How do you feel about vouchers for public schools only?

[bluestateguy]

That is, vouchers would only be available to parents with children in failing public schools (how failing is to be defined is a debate for another time) to attend another public school of their choice.

I would make it so that public schools could only accept voucher students from outside of their neighborhood as there is room. In other words, a public school first and foremost has to serve its neighborhood, then as spots are open it could take voucher students from other neighborhoods and districts.

Private schools should not be eligible for voucher money.

[donco6]

1. We already have that here in Colorado.

You can go to any school you want, as long as there's room. No voucher necessary.

[noamnety]

2. You shouldn't need a voucher, and people should never be excluded from public schools

1. You shouldn't need a "voucher" for public school (and shouldn't get them for any other kind of school). You're in a school (edit to clarify: public school) on count day, that school gets the funding for you.

2. The system right now (the one you are advocating) is discriminatory. Schools give priority to students in their communities - which is another way of saying "the best schools with the nicest facilities only open their doors to poor students after they ensure all the rich kids have their slots." It's a form of institutional classism and racism. It's an example of privilege reinforcing privilege. It has its grounds in libertarian philosophy: We'll pretend everyone comes to the table with equal opportunity and equal advantages, and treat them equally based on that assumption - even though we know that assumption has no relation to reality in our society.

It's never "equitable" to equate allowing inner city Detroit kids to go to a Grosse Pointe school only if there are open slots ... to allowing Grosse Pointe kids to go to an inner city Detroit school only if there are open slots.

[Grey]

5. What noamnety said....

An open, level playing field for all.

[CTyankee]

9. My grandson goes to a kindergarten in the Glendale public school system even tho he lives in North

Hollywood. He is in a school that has a bold innovation: offering classes held in another language than English for 90% of the day for Kinder and 1st grade and slowly increasing the English portion as the grades go up. His is the Italian class but the school also has German and Spanish classes. My grandson's father is half Italian American, but no Italian was spoken before this.

No voucher system but also no IEP's so kids who need special services are kinda stuck in their own districts.

This school is wonderful. The "immersion language" parents are a great group of very involved people, raising money and volunteering time in the classroom. I sat in on one of the classes when I visited last fall. I was very impressed.

This is the kind of innovation needed in public schools. People will come if you offer it!

[donco6]

21. We offer lots of public choices in my district

We have public Montessori (free). We have 2 elementary Expeditionary Learning. We have one HS for the Arts. We have a New Tech HS. We have a fantastic preschool. No charters and no vouchers necessary.

We have a book coming out soon:

http://www.hepg.org/hep/book/112/AgainstTheOdds

[CTyankee]

26. Wow, that is great. Encourage them to do language immersion, tho. It benefits the brain

in many different ways. You'd be surprised!

[donco6]

32. Our parents don't want it.

We've tried it. We couldn't get enough kids to enroll.

[CTyankee]

36. Aww, that's too bad. I know my family had some dissenting voices about a 5 year old

going into an Italian immersion program cold turkey. But kids are really resilient and learn languages at a fast rate (not like adults).

I think it works best in a very big city environment. Glendale borders on Burbank where there are big movie studios that are multi-national corporations: Disney, Pixar, Warners, ets. So you have people in the immediate area who are from a lot of different places in the world. Disney has a whole book section located in Italy! No wonder people from Italy are in that area.

[donco6]

44. We're too small to pull it off.

It can work in Boulder where you have an educated population that really values bilingual. But we're up against a lot of racism here and I just can't see it working - at least not for a long, long time.

[CTyankee]

52. This is hard for a non-urban school even to consider.

I really don't know why the Italian class came into being. The German class happened as a result of German parents coming to the school and asking for it. It was based on a program in Milwaukee, WI, where long ago there were German kids whose parents wanted them to know their heritage language.

There has to be an impetus. I think Spanish is one. But if there is no real core of people intersted, it isn't going to happen. In Glendale which is next to Burbank's multinational studios there were enough German parents to encourage that class, then the Italians and the Spanish, etc.

Here in New Haven we have really missed the boat. We have SO MANY Italian Americans who have a great heritage in their language and now regret the fact that their grandparents never spoke Italian once they came here. I would bet that a New Haven Magnet School that offered that program would be instantly taken advantage of!

