of the latter. Your reading ability is colored by your ideology, which leads you to make mistakes like the one you've made here."
I'm sorry that I cannot understand Obama's words without translation, and I'm really glad so many of his supporters are willing to tell me that he really didn't mean what he said, but rather something different.
As for your distinction between individual and societal choices, I'm not judging Obama on his family's decision on what is best for their own situation. I'm judging him based on his need to lecture the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while he personally is doing exactly that.
If he wants to lecture us to stay invested in public schools, then he should lead by example. If not, he should avoid trying to tell the rest of us what decisions we should make with our own children. Obama is a perfect example of a great family which should be involved in their public schools, but they have chosen to disinvest and educate elsewhere. It's happening all over Illinois (and I presume nationwide) and here in Champaign, and I think it's one of the biggest problems Unit 4 faces - so many great families with so much talent - families we need to be involved with the school - have already chosen to not be involved. And I don't blame the local families, as I don't blame Obama's family. They have chosen what is best for their own situation. But these local private school families aren't lecturing me to stay involved with the public schools, either.
Obama, a hypocrite? Surely not!
With his kids in private schools, he could care less about the schools that the rest of us have to use.
It's not particularly interesting, it's the exact context of the quote you provided.
There's nothing hypocritical in sending your kids to private school and still thinking that public schools are valuable to society, which is basically what you're arguing.
"There's nothing hypocritical in sending your kids to private school and still thinking that public schools are valuable to society, which is basically what you're arguing."
No. Again, I'm arguing that there is something hypocritical about sending your kids to private schools while lecturing the rest of us not to walk away from public schools.
"there is something hypocritical about sending your kids to private schools while lecturing the rest of us not to walk away from public schools." It's just like AlGore telling us to conserve electricity while using it up at 10 times the rate of a average consumer in His palace in Nashville , "Do as I say, not as I do"
It is hypocritical for politicians to take the position that we should all invest in our public schools, but at the same time take the position that the schools are unsuitable for their own children. Perhaps if politicians were required to send their kids to public schools, they would make sure that public schools were successful.
Caveat--the following comments do not indicate support or non support for Obama, just observations about his comments about education in the USA and the postings on his web site, which this conversation stimulated me to read. In addition, I do not support vouchers because this bandaid approach does not create high standard, equitable public education throughout the USA. So one can probably assume I agree with Obama's statement on this.
There is hypocrisy in the fact that the Obama's send their children to the U. of Chicago lab school, particularly from two perspectives. First, Ray Elementary School (a school I once attended) http://www.ray.cps.k12.il.us/ is and has always been a top notch school in Hyde Park. In fact, this is the heart beat of the community, located not far from the Lab School, and the site of the annual, historic Hype Park Art Show. So there is no absence of a very good, public school within this community.
Second, it is just fine for parents to choose to send a child to a private school AS LONG AS these individuals also work to improve the public school system. (When my children mentioned that they might send their children to a private schools because the public schools were not good enough, my response was run for the school board when they are 2 years old.) This is not what the Obamas have done nor have they worked toward getting quality individuals appointed to the Chicago School Board. Further, Obama did not work to stop the 40 Tax Increment Finance Districts that Daley has established that drain a considerable amount of money from the Chicago school funds. In fact, so much money has been drained that you and I are helping pay for the Chicago schools through our tax dollars.
To apply this to C-U, IP has already made mention of this syndrome existing here. It definitely has for the almost 4 decades of my residency. First, it was send your children to Uni High to escape the problems in the two school districts. Then over time, more and more private schools were put in place, some running under the radar. In addition, retired Unit 4 & 116 faculty began offering home schooling. The last shoe to drop is the out migration to the surrounding communities. During my residency, there has been only 1 member of the Unit 4 school board who was a faculty member in the College of Education--Pete Shoresman. Over this time, there have been several other faculty members on the board. But over all, the escape mechanism has been alternative means of education. This is too bad because one of the most important aspects that contribute to a "livable community" is an outstanding school system.
Now to Obama's statements about education on his web site--these are vanilla pudding. Nothing new, no use of good education pedagogy, no indication of the criteria to be used to choose the secretary of education, bifricated statement about No Child Left Behind--"Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law," but no specifics how to reform the guidelines of the law, and no specifics about any of the umbrella statements posted on the web site.
Pattsi Petrie
I agree entirely. It is hypocritical, but the logical leap that then says that public schools must be destroyed doesn't follow from anything you've posted here.
The problem with CPS schools beyond the normal issues with demographics, family make-up and community violence is that it is run by a Daley appointed and led regime that takes orders from the Commercial Club of Chicago. This is a group that has no interest in the education of children in Chicago, and that's why even though Chicago schools on average receive more money--even accounting for cost of living--than schools in poorer areas of downstate Illinois, none of you can tell me where that money goes.
It doesn't go to kids or supplies or teachers. I don't see how you can blame the AFT. It's not as if the AFT has been at all successful at directing some money that should be going to kids to some overpaid teachers. Quite the opposite--the current leadership of the CTU (Chicago Teachers' Union) is very friendly with the board and has been accused of taking payoffs from the board in exchange for not acting on behalf of its membership or the well-being of children. I blame the CTU for sucking and sacrificing kids and teachers to the Board of Education.
