Mean time some kid could go to a better private school with a little help.
This is a problem. Some might get some help, but others don't. Besides that, vouchers, if they work the way you're saying, they take money out of the public school system and do two things.
One, that money goes into private institutions. That's bad. Two, with less money in the public school system, those poor cases that are stuck in that system have even less resources than before.
Again, if we have a voucher system that lets any kid choose any school and get transportation, then we'll be heading in the right direction. But that system, the only fair voucher system, would be 1000 times more expensive than fixing the public school system.
This is a problem. Some might get some help, but others don't. Besides that, vouchers, if they work the way you're saying, they take money out of the public school system and do two things.
One, that money goes into private institutions. That's bad. Two, with less money in the public school system, those poor cases that are stuck in that system have even less resources than before.
Again, if we have a voucher system that lets any kid choose any school and get transportation, then we'll be heading in the right direction. But that system, the only fair voucher system, would be 1000 times more expensive than fixing the public school system.
When Pell grants go to private colleges is that a bad thing?
Taking money away from a public school isn't bad if the money is intended for education and education isn't occuring.
Schools get an amout per pupil so your assertion that would have less resources is misleading because they would have fewer students to serve as well. If the schools were funded at $10,000 per pupil for 1000 pupils. That is 10 million dollars to educate 1000 children. (Well below what many states spend per pupil BTW) If 250 children leave to a private school the money leaves but they have to service fewer children so the ratio is the same. 750 children and 7.5 million dollars. If they want the children back, they better do something to attract them back educationally.
The voucher system wouldn't be more expensive than fixing public schools because public schools can't be fixed for a number of reasons. First the teachers are not supported and are overwhelmed. What is overwhelming them most often isn't teaching but the multiple roles government declares they must assume basically for free. Private school could choose to teach.
Likewise private schools can be focused in ways that public school could never be allowed to because of equality instead of excellence. Public schools seek to socialize and often produce a very mediocre educational result. Private schools using vouchers could focus early on things like music, dance and the arts and set up specific schools with that in mind. They don't have to worry about if everyone has to participate and what sort of mediocre thing can they do so everyone feels good for doing nothing.
It means they can't make a simple change, like a new principal, without it winding up in court. So why should I think that "school reform" stands half a chance. So this whole "no vouchers, fix the schools" is ... bullshit IMO.
The current situation is no choice. With vouchers they would have choices as to where the could attend school.
Like I said, if we institute a voucher program where children in low-income families can choose any school and get transported to said school, the program is probably fair.
Of course, no conservative around here is willing to touch that idea with a ten foot pole because equality isn't what you're after.
Schools get an amout per pupil so your assertion that would have less resources is misleading because they would have fewer students to serve as well.
That wasn't intentional. But the truth is, the more you take out of the school the less the school has to spend on education on a per student basis. Rent is the same. Electricity, heat, management are the same. Those logistical costs don't change.
So, when all is said and done, if you drop 25% of the students the per student dollar amount that can go towards teaching the remaining 75% of the students goes down.
Like I said, if we institute a voucher program where children in low-income families can choose any school and get transported to said school, the program is probably fair.
Of course, no conservative around here is willing to touch that idea with a ten foot pole because equality isn't what you're after.
I've never heard anyone complain saying that transportation couldn't be part of a voucher program. I have literally no idea where you are coming from. If you can give a voucher for the school, you certainly could for education as well. Why would one be supportive of one but not the other? I believe if you have an allegation to make, you should just make it instead of attempting to infer it.
That wasn't intentional. But the truth is, the more you take out of the school the less the school has to spend on education on a per student basis. Rent is the same. Electricity, heat, management are the same. Those logistical costs don't change.
So, when all is said and done, if you drop 25% of the students the per student dollar amount that can go towards teaching the remaining 75% of the students goes down.
Again incorrect. First of all I have never heard of a public school having to rent their building but 25% fewer students means less space needed, less electricity needed, less heat needed, etc.
If anything, since most schools in inner city situations are profoundly overcrowded, it might allow the schools to actually operate with the number of students the should have and get off ridiculous year-round calendars and back to untracked calendars, (regardless of whether the education is all year or nine months, I object to tracks which destroy community and communication) Likewise instead of busing children off to schools that require hours to get there and back, they could attend closer to home since private schools could rent out space in commercial buildings while public schools, again because of things like the ed code, cannot.
To give you an example of how ridiculous the ed code is, it stipulates you must still have all paint applied by roller instead of hiring some folks with sprayers to get the job done 5 times faster at 1/3 of the cost.
Again incorrect. First of all I have never heard of a public school having to rent their building but 25% fewer students means less space needed, less electricity needed, less heat needed, etc.
...
To give you an example of how ridiculous the ed code is, it stipulates you must still have all paint applied by roller instead of hiring some folks with sprayers to get the job done 5 times faster at 1/3 of the cost.
I'm being completely honest. They could spray 10 classrooms for the cost of rolling one. So it doesn't cost the same. Likewise if a classroom isn't being used why should it need upkeep?