[donco6]

53. That is a shame. Italian seems like a fun language

Very expressive . . . at least, to my ears.

[CTyankee]

59. I'm hoping my grandson will go on to a career in Europe. I know that's funny but I do.

He could have a real career as a bilingual person. He could go into art history or finance or a lot of different areas. I want him to have the experience of living in another country, speaking their language and being natural and free.

He already has fun with the language...when he colors at home he refers to his color crayons as "bianco, verde, rosso..." AND his accent is great because his teacher is a native Italian speaker...

[donco6]

62. Being bilingual always opens doors.

Why we don't get that concept here is beyond me.

[CTyankee]

66. My own family members had reservations on this! They thought it was too tough on a little kid

to be thrust into an all Italian speaking kindergarten all of a sudden.

Guess what? He's just fine. He just takes it in stride and uses his Italian in class, a bit at home and is great. Kids have some kinds of neural openings in their brain, I swear, that makes them learn languages easier than older people.

He isn't stressed or unhappy. He plays with Luigi and uses his Italian. He plays with other, Anglo kids and uses his English. Big deal. To him, it's just life...

[donco6]

71. Europeans have been doing it for decades, at least.

Probably much longer. I guess they're just more capable than Americans. Hmmff. We really don't know anything about the world, do we?

[CTyankee]

76. Don't get me started...nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. How can they get away with not serving sped kids?

One angry parent and that practice will be ended, because this is definitely against federal law. LOL

[CTyankee]

27. Out of district, I think. I don't know all the fine print but that was what I gleaned from what my

daughter told me. Evidently, if the school district is outside of your own you can enroll your child only if he/she doesn't have an IED. THis is California and I live in CT. All this is news to me.

I don't think it is just this school, it is any school outside of the kid's own district. I'll check it out...

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. That's really not legal

Seems like it would violate ADA as well as Sped laws.

[CTyankee]

40. I'll check it out further but I remember my daughter being pretty obstinate about it.. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. Oh I believe you

[donco6]

46. They do the same thing here in CO.

The law allows interdistrict enrollment based on "program availability." Special ed as a program gets to determine how many kids they can serve. If it's at about 11% of the total population, they can refuse enrollment to an out of district kid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. That's different from what was described

The school described is refusing ALL IEP kids.

And that will last until one parent files a complaint or a lawsuit. You and I both know that :)

[CTyankee]

54. No, not all IEP kids, just out of district kids. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

My apologies...

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. So kids from out of district who are on IEPs can't enroll?

I smell a lawsuit :)

Seriously, we have a saying in public education: All it takes is one parent. If it's an angry parent, watch out. :)

[CTyankee]

79. That is my understanding. My daughter told me it was pretty clear.

Maybe they are limiting the IEP students just to enrollment in their own districts. It must be a state law thing. I think it is wonderful that they allow enrollment across city boundaries, which doesn't happen in CT.

I do know that this particular school in Glendale was on an extinction list due to lack of students. Then they started the language immersion program with one German immersion kindergarten class. Word spread and then they added Spanish and Italian. So innovation spurred their survival!

The whole school is energized. Parent involvment is high. There is a group of motivated, strongly supportive parents and grandparents (me!) and it is a good thing! I just wish I weren't so far away and can only visit twice a year...

[FLDCVADem]

90. Magnet school aren't required to take IEP students are they? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Here in my state they are

[Pithlet]

101. Yep. As a parent of a child with an IEP, I'd be throwing a hissy fit heard round the world.

I wouldn't stand for that.

[Romulox]

94. It's funny you mention Detroit (are you from here?)

Because this area had a long and disastrous experiment with busing (albeit for racial balancing reasons.)

I, for one, do not believe that situating Detroit students in Grosse Pointe works any magic. It's revenue that need be equalized, not geography.

[Sans Culottes]

99. Really good post!

:applause:

[KittyWampus]

3. No one has convinced my that any vouchers are really necessary.

[madmom]

4. We already have that here, it's called open enrollment. No voucher needed.

[paulsby]

6. i am for vouchers for any parents that want them

and to be used for any (accredited) school of their choice.

choice, it's what's for dinner.

the locus of control should rest with the PARENT.

[noamnety]

7. I don't agree with vouchers for private schools.

The public system is there for the public good.