Anyone can do some rough arithmetic with the city school budget. Have you actually looked at the details of the budget? Through TIFs, the city leadership steals millions in state funding money and diverts it to patronage projects in the very richest wards of the city. Do you really think that the money cited in the budget is reaching all schools equally? Look at the schools that the board members send their kids too--those elite publics get most of the money. We barely have any left for books or air conditioning, let alone enough to pay people to be in front of classrooms.
If you get your way, who do you think will be calling the shots in this new charterized, privatized system? The exact same people burning down the current system and producing the current bad educational indicators. You're actually convinced that getting rid of the experienced teachers, and putting in rookies still led by Daley and friends is going to result in better education?
Vallas was the architect for both the Chicago and NOLA systems (and Philly too) and leaped at the chance to fast forward NOLA after Katrina. How's that working out? The new recovery district is leading the country in something: teacher hospitalization.
So yes, Obama is a hypocrite and I'm skeptical he'll do much positive about public education, and if he, like Bill Ayers, sells out public education the same way his cronies have in the city, I'll hate him for it.
So he's not a Messiah. Maybe he's closer to the opposite. But he's still FAR better than the alternative and has my vote.
How has Bill Ayers sold out public education?
"King" Richie Daley, The most corrupt Mayor of the most corrupt city in the most corrupt State. Patronage and the Teachers Union right in the middle of it, That's the "Chicago Way" Obama will be no different, they don't give a damn about the schools, just how much money they can skim steal and give to their cronies, it's been that for years in Chicago and other big cities, Keep reelecting these thieves and that's what you get.
Crap, I must apologize, I got the brothers transposed--I meant John Ayers.
I sure hope you are not referring to long time and current Unit 4 employee John Ayers???
The most remarkable statement Sen. Obama made has not been pointed out yet...
"That begins with recognizing that the single most important factor in determining a child’s achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it’s not who their parents are or how much money they have. It’s who their teacher is." This is the perhaps the fundamental problem of Sen. Obama's views on education - teachers are more important than parents. I shudder to think that any teacher is a more decisive factor in my children's lives than I am.
www.catalyst-chicago.org/RUSSO/index.php/entry/303/
"I agree entirely. It is hypocritical, but the logical leap that then says that public schools must be destroyed doesn't follow from anything you've posted here."
You lost me. Where did I make a logical leap to "public schools must be destroyed?"
"I don't see how you can blame the AFT."
I'm not blaming the AFT/IFT. I'm pretty sure that I'm making the argument that we need more involvement in our public schools by talented people like the Obamas, rather than less involvement and more sanctimonious hypocritical lecturing.
If you were responding to someone other than me, then feel free to disregard this comment.
I was responding to RSWB and some of other folks in the thread.
OK - sorry I butted in! :-)
xian-
You rightly criticize CPS and Chicago-style politics... we probably agree on that. Then why give more money to a corrupt system?
More importantly, why would you support Obama, a product and participant of that same Chicago political culture since 1996? What really makes you believe that a Chicago politician is not simply talking a good game and will deliver the more of the same if elected?
P.S. I'm not precisely a full-throated McCain supporter, k thx.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Because you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because democracy is sucking, doesn't mean we discard it--we work our butts off to repair it.
But you are right--if Daley is siphoning money off to his own private projects and it's not reaching kids, then it's not going to help to just provide him with more money.
However, it's far worse to simply dismantle the public school system because his intentional neglect is choking it. That's his goal in the first place. I mean, if you want to talk about "appeasing the terrorists"...
In the end, most of you follow his agenda lockstep by vilifying the teachers who populate the engineered trainwreck he administers. Sure I haven't burned out, but I understand that those who have are good people and hard-working teachers, who have had the life sucked out of them.
The solution is not to attack teachers and unions. The solution is to attack those who are diverting money away from instruction. Those who are intentionally creating chaos in school environments with mid-year cuts and reconstitutions and closings.
And of course, if you did more research, you'd see how they intentionally reducing the share of Chicago funds going to property taxes to education so that you have to bankroll Chicago schooling, while the property tax funds are going to the mayor and his pet aldermen's projects.
And why do I support Obama? Because I see much of the worst President in my lifetime's policy decisions in McCain. Because I think the Supreme Court is an important group and it's been decimated by that horrendous presidency.
But that's just what we have. A system that ensures we have no decent candidates. It's not just that Obama is better than McCain. He's better than almost anyone else I could imagine actually winning. How depressing.
Um, your criticisms are about Obama not saying that very thing. All the did was Obamas look around and said, "Hey the public schools around here aren't so great. Let's send our kids to the best possible school we can afford. But the public school system is valuable, I think it should be improved rather than disband the system in favor of a voucher system."
Oh, but wait, I forgot. If I don't interpret Obama's words in the worst possible light, then I think he's the Messiah.
Whether the Supreme Court has been decimated depends on your point of view--I'm a strict constructionist, so I think that it's moving in the right direction.