Your comment is just inane. The church I previously attended had a private school. It was basically painted about every 3-4 years by volunteers and pizza. Meanwhile public school ed code demands union painters with rollers and no technology. Thus it doesn't cost the same to paint those walls.
When I was teaching in L.A. I had to subvertly paint my walls myself because I couldn't stand the grit and dirt on them. My room looked like the last time it had been painted was before I was conceived. (1970)
Finally if the best you can come up with is painting a few rooms than good luck convincing anyone. If you honestly think the cost of painting a 1/3 fewer/more rooms by every decade or so is worth sacrificing the education of hundreds of thousands of children, then you haven't met any definition of compassion that I ever read.
Crap. Had a whole post written and hit the CMD-W button.
Crap.
What I was saying was that whether we use union rollers or sprayers, the cost of painting a school is the same if it has full enrollment or if 25% of the students leave on vouchers. The same goes for maintainence of the building. Same goes for electricity, heat, gas and other costs.
So, those logistical costs are constant unless you move the school into a new structure which isn't paid for by the voucher program. So, all of the costs of running a school, minus a few teachers, are damn near the same even if 25% of the students leave on vouchers.
What that means is that the remaining 75% are screwed. A smaller portion of the dollars sent to that school go towards academics and a larger percentage goes towards logistics.
So vouchers might work in some sense if all schools are kept at the same budget even if students leave. What that means is the dollar per student goes up. Even this plan would run into other problems, but the first portion of my post is more relevant to this thread I think.
Well if a lot of students leave you wont need as many schools. Right?
So after 5 years of shuffling we get a stable number that lasts a few years until things shift again? What about that entire generation of lost students? And the ones that follow when things shift again? This is insane.
The problem with the voucher program is that the motivation behind it is getting money into the hands of individuals, not improving education.
I have no kids. I don't think I'll ever have kids. I don't care. I'd double education spending in an instant.
There's not enough private school slots to suck a significant number of students from public schools. I don't know what you're talking about this "generation of students" being lost. I could argue that generation after generation have been lost already. Also private schools are successful right now so I'm not sure why you think things will shift so dramatically.
I think you've just taken a position and are now just making up points to "prove" you are right.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Mean time some kid could go to a better private school with a little help.
This is a problem. Some might get some help, but others don't. Besides that, vouchers, if they work the way you're saying, they take money out of the public school system and do two things.
One, that money goes into private institutions. That's bad. Two, with less money in the public school system, those poor cases that are stuck in that system have even less resources than before.
Again, if we have a voucher system that lets any kid choose any school and get transportation, then we'll be heading in the right direction. But that system, the only fair voucher system, would be 1000 times more expensive than fixing the public school system.
Originally posted by Scott
You should read my local paper. They fire a principal and 24 months later the court case ends.
What does this mean? You're speaking in tongues.
Originally posted by ena
just that the situation stays the same....
The current situation is no choice. With vouchers they would have choices as to where the could attend school.
BTW, with your waiting lists, were you talking about just charter schools or magnet schools? People often get them confused.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
This is a problem. Some might get some help, but others don't. Besides that, vouchers, if they work the way you're saying, they take money out of the public school system and do two things.
One, that money goes into private institutions. That's bad. Two, with less money in the public school system, those poor cases that are stuck in that system have even less resources than before.
Again, if we have a voucher system that lets any kid choose any school and get transportation, then we'll be heading in the right direction. But that system, the only fair voucher system, would be 1000 times more expensive than fixing the public school system.
When Pell grants go to private colleges is that a bad thing?
Taking money away from a public school isn't bad if the money is intended for education and education isn't occuring.
Schools get an amout per pupil so your assertion that would have less resources is misleading because they would have fewer students to serve as well. If the schools were funded at $10,000 per pupil for 1000 pupils. That is 10 million dollars to educate 1000 children. (Well below what many states spend per pupil BTW) If 250 children leave to a private school the money leaves but they have to service fewer children so the ratio is the same. 750 children and 7.5 million dollars. If they want the children back, they better do something to attract them back educationally.
The voucher system wouldn't be more expensive than fixing public schools because public schools can't be fixed for a number of reasons. First the teachers are not supported and are overwhelmed. What is overwhelming them most often isn't teaching but the multiple roles government declares they must assume basically for free. Private school could choose to teach.
Likewise private schools can be focused in ways that public school could never be allowed to because of equality instead of excellence. Public schools seek to socialize and often produce a very mediocre educational result. Private schools using vouchers could focus early on things like music, dance and the arts and set up specific schools with that in mind. They don't have to worry about if everyone has to participate and what sort of mediocre thing can they do so everyone feels good for doing nothing.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
What does this mean? You're speaking in tongues.
It means they can't make a simple change, like a new principal, without it winding up in court. So why should I think that "school reform" stands half a chance. So this whole "no vouchers, fix the schools" is ... bullshit IMO.
Originally posted by trumptman
The current situation is no choice. With vouchers they would have choices as to where the could attend school.
Like I said, if we institute a voucher program where children in low-income families can choose any school and get transported to said school, the program is probably fair.