It's like public transportation. If you opt not to use it, you shouldn't get a voucher to buy a car.
If you opt to hire private body guards, you shouldn't get a voucher for depending on private instead of public police protection.
If you opt to hang out in your yard instead of a public park, you shouldn't get a voucher to help you buy private property.

My tax dollars go in part to support the infrastructure to ensure students in our society have access to public schools - I don't believe they should be diverted to support privately owned businesses.

That said, I do support truly public schools that follow both traditional and nontraditional sizes, curriculum, and focuses because students have different needs.

[paulsby]

11. i accept that i am in the minority here, in my position on vouchers

i can live with that.

[aquart]

14. Yes.

[donco6]

8. I would oppose them for religious schools.

Why would I want my tax dollars going to indoctrinate children into a religion that teaches them to hate me?

[paulsby]

12. that's exactly the problem

you are looking at them as "your tax dollars"

i look at it this way. if a person gets welfare or other public assistance, are they prohibited from using those monies to buy something or donate or whatever to a religious institution?

no.

why? because it is not a govt. establishment of religion, when the locus of control rests with the parent.

some parents will choose parochial schools. some will choose largely secular schools, etc. as long as the "decider" (lol) is the parent, i have no problem with it.

the money is there for the child, and the proxy decider for the child is the parent. it's not like govt. is taking your tax dollars and giving it to a religious institution . THAT, i would be against.

the religious institutions (catholic schools for example) will compete with other schools, and the PARENT decides.

i'm all about choice.

fwiw, my parents chose (not with vouchers, though) a quaker school. quakers are pacifists, generally pretty leftwing, etc. they could have chosen a more rightwing religious institution, or a school that was not religious at all, except for minor ceremonial historical sense (which some of our best ivy league colleges are, fwiw). quakers are very pro GLBT if that is what you are referring to in regards to "hating" you.

[noamnety]

16. The money isn't actually there "for the child"

The money is there to support the infrastructure to ensure "the children" (as a group) have access to education. I pay for schools just like I pay for roads, and I expect the tax dollars collected from all of us to go to public schools, and public roads. You can't announce to the government that you are going to live out on a remote ranch and never leave home, so you want a percentage of public tax dollars to pay for some private roads you are constructing. The money invested in the public infrastructure serves the collective public good for years to come. Money invested in private roads serves an individual only.

[paulsby]

20. what i mean is that the money

does not benefit the parent. i benefits the child, IN AGGREGATE benefiting children with a good education benefits EVERYBODY. that's why we have universal schooling, at no cost.

govt. pays out that money for EVERY child that attends public school.

i believe that if that parent chooses another school, that some of that money that would have gone to the public school should be used for the CHILD's education elsewhere.

again, i strongly doubt i am going to change minds here about this. but fwiw, other people (and my own research) did change my mind about vouchers, ditto for choice, gun control, and the war on drugs.

so, there is hope :)

[donco6]

22. It does NOT benefit me for a child to be indoctrinated in (some) religions

Those people want to kill me. How is that in my best interest??

[paulsby]

29. again, i am speaking in the aggregate

i believe (imagine this) that parents should be TRUSTED . with control. moreso than the state.

i don't want the state telling women what to do with their womb.

i don't want the state telling people they can't smoke ganja.

i don't want the state telling parents that if they want to choose an alternative to public schools, that they are on their own.

as long as the private school is accredited, it's the PARENT's choice, not your choice.

[donco6]

31. Now you're getting confused.

It's not about the state telling the parent where to send their children. They can already choose that. It's the state supporting religious schools which is the issue. I oppose this strongly, and will fight any attempt to make it so.

[paulsby]

37. except the state is NOT supporting religious schools

if the PARENTS make the choice as to where the money goes.

parent's are free to choose secular schools, or whatever school they want, as long as it is accredited. or to homeschool for that mattter.

if a person uses some of their public assistance money to buy stuff from a religious organization, or to tithe for that matter, the STATE is not supporting a religious organization. the individual is.

if i take my paycheck (i am paid by tax dollars) and buy cheezy poofs, the state is not supporting cheezy poofs.

i am for parental choice. choice it's what's for dinner

[donco6]

41. Parents are free to choose whatever they want, yes.

But the state is supporting religious schools directly with vouchers. The funds are never transferred to the parent. There is no transfer of locus.