As far as the education system goes, if money were the answer, we'd have a better system than we currently have. If Obama isn't willing to put his own children into the public school system, why should anyone else? And he's had ample opportunity to sponor legislation at the State level to try to fix things here, but as far as I know he hasn't done that. In fact, when I ask people to point out his achievements, I'm told that they consist of things such as being a political organizer, or whatever job he had in Chicago prior to public office. He might be ready to be President at some time in the future, but not now. Rather than being the audacity of hope, I think that he represents the audacity of audacity.
"Um, your criticisms are about Obama not saying that very thing."
No, they're not. For the sixth or seventh time, my criticism is about Obama lecturing the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while he personally has done exactly that. I never mentioned destroying public schools, and never said that Obama had anything to do with destroying public schools.
Why do you keep trying to refute criticisms that nobody is making?
I shudder to think that any teacher is a more decisive factor in my children's lives than I am.
In your case, I'd guess that you are a more decisive factor in your child's life. Great, or even good, parents are really important. But the research has shown that producing high test scores really comes down to a small number of factors, and great teachers are at the top of the list - above even great parents.
In other words, kids from wrecked homes can go on to become great students because of great teachers. Kids from great homes can learn to hate school because of bad teachers. The teaching profession is extremely important.
I take issue with Obama's endorsement of charter schools as the answer to public school problems. Charters have had mixed results, at best. The research just doesn't support the idea that more emphasis on charter schools will produce higher test results.
And let's keep in mind here that, tragically, the only thing that matters in 21st century public education is test results. The first candidate that comes out against high stakes standardized testing is going to get my vote.
But I'm not holding my breath.
For the sixth or seventh time, my criticism is about Obama lecturing the rest of us to not walk away from public schools while he personally has done exactly that.
Right, but what everyone is trying to articulate here is that choosing to send the kids to U of C's Uni is not the same thing as walking away from the public schools. I get the feeling you're not going to concede the point, but it seems pretty clear to me that Obama is focused on repairing public schools instead of abandoning the ship by pushing vouchers and a defunding of public education. Even if he must acknowledge that sending his kids into the CPS is not in their best interest, that doesn't mean he isn't dedicated to public education, and willing to do what it takes as a government official to try to fix it.
There are a lot of ways to criticize Obama's education policy (why doesn't he just scrap NCLB, for example? - very disappointing), but this is just trivial nonsense.
"Right, but what everyone is trying to articulate here is that choosing to send the kids to U of C's Uni is not the same thing as walking away from the public schools. I get the feeling you're not going to concede the point, but it seems pretty clear to me that Obama is focused on repairing public schools instead of abandoning the ship by pushing vouchers and a defunding of public education."
I'm not going to concede the point, because I think "not walking away" from public schools involves more than just being opposed to vouchers.
"There are a lot of ways to criticize Obama's education policy (why doesn't he just scrap NCLB, for example? - very disappointing), but this is just trivial nonsense."
It's not trivial to me, as someone who has to make a choice in a few years between public and private schools for our own child.
I was responding to RSWB and some of other folks in the thread.
I was just answering the question about taking the position to its logical conclusion. Does public education HAVE to be destroyed? No, not necessarily in my opinion.
I favor some experiments on the edges - lets make some vouchers available to some poor kids in big districts - like, oh, Chicago. See how it goes. See what the parents think - run some studies.
Well, you must not be familiar with the current movement from inner-city parents. They're not too happy to have their kids as part of educational experimentation. Funny how that works--you never hear about how we need to subject the kids at New Trier to ridiculously unresearched educational methods.
Thank God we have poor minorities so we can do our syphilis, I mean educational research.
Why not look at you own community's model--the historical precedent before the university got cheap was to use the faculty's own kids for guinea pigs, and strangely enough, when it was their own kids, the experiments seemed to turn out better...
Give me my tax dollars...I'll decide where to educate my children.
Well, I guess parents in Chicago are different than those in D.C., who love the opportunity to get away from the public schools there:
Nice quote from Ms. Spellings, the Bush Administration's Secretary of Education. One would think that one could trust such amazing antecdotal evidence. Yet a little clicking finds:
Wow. What a success story. The parents perceive that their kids are safer, but kids don't actually feel safer. The parents think their kids are more satisfied, but the kids don't report being more satisfied.
Kind of like voucher programs in a nutshell: they seem like a good idea, but even the slightest bit of research reveals that they make very little difference, except to continue the destruction of public education (which, of course, is the point).
Obama’s daughters attend the University of Chicago Laboratory School, a private school
Obama himself attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. Would he have had the same opportunties open to him if he had been educated in the public school system? He has the resources and the means to educate his kids privately and it may be that a private institution is a safer environment for a senator and presidential candidate. If I was in his position I wouldn't want my kid to be in public school because of the possibility of kidnapping risks.
Does anyone else see the irony in pointing to parents flocking to charter schools in systems that were destroyed by the same administrators and CEOs who are now administering the charter systems?
It's not that complicated. If you want charter schools, all you have to do is make the public schools horrible enough that people will hope for anything different. It doesn't even have to be a better alternative (and according to the research I've seen, it's not).
It's the same way that if you are hungry enough, you'll probably eat anything.
Xian wrote:
Well, you must not be familiar with the current movement from inner-city parents. They're not too happy to have their kids as part of educational experimentation.
Then came back with:
Does anyone else see the irony in pointing to parents flocking to charter schools in systems that were destroyed by the same administrators and CEOs who are now administering the charter systems?