Of course, no conservative around here is willing to touch that idea with a ten foot pole because equality isn't what you're after.
Originally posted by trumptman
Schools get an amout per pupil so your assertion that would have less resources is misleading because they would have fewer students to serve as well.
That wasn't intentional. But the truth is, the more you take out of the school the less the school has to spend on education on a per student basis. Rent is the same. Electricity, heat, management are the same. Those logistical costs don't change.
So, when all is said and done, if you drop 25% of the students the per student dollar amount that can go towards teaching the remaining 75% of the students goes down.
Originally posted by bunge
Like I said, if we institute a voucher program where children in low-income families can choose any school and get transported to said school, the program is probably fair.
Of course, no conservative around here is willing to touch that idea with a ten foot pole because equality isn't what you're after.
I've never heard anyone complain saying that transportation couldn't be part of a voucher program. I have literally no idea where you are coming from. If you can give a voucher for the school, you certainly could for education as well. Why would one be supportive of one but not the other? I believe if you have an allegation to make, you should just make it instead of attempting to infer it.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
That wasn't intentional. But the truth is, the more you take out of the school the less the school has to spend on education on a per student basis. Rent is the same. Electricity, heat, management are the same. Those logistical costs don't change.
So, when all is said and done, if you drop 25% of the students the per student dollar amount that can go towards teaching the remaining 75% of the students goes down.
Again incorrect. First of all I have never heard of a public school having to rent their building but 25% fewer students means less space needed, less electricity needed, less heat needed, etc.
If anything, since most schools in inner city situations are profoundly overcrowded, it might allow the schools to actually operate with the number of students the should have and get off ridiculous year-round calendars and back to untracked calendars, (regardless of whether the education is all year or nine months, I object to tracks which destroy community and communication) Likewise instead of busing children off to schools that require hours to get there and back, they could attend closer to home since private schools could rent out space in commercial buildings while public schools, again because of things like the ed code, cannot.
To give you an example of how ridiculous the ed code is, it stipulates you must still have all paint applied by roller instead of hiring some folks with sprayers to get the job done 5 times faster at 1/3 of the cost.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Again incorrect. First of all I have never heard of a public school having to rent their building but 25% fewer students means less space needed, less electricity needed, less heat needed, etc.
...
To give you an example of how ridiculous the ed code is, it stipulates you must still have all paint applied by roller instead of hiring some folks with sprayers to get the job done 5 times faster at 1/3 of the cost.
Costs the same to paint those walls though.
You're not being honest in this discussion.
Originally posted by bunge
Costs the same to paint those walls though.
You're not being honest in this discussion.
I'm being completely honest. They could spray 10 classrooms for the cost of rolling one. So it doesn't cost the same. Likewise if a classroom isn't being used why should it need upkeep?
Your comment is just inane. The church I previously attended had a private school. It was basically painted about every 3-4 years by volunteers and pizza. Meanwhile public school ed code demands union painters with rollers and no technology. Thus it doesn't cost the same to paint those walls.
When I was teaching in L.A. I had to subvertly paint my walls myself because I couldn't stand the grit and dirt on them. My room looked like the last time it had been painted was before I was conceived. (1970)
Finally if the best you can come up with is painting a few rooms than good luck convincing anyone. If you honestly think the cost of painting a 1/3 fewer/more rooms by every decade or so is worth sacrificing the education of hundreds of thousands of children, then you haven't met any definition of compassion that I ever read.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm being completely honest.
Crap. Had a whole post written and hit the CMD-W button.
Crap.
What I was saying was that whether we use union rollers or sprayers, the cost of painting a school is the same if it has full enrollment or if 25% of the students leave on vouchers. The same goes for maintainence of the building. Same goes for electricity, heat, gas and other costs.
So, those logistical costs are constant unless you move the school into a new structure which isn't paid for by the voucher program. So, all of the costs of running a school, minus a few teachers, are damn near the same even if 25% of the students leave on vouchers.
What that means is that the remaining 75% are screwed. A smaller portion of the dollars sent to that school go towards academics and a larger percentage goes towards logistics.
So vouchers might work in some sense if all schools are kept at the same budget even if students leave. What that means is the dollar per student goes up. Even this plan would run into other problems, but the first portion of my post is more relevant to this thread I think.
Originally posted by Scott
Well if a lot of students leave you wont need as many schools. Right?
So after 5 years of shuffling we get a stable number that lasts a few years until things shift again? What about that entire generation of lost students? And the ones that follow when things shift again? This is insane.
The problem with the voucher program is that the motivation behind it is getting money into the hands of individuals, not improving education.
I have no kids. I don't think I'll ever have kids. I don't care. I'd double education spending in an instant.
I think you've just taken a position and are now just making up points to "prove" you are right.
Originally posted by Scott
There's not enough private school slots to suck a significant number of students from public schools.
Make up your mind. Are there enough students lost to force closure of schools or not? You just contridicted your previous post.
Originally posted by Scott
Well if a lot of students leave you wont need as many schools.
Originally posted by Scott
There's not enough private school slots to suck a significant number of students from public schools.
Originally posted by Scott
Simple logic.