You can repeat your argument as long as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

[paulsby]

45. the fact is this

as long as the CHOICE is made by the parents, the STATE is not supporting jack.

if the parent chooses, the PARENT supports, NOT the state.

it is irrelevant if the state mails the parent a voucher, and the parent uses it for the school, or if the money is transferred directly, as long as it's the PARENT who decides where it goes.

so, here's a question for you, then. if the issue is this (for you), then if the voucher program was such that an actual physical voucher (let's say for 3k) was mailed to every parent, with schoolage kids, and the parents could choose to use it (as long as they didn't enroll their kid in public school) at any accredited school, and the school could then cash the voucher, just like a check, would this solve the "problem " for youz?

to me, it makes no difference, but if this is your hangup, it's easily rectified to fit your preference.

[donco6]

49. No.

The voucher is a piece of paper. The actual check gets written from the state to the school. The parent has no control over the cash.

And besides, even if you were to rectify that, it's only a reference to the voucher itself. I oppose state funding of religious schools, period. And will always oppose it.

I will never support public dollars paying to indoctrinate kids into a religion that wants to kill me. That would be pretty fucking stupid.

[paulsby]

58. so what

a check is a piece of paper too.

but in your second paragraph, you get to the point.

the transfer thing is a red herring.

and again, every dollar of my paycheck is "public dollars".

it's DIRECTLY TRANSFERRED to my bank account.

guess what? i can have (my employer has a program) where i can get a portion of my paycheck DIRECTLY sent to the United Way, etc.

it is clear to me that you want to make it MORE difficult for parents to choose religious schools (by denying them funds), because some religious schools "want to kill you".

groovy.

i believe in choice. and again, it is NOT state funding of religious schools, if the parent decides where the money goes.

the money is for the benefit of the child.

you keep glossing over this point, because you simply don't want parents to be facilitated to make choices you disagree with.

how "progressive" of you?

are you one of those people who feels that people receiving welfare payments should be drug tested and their aid cut off if they test positive? after all, by your "logic", in that case, govt. money is used to fund drug dealers.

that's an argument the rightwing makes all the time. just sayin' not accusin'

the RECIPIENT is the locus of control. in welfare, in vouchers.

[donco6]

60. Never.

Thankfully, I have some court decisions on my side. As you said, you have jack. And jack left town.

I'll never support public dollars for religions that indoctrinate children to hate me and people like me. Never.

[paulsby]

65. again, i understand that you want to limit liberty and choice

i don't. i readily accept that some religious schools (and some secular schools) will have viewpoints i strongly disagree with ..

but i won't diminish parent's locus of control over THEIR children. because i believe in choice.

you are absolutely correct you have SOME court decisions on your side. i have SOME. in many jurisdictions, it is perfectly gr00vy to use voucher money for institutions W/O regard to religion. which is how the first amendment mandates it , imo.

neither preference for, NOR discrimination against religious institutions.

if the govt tells the parent they can use the money for non-religious schools, but not religious schools, they are discriminating against religion.

and i support religious freedom, evne for those i disagree with

[donco6]

67. And I understand that you support state-funded religious oppression.

Great. Have a nice life.

[paulsby]

69. actually, you support religious oppression

but that much has been made clear

hth

[noamnety]

93. It's not religious "oppression" to prohibit tax dollars going to churches.

They have favored status as a tax-exempt organization - a tradeoff for them is that they don't get tax dollars from the government.

[paulsby]

98. it most definitely IS

and all sorts of not-for-profits, non-profits etc have tax exempt status.

you keep viewing this from the side of who is getting the $$$

as long as the PARENT decides, that is collateral to the issue. the issue is that the PARENT has the locus of control for THEIR child. parents can freely choose religious or non-religioous institutions. govt. isn't involved in the choice.

choice. it's what;'s for dinner

you want to eliminate their choices

how typical.

[noamnety]

100. No, sorry - refusing to fund nongovernment organizations of ANY sort

doesn't qualify as bigotry.

Bigotry would be public funding of privately run organizations which discriminate (which church run schools can and do engage in).

[paulsby]

102. bigotry is saying it's ok for NONreligious org's

to get money, but not ok for religious org's.

are you saying that NO private org's (religious or not) should get any govt. money's?

i strongly doubt it, but clarify your position, please

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. You perform a service and EARN your paycheck

What do parents do? Give birth?