Nice consistency.
As to the results of the experiment, I just read the Exec summary from the US Dept of Ed. As D. Boon points out, the biggest successes were in parental perception and parental satisfaction. There was no academic improvement for those using the scholarships. In the spirit of the experiment, they should give it a few more years. If there continues to be no acedemic difference - scrap the program.
That is how experiments in gov't should work - you try something new, and if it doesn't work, you end the program.
I was certain that Xian would have commented on Marti Wilkerson's posting. If one takes Ms. Wilkerson's posting to a logical conclusion several points drop out: 1) only people who have the advantage of attending a private school will succeed; 2) everyone who perceives that there may be danger to their child/children by attending a public school therefore ought to send the child/children to a private school; 3) if #1 & #2 have logical merit, I now understand why those of us educated through public education have such a low success factor and why the majority of public schools "stink" because all of those parents who REALLY care about their children are not involved in improving public schools because this does not benefit their child/children. As an aside, I am certain that Obama's children have protection so being kidnapped probably is not an issue. And why is there a guarantee that it might not be an issue in a private school?
Pattsi Petrie
That is how experiments in gov't should work - you try something new, and if it doesn't work, you end the program.
Ah, if only everyone were this rational. Let me give you my two cents on education. Many people believe that private schools are superior to public schools. I am not sure where this generalization originates, but there is definitely some truth to it in some situations. I know in Chicago, for example, when we came up going to a parochial school was mandatory. Only "those people" went to public schools. Yet when the family moved out to the suburbs everyone went to the public schools and did quite well. They were good schools.
So the equation is not as simple as: kids need to go to private schools to fix education. It won't work. Today, almost all private schools have a selection committee which is charged with weeding out the kids who don't deserve to be in that school. Often, those kids include discipline problems, special education students with complex IEPs, kids from low SES families, and many ESL learners. Thus, the private school begins its day without the most challenging students that public schools must educate every day. Furthermore, private schools have the added benefit of being able to charge tuition. Thus, if little Johnny sticks his tongue out at little Suzy at lunch, Mom can say "Your Father and I are not paying $15K a year to have you get suspended!". Leverage. In education it is a beautiful thing.
Lastly, the data on private schools is paltry, at best. In an earlier thread I mentioned that Judah Christian School no longer posts their ISAT and SAT scores for the public. This is the case with most private schools. Discipline problems are quietly handled outside the limelight because they are a private institution that the media rarely hears of the problems. Compare that with public schools, where a kid vomiting after lunch turns into a week-long investigation of the cafeteria lunch staff on your 10:00 p.m. news.
My point is that public schools do an incredible job every day with the hands they are dealt. And we just don't really know all that much about what goes on in private schools because they are under no obligation to tell the community anything. I think the equation: vouchers = private schools = better education is flawed for many reasons. But mostly because private schools will do no better (in fact, probably much worse) with all of the kids than public schools are already doing.
I have a young daughter and my family just moved to a new house to be closer to Leal School in Urbana. We are excited that our daughter will be able to walk to that school every morning and enjoy one of the best educational settings in this town, if not the state. There is great public education in this town and across America and it is the result of millions of hardworking students, teachers and even administrators who go to work every morning to make the world a better place. It would be wise to start looking closely and soberly at what is really happening in education today instead of clinging to antiquated paradigms that dictate public as bad and private as good (and vice versa).
Have a great day!
I think the equation: vouchers = private schools = better education is flawed for many reasons.
the reason vouchers are seen as a hope is because of the introduction of competition. Competition spurs innovation, in a fight for customers and profit. Private schools that don't do any better for their customers won't attract customers (at least in the long run).
Let me also add that some of the desire for private schools/vouchers is the "values" part of education, including religion. The values taught at private schools make them "different "than public schools, whether they do a better job at teaching reading or not. And, as we see at the supermarket, people have different preferences for almost everything.
Well, competition might breed innovation in the marketplace (though let me add that much of the most important innovation of the last 60 years has come from the government, especially the Pentagon and NASA), but then you are falling into the trap (imo) of believing that children and people can be dealt with the same way we deal with widgets, automobiles, or celery.
Kids are strange, and almost impossible to pigeonhole. A "one size fits all" approach, which works so well in the marketplace, is usually disasterous in the schools.
As for values, I won't quibble there. I would only add that values are best handled in the home and school should be a place to learn. If you want your kids to believe in Jesus then I'd suggest praying with them daily, taking them to church, small groups, camps, etc. But do them the favor of giving them the best educational opportunities available. And if you choose that path, remember that private schools are often no better (or even much worse) than the public school just down the block.
And, at the end of the day, being forced to work and learn with students from a variety of backgrounds is probably not only good values but also good training for the workplace. Placing a child in a safe, sheltered environment where their own beliefs are only supported, never challenged, is not the best way to prepare your children for the real world - where they will inevitably have to learn to work with and respect people with whom they disagree.
But that is just my take, and obviously many people disagree. Which is fine! I just wish many of the people who routinely bash the public schools on this blog and elsewhere would take the time to walk the halls, talk to the teachers, and see what is really happening every day. That would be change, imo, and welcome change at that.