Seriously, this comparison to your paycheck does not work.

[paulsby]

80. the argument i am responding to doesn't work either.

kids don't "earn" a right to an education.

they are entitled to one.

the govt. pays for it.

just as they pay me for my (damn fine) work, they pay a public school system to provide a service.

if a parent wants to choose an alternative school (or homesachool), imo the govt. should defray part of those costs, partially because they are no longer responsible for that kid using public school resources.

the whole transfer thang was a red herring.

if the parent says "i want school X", the govt. should allow the parent that choice to have SOME of the aforementioned money to go that school regardless of whether it is or isn;t religious.

that is a religion neutral exercise on govt.'s part. since they don't CHOOSE.

it's possible that the majority of parents would choose religious schools. or not. who cares? it should be THEIR choice

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. You're still not getting it

You are asking that tax dollars go to religious institutions. And you're going to have to amend the constitution to do that. :)

[paulsby]

97. YOU still don't get

it. as long as the parent is the locus of control as to what school THEY want for their kid, then there is no govt. establishment of religion.

it is RELIGION neutral. there is nothing in the constitution that says no tax dollars should go to any religious institution, nor should there be.

the govt. should be neutral to any particular religion or religious institution.

and a voucher system ENSURES that, since the parent is the sole "decider" of where the money goes for THEIR kid

[noamnety]

55. Replace the word "support" with "fund"

That's the issue - the state sending thousands of dollars to either a church school or to a corporation.

I don't like it when they use tax dollars to support privately owned stadiums, either. Same principle. If thousands of public dollars are being used to build a facility, it needs to be a public facility.

[donco6]

56. Good point, and I hate that, too.

Public money to support private stadiums. Ugh.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. But you actually get your paycheck

Vouchers don't work like that. The parent never actually sees the money. If you are asking the state (or the local district) to provide a voucher for a religious school, the state is actually financially supporting that religious school.

I will fight till my dying day to keep that from ever happening.

[Book Lover]

83. This is a nice conversation in the abstract, but the reality of school choice is that there

are only so many schools in any particular district. A religious school can easily be the only other school to chose from. And it's not a one-way street: you the parent may choose to *apply* to any nonpublic school. The actual choice resides with the nonpublic school when they choose who to let in.

[donco6]

17. No.

Welfare payments are not at all the same. They are converted directly to cash that the recipient controls. A voucher is never converted to cash. It's simply a payment from the state directly to a school at the bequest of a parent. The parent cannot choose to use it for anything else, thus there is no transfer of locus.

It's already been argued here in Colorado at Colorado Christian. They lost.

[paulsby]

28. i am well aware that this argument has lost before in courts

fwiw, do you always believe the courts are right?

if so, i have a recent scotus decision to sell you.

the money IS within the locus of control of the parent. THEY choose the school.

i am well aware that welfare parents get different forms of payment. for example, foodstamps can't be used for prepared foods.

so, foodstamps are not "cash" . cash is legal tender for ALL goods. foodstamps AREN'T legal tender for ALL goods.

regardless, that's kind of a tangent. as long as the parent makes the choice, the locus of control is with them

[donco6]

30. No, sorry, you have a losing argument.

Just because one court decision is incorrect doesn't mean they all are, as you well know.

Choosing the school does not transfer locus.

[paulsby]

33. you have a losing strawman

i didn't say all court decisions are incorrect.

heck, i didn't say the instant case was incorrect.

what i am saying is that what the case law is in this case describes the de jure reality.

it does not therefore follow that i have to agree with the court decision, that it may not be overturned, etc.

[donco6]

34. It was a good decision.

But you can try, I guess. I will fight you every possible step of the way with every fiber of my being.

[paulsby]

35. i can't try jackshit

and jack left town. i don't live in colorado.

WA state has a similar law. we have a law that college scholarships, if state funded cannot go to students if they want to attend religious colleges.

i think that's wrong, and unconstitutional.

i'll have to wait for the courts to catch up.

[DURHAM D]

19. Your belief is built on a bogus premise. nt

Surprising for a Democrat...

This sort of reasoning belongs at another website.

[aquart]

15. No.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Parents do have the choice

They can enroll their kids in any school they want. Or not, and choose home schooling.