Cheers!
"A "one size fits all" approach, which works so well in the marketplace, is usually disasterous in the schools."
Well, I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that I disagree with this characterization of the marketplace. To me, the marketplace is all about every individual being able to choose what option appeals most to their wants and needs.
"One size fits all" doesn't describe any marketplace with which I'm familiar, and in fact is a more apt description of public education than anything market-based.
A "one size fits all" approach, which works so well in the marketplace, is usually disasterous in the schools.
No, "one size fits all" does not work in the marketplace. How many different kinds of salad dressing can you buy? How many different option packages can you get for your Chevy Malibu? Voucher advocates see public school as the "one size fits all" approach. The only option you have in most districts, if you don't like that approach, is to move.
To me, the marketplace is all about every individual being able to choose what option appeals most to their wants and needs. ... How many different kinds of salad dressing can you buy? How many different option packages can you get for your Chevy Malibu?
This is not the marketplace I am familiar with. If I want salad dressing, I have maybe 10 choices. I do not have "whatever option appeals most to my wants or needs". I have what is on the shelf.
Which can be adequate. I don't need 32 different types of salad dressing. Unfortunately, in one day, a grade school teacher may see 32 different kids. A high school teacher might teacher 130 different kids. They are all incredibly different, each one. They cannot be properly educated using the same methods that work for salad dressings or Chevys.
The argument here isn't that public schools are more "one size fits all" than private schools. The argument is that a business model approach to education doesn't work because kids are not widgets, or bottles of salad dressing. Even if the marketplace did provide all the options I could ever want, it would still not be an effective model to transfer to the education of children.
There a probably good reasons to support vouchers. But saying that a marketplace solution that has worked so well for cell phones will also work in schools is not one of them.
US colleges compete for students
"This is not the marketplace I am familiar with. If I want salad dressing, I have maybe 10 choices. I do not have "whatever option appeals most to my wants or needs". I have what is on the shelf."
Really? Where do you shop that you're so limited? My local grocery store has at least ten flavors in each of five brands, with low-fat, no-fat and sugar-free options. Not even close to "one size fits all," and the same general principle applies to toilet paper, automobiles and even housing.
"But saying that a marketplace solution that has worked so well for cell phones will also work in schools is not one of them."
Actually, the argument is that most parents know what is best for their children, and if given options most parents will choose what is best for their children. Why not give them options, rather than forcing them into "one size fits all?"
As RSW points out, choice and competition are already factors in higher education, and it has hardly "destroyed" the higher education system in America. Rather, higher ed is thriving, and is a magnet for citizens from other countires. Why is it OK for a 19-year-old (and their family) to have a choice in education but not an 17-year-old?
As RSW points out, choice and competition are already factors in higher education, and it has hardly "destroyed" the higher education system in America. Rather, higher ed is thriving, and is a magnet for citizens from other countires. Why is it OK for a 19-year-old (and their family) to have a choice in education but not an 17-year-old?
What higher ed system are you looking at? Increased costs have destroyed the merit based entrance system of higher ed. Most students can no longer afford to attend the best college they earn entrance into. Tuition costs have lapped inflation again and again, and most schools have switched to a business model where attracting the most talented students is neglected in favor of attracting those with money.
I guess your question is "Why is it ok for a rich 19 year old (and their famous legacy family) to have great choice in education than other 19 year olds, but we can't implement the same system to choke what little choice 17 years old have left?
"Most students can no longer afford to attend the best college they earn entrance into."
Really? I've not seen any studies on this, but my personal experience, both for myself and for friends and family, runs directly counter to this.
"I guess your question is "Why is it ok for a rich 19 year old (and their famous legacy family) to have great choice in education than other 19 year olds, but we can't implement the same system to choke what little choice 17 years old have left?"
What little choice do 17-year-olds have left?
My local grocery store has at least ten flavors in each of five brands, with low-fat, no-fat and sugar-free options. Not even close to "one size fits all," and the same general principle applies to toilet paper, automobiles and even housing.
Sorry. I was thinking about ranch vs. italian vs. thousand island vs. uh ... whatever else there is.
Actually, the argument is that most parents know what is best for their children, and if given options most parents will choose what is best for their children. Why not give them options, rather than forcing them into "one size fits all?"
Well, public education is not designed around a free market mentality. Public education has been with us almost from the start of the country, and was envisioned by the founders as essential for a vibrant, healthy democracy. It is essential (imo) that all children are given an excellent education.
Which, I would argue, is happening today in most public schools. If we introduce the idea of "options" or "choices" into education that will create a marketplace where some students (wealthiest) will receive the best education and other students (poorest) will receive the worst education. Unlike the current system which, I would argue, is funded poorly because of the funding structure, "free market" education would guarantee inequality forever. There is no way around it - it would be set in stone that some would get a better education than others because they can afford it.
Or, to put it in market terms, I don't really care what kind of salad dressing you use. It doesn't affect me. You could spend $20 for a bottle of imported Italian, or $2 for a bottle of ranch. Who cares?
But with education, if most people are only leaving school with a $2 education then that will most definitely affect me. So we must do our best to make sure that everyone gets the best education possible in the public forum.
But that's just my two cents. Thanks for the discussion about an actual campaign issue. It is a nice change of pace. ;)
If we introduce the idea of "options" or "choices" into education that will create a marketplace where some students (wealthiest) will receive the best education and other students (poorest) will receive the worst education.
But that is exactly what we have now. The rich students already can get out of bad public schools, and the poor are stuck.
"Well, public education is not designed around a free market mentality. Public education has been with us almost from the start of the country, and was envisioned by the founders as essential for a vibrant, healthy democracy. It is essential (imo) that all children are given an excellent education."
What part of this is incompatible with choice?
"Which, I would argue, is happening today in most public schools. If we introduce the idea of "options" or "choices" into education that will create a marketplace where some students (wealthiest) will receive the best education and other students (poorest) will receive the worst education. Unlike the current system which, I would argue, is funded poorly because of the funding structure, "free market" education would guarantee inequality forever. There is no way around it - it would be set in stone that some would get a better education than others because they can afford it."
As some people are getting a better education right now because they can afford it, but at this point only the wealthiest have any choices. Why are you in favor of maintaining a system in which only the wealthiest have any choices?
As some people are getting a better education right now because they can afford it, but at this point only the wealthiest have any choices. Why are you in favor of maintaining a system in which only the wealthiest have any choices?
Well, these are pretty disappointing responses. The wealthy have choices now but many choose to send their kids to great public schools. You guys do understand that schools like New Trier, Stevenson, even Whitney Young are some of the best high schools in the world, right? And everybody in the Stevenson district is entitled to an education at Stevenson.
With vouchers you will create a system of schools in which a school like Stevenson will be out of the reach of most of the people in the country. It might be helpful to stop thinking about vouchers from a city perspective. Yes, it would be a hell of a bus ride for a kid on the south side to treck it up to New Trier every day if he or she could afford it with the
golden ticketvouchers you would provide. But I guess one could do it.But think about the kid in Beardstown, Illinois. If you take away the funding for the school and send everyone vouchers, where is that kid going to spend his? Where is the thriving private school marketplace outside of Beardstown?
You already know this. This topic has been discussed several times before. If you create a marketplace for primary and secondary education that marketplace will price the best education out of the reach of most of our students. And the ones who most need improved schools will end up in a worse situation - really, really, really underfunded public schools and nowhere to cash in that
golden ticketvoucher.In America everyone is entitled to a public education from ages K-12. It has been that way pretty much forever and it has helped America become the superpower we are. Disengaging from that social contract is not what is needed to improve our schools.
"Well, these are pretty disappointing responses. The wealthy have choices now but many choose to send their kids to great public schools. You guys do understand that schools like New Trier, Stevenson, even Whitney Young are some of the best high schools in the world, right? And everybody in the Stevenson district is entitled to an education at Stevenson."
I never said that public schools can't be excellent. In fact, I recently moved specifically so my child could have access to what I consider to be excellent public schools. So please stop acting as if I'm advocating choice because I'm anti-public education. I'm in favor of choice because I think enabling families to choose what is best for them will spur improvements in public schools, not destroy them.
"If you create a marketplace for primary and secondary education that marketplace will price the best education out of the reach of most of our students."
Only if you intentionally structure it that way, or if you need to imagine it being structured that way so that you can argue choice will destroy public education.
Is there anything else where you feel like giving the end users of a service too many choices is a bad thing for the end user?
"In America everyone is entitled to a public education from ages K-12. It has been that way pretty much forever and it has helped America become the superpower we are. Disengaging from that social contract is not what is needed to improve our schools."
Again, nobody is arguing for a policy which only allows public education for some kids. Why are you imagining that anyone is making this argument? And why are you arguing against something that nobody is advocating?
Again, nobody is arguing for a policy which only allows public education for some kids. Why are you imagining that anyone is making this argument? And why are you arguing against something that nobody is advocating?
My understanding of proposed voucher programs is that they will give families the tax dollars that would normally go to public schools and allow them to spend those dollars in private schools. Is that also your understanding?
If that is the case, then we will presumably see drastic funding problems in the public schools, which will make their already over-stretched budgets hurt even more.
In my opinion, that will spell a death knell for the public school systems in America. And, like automobiles, some families will be able to afford the "Lexus" education for their children while others will be stuck with either underfunded public schools or the "used car" education that their paltry vouchers will provide. Tuition at a really great private school can run upwards of 10-30K a year. A $7K voucher is hardly going to be enough to buy into the best schools. Those best schools will hire the best teachers from the public schools, leaving the crappy teachers for the cheaper schools. And on and on until you have drastic inequalities.
And what of the rest of the taxpayers who pay property taxes to the school district but don't have kids in the schools. Do they get their taxes back as well?
Vouchers are full of problems and I could honestly go on for another hour about this stuff. But at the fundamental level you are talking about steps that will essentially destroy public education and the social contract that goes along with it. Things like public education are fragile, but important elements of our society. We can tinker with how they are run, but once we start attacking the fact that they are run at all we are playing in dangerous waters.
Again, just my opinion. Apologies for an misrepresentations I have created.