[paulsby]

39. and imo

if the state is going to pay (for example) 6k on the kid if he goes to public school, then if the parent chooses to homeschool, or chooses a private school (secular , parochial, whatever), then part of that 6k should go to the PARENT to use for the school of THEIR choice.

choice. it's what's for dinner

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. It's not that simple

The money the state pays in aid to districts funds programs, not individual kids. So part of that money is used for salaries and utility bills and maintenance and transportation and many other programs. So for example, if one kid no longer rides the bus, the district isn't really saving any money since the bus still needs to run its route.

It's actually very misleading to use the per pupil funding amount to determine how schools are funded. I sure wish they would come up with a different method.

I also disagree taxpayers who don't have children in public schools should get a refund for a couple reasons. First of all, schools are woefully underfunded as it is. Also, a strong public school system is an asset to a community. We all benefit, even if we don't have children enrolled in the schools.

On edit, this would be like me expecting to pay less in property taxes for police protection because I never called 911 last year.

[paulsby]

51. i agree

that the "per kid" thang is problematic.

that's WHY i don't think the ENTIRE per pupil expenditure should be used for the voucher.

thank you for agreeing with me :)

like i said, if the district spends, 6k on average per kid, then i would be kewl with a parent getting a voucher of , say , 3k.

so, i don't have a problem with what you say.

police protection (and fire protection) is different. we pay equal taxes for cops, and fires, with the assumption that they are there for ANYBODY who needs them at any time. just dial 911.

that is NOT the case with public schools. if i enroll my kid in a private school, then the public school will not be doing anything for the kid.

whereas, with 911, even if i don't use it, i still have the option to, at any time. ditto for libraries, and parks.

also, a big reason why i support vouchers is that i want competition between schools. vouchers help the money to go to the schools that do the best. it's a free marketplace. otoh, you can't structurally have a free marketplace of competing police agencies, since by law, only certain agencies have jurisdiction for certain things.

if you live in the city of enumclaw (enumscratch), you call police, you will get enumclaw police. you can't shop around and get seattle police or renton police. or pierce county sheriff. there is no "marketplace". there IS marketplace for schools

any school that is accredited has "jurisdiction" as long as yuo choose them, (and you can get in).

however, if you live in enumclaw, you can choose amongst the market of schools.

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. I have been advocating looking at public education in the same light as public safety for years

Education is indeed a public service. And we all benefit, as I said. I live in a highly rated school district and because of that, my property values are higher than in the district next door, which is not as highly rated. Even in this tough economic climate, my home has retained its value because of the schools.

I also oppose merit pay and this is one reason. We wouldn't even consider merit pay for cops or firefighters. Yet we do talk about it for teachers, who are also providing a public service. And we have as little control over student achievement as police officers do over the crime rate. I know that is controversial, but the #1 factor in determining student achievement is socio-economic status. And teachers and schools cannot control that any more than cops can control the crime rate or firefighters can control the number of fires.

As far as the marketplace concept, I have the choice to hire private security. It's actually pretty popular here where I live. (No, I don't understand why since this is a very low crime community.) There are also gated communities all over the US that pay for their own private public safety services.

[paulsby]

85. first paragraph i agree with

as for the second, i have a problem with how "merit" is measured. if there was truly a good way to measure it, i wouldn't have a fundamental problem with it.

however, the reason we don't have merit pay for cops is different on one issue, and the same on another.

as for the measurement issue, it is very difficult to measure

but the second is that merit pay incentivizes corruption.

for example, if "on view" arrests are a "good thing" merit wise , then a cop would be incentivized to make arrests, that even if statutorily valid, aren't the best idea in any particular circ.

fwiw, on the larger administrative side, though, there IS a de facto merit system to an extent. for example, in large dept's, supervisor's are scrutinized for their detective's clearance rates. and if those clearance rates are poor, they can (and will be) often demoted (if they serve above a civil service grade, as is many times the case), or at least transferred.

supervisors are judged on metrics like that, as well as how well they "control" overtime, etc.

even if you have the CHOICE to hire private security, you STILL have police and fire protection. so, it's disanalogous, because if you choose a private school, you do not have public school services.

private security is an ADJUNCT not a replacement for police/fire protection available to you. this contrasts