But at the fundamental level you are talking about steps that will essentially destroy public education and the social contract that goes along with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but public schools will only be destroyed to the extent that parents decide that some private school alternative is a better option for their children. You are correct to point out that in many places there are currently no private school options. This would suggest that all people, at least immediately after vouchers are issued, would continue to attend the public school. Once vouchers are a reality, some private schools may form, and some children may leave the public school for the private school... again, only as their parents believe the private school is a better option for their children. I agree there will always be rich parents who can buy their children a better education. Maybe you don't know, but that's the case right now. Professors send their kids to Countryside even though they don't get a voucher. At least if poor parents were given vouchers, the gap between what they can spend on education and what professors can spend won't be as great.
...the gap between what they can spend on education and what professors can spend won't be as great.
Maybe, though I would add that a lot of professors (are these people considered wealthy now?) send their kids to the public schools and are quite happy about it. What is more interesting to me is this idea of where the money for the vouchers comes from. I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe Urbana spends about $6.5K on instruction for each student every year. But for argument's sake, let's include total operating expenses and say it is 10K a year per pupil.
Where does that money come from? My family pays property taxes of around $4K a year. But my best friend's family lives in a home where they are only paying around $2K a year. So ... do I get a $4K voucher while my friend gets a $2K voucher? Or do we both get $10K vouchers, even though that is a net gain of $6K for me and $8K for my friend? And if we get a $10K voucher, how are my elderly neighbors with no kids in the district supposed to feel about supporting my kid's choice to go to Judah and learn that dinosaurs are a myth perpetuated by Satan?
Public schools have many faults. I could spend hours listing and detailing them for you. I probably have a better grasp of what is wrong with public education than the next guy. But in the end, we pay for our schools because they are our schools. It says Urbana High School on the front. The football games are for everyone. The plays are well attended by members of the community and there is a general ownership that is felt by the community toward their schools. Most citizens without kids in the schools pay their taxes and don't gripe (much) about it because they understand that public education is essential for the well-being of the community.
If you design voucher programs that will dole out tax dollars to be spent in the private sphere then you are essentially destroying those public institutions. Creating a fair voucher system is hard enough, getting people to enjoy paying $6K in taxes yearly so my kids can go to countryside instead of the public elementary school is going to be impossible. Because it will be a sign that we have given up on the social contract: that we are all in this together, to do the best for our children.
All I have ever advocated on this blog is that people become more involved with the public schools. That is all it would really take to make them better. More mentors, more tutors, more attendance at extra-curricular activities. These are our schools and we should take pride in them instead of trying to find ways to destroy them bit by bit.
Cheers!
Vouchers could be the perfect vehicle to change school funding. Goodbye local property taxes, hello state issued voucher. If the local school district gets the kids, they get the money.
(Property rich school districts would complain - for sure - drastic change is almost impossible politically.)
"And if we get a $10K voucher, how are my elderly neighbors with no kids in the district supposed to feel about supporting my kid's choice to go to Judah and learn that dinosaurs are a myth perpetuated by Satan?"
I do happen to have the numbers in front of me:
2007 Urbana District 116
Budget : 46407527 Students:5548 cost per student:8364.73
2007 Unit 4
Budget: 81005057 Students: 9248 cost per student: 8759.20
St Judah
Tuition: 5352 for a high school student (most expensive to educate)
How about the elderly neighbors who are Christian and think evolution is bunk? What if 99% of the community you live in thinks evolution is bunk? Do they have the right to use their political brute force to teach your child that it is bunk? Alternatively, would you rather be able to choose how your child is taught?
No one here is against "choice". We just know the reality of "choice". After all, most of the kids in the state are already under a "choice" doctrine executed by the same people who are promising you this new "choice" doctrine.
How's that working out? If you don't know, please ask, as I get to see how choice works out everyday for the caring parents who shuffle their kids around the city schools.
We already have the new "choice" in effective in Chicago and New Orleans. I've seen those results too--the kids without financial backing and/or involved parents are left with schools with no resources--in some cases, no desks or classrooms.
Should people be able to send their kids whereever they want? If the parents are lacking, should the kids be aided in selecting their own schools? Absolutely!
It's not fair to chastise people who spend their lives fighting for these very opportunities for ALL children because we don't sign on to your harebrained schemes that aren't even of your own designs--they were conceive by the Commercial Club of Chicago to run roughshod over the children of the state. We've already explained why those plans won't work and in many cases, ALREADY don't work.
And then you try to paint us as fighting for the status quo because we are lazy and fat off the current system. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND? I don't read about the trials of the current system in the newspaper and make little snide quips about it. I see the worst of it everyday. I fight tooth and nail risking my livelihood and career to try to win some change that will make things better for the kids. I'm seen a half dozen magic bullet plans get rammed through and seen no delivery on the promises made--just more opportunism and exploitation of kids.
And now, I'm the bad guy because I don't think you should be able to experiment with already disasterous educational policies on the poorest children?
Lets play with the math a little more.
Will we defund public schools? This is a legitimate concern.
Please look at the numbers for our community above. I have shown that a high school child can be privately taught for 5-6k a year, an elementary child for around 3k. The public schools are spending 8-9k here.
You would not give a full 9k voucher. You would give an elementary child 3k and a high school child 6k. This leaves 2-3k per year for a high school child and 5-6k a year per elementary child that the school district would keep for….. not schooling the child. These “additional funds” could be used for the children who choose to stay in the “defunded schools”.
In addition there could be a sliding scale based on income. A lower income family might get a voucher for 6k and a wealthy one 2k.
“I fight tooth and nail risking my livelihood and career to try to win some change that will make things better for the kids. I'm seen a half dozen magic bullet plans get rammed through and seen no delivery on the promises made--just more opportunism and exploitation of kids.
And now, I'm the bad guy because I don't think you should be able to experiment with already disasterous educational policies on the poorest children?”
As I have walked through the poor parts of Champaign and Urbana there is a sense in the community that public schools are failing their children however there is some loyalty to the public schools system.
You admit that there is a problem and that you are risking your livelihood for change but only suggestions of choice are some sort of crazy experiment. I’m not sure what can be worse then what we are currently doing buy I am not disregarding your concern. I realize that there are children whose parents may not be involved and will take the path of least resistance. That is why we don’t destroy public schools but make them more agile because they will have to truly compete.
I suppose at some point food stamps were also some sort of experiment on the poor but it also was always seen as a way of helping them. I see this as the same thing. Could you imagine the outcry if vouchers were given to only the wealthy to “experiment on”? I believe that outcry would be justified.
The reality is that the public sector could not all of a sudden take a huge influx of new students. So any voucher system would have to be implemented gradually. So who do we give these vouchers to? To the wealthy Obama’s and McCain’s of the world who are already sending their children to private schools or those who could if they wanted to? No, you empower those who have been disenfranchised from good schools by the misfortune of living in an area that they can afford.
Or you could actually do research instead of just slapping together a plan to politically exploit the public sentiments on education without improving anything. Change is not what bothers me. I've got two-dozen major ways I'd love to change the school system. I just don't want half-baked plans. I've already seen what those do to kids.
Just so you don't think I'm spouting hollow rhetoric:
1) Shift the focus away from high stakes testing scores toward concrete skill gains.
2) Devote resources for teachers to collaborate with parents and students to create a peer evaluation system. Build in safe guards so it's not a popularity contest. Tie retention and tenure to this system.
3) Give more incentives for teachers who get involved in the community and show consistency in quality teaching. Make sure these incentives are not handed out by administration or politicians.
4) Restructure school funding to give communities and teachers more input on budgeting.
5) Move away from property tax based funding.
6) Create a fair share educational funding floor so that areas don't use TIFs to cheat the system. (Obviously 5 and 6 would have to be tweaked if they both went through)
7) Give students more apprenticeship opportunities.
8) Spent union funds on quality professional development instead of perks and salaries for the higher ups in the union.
9) Fund student groups to create a "Student Bill of Rights" establishing a standard of education. Jail administrators that are willfully neglectful.
Could it get worse? Absolutely--I could name another dozen ways to make things MUCH worse. Unfortunately, the powers that be are advocating or implementing a number of these plans.
1) Close neighborhood school and send kids to their deaths across gang lines.
2) Siphon out the students with supportive parents and defund schools and establish high turnover in the schools where the other kids go.
3) Take away any applied study in favor of testing prep.
There's more, but I have to teach today...
Please look at the numbers for our community above. I have shown that a high school child can be privately taught for 5-6k a year, an elementary child for around 3k.
Sure, if you are not under federal mandates to education everyone in the community, including students with mild to severe disabilities. Where is the money set aside for a full-time daily aide for the students in wheelchairs? Where is the money for the special education program, which helps kids with everything from BD to severe handicaps? Where is the $2 million it will cost for transportation every year? Or does "choice" not include those who can't make it to the school on their own every morning?
I can go on. A lot of the money you think is being spent on instruction every morning is really being spent to meet federal inclusion mandates which, imo, is a good thing. Are you allowing for the increase in tuition for the schools that choose to meet these mandates, or are you assuming that they won't bother meeting them and the kids with disabilities can stay home every morning?
I can't imagine a more inefficient way to provide education for everyone in our community than a voucher program. But, as we've seen, ideology often has little to do with facts or realities on the ground. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that education isn't any different.
I thought public schools were a social experiment... They are a pretty recent invention, especially the big factory-model one-size-fits-all conveyor-belt schools, and an obvious failure, when divorced from the tried and true basic unit of society: the family.
"I can't imagine a more inefficient way to provide education for everyone in our community than a voucher program. But, as we've seen, ideology often has little to do with facts or realities on the ground. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that education isn't any different."
I showed above that under a voucher system the public schools would actually get more money per student. That’s really what were talking about here right? Making sure children are taken care of?
Great ideas Xian! If only we were co-dictators, we could fix this world :). I like all your idea with the qualification that property taxes would have to be replaced with an income tax not a regressive sales tax. Unfortunately, this would take control of schools away from the community and give the state more control over them.
I personally believe that enacting your reforms and introducing a voucher system would benefit children in our community immensely.
So Xian what steps can we do in our community to make your ideas a reality?
check this out:
Meeks: Abolish the property tax system
Go Sen. Meeks. Now that is change I can believe in.
This will be twice in three-plus years that Sen. Meeks will have been transparently taken advantage of by Gov. Blagojevich in a very high-profile way.
I showed above that under a voucher system the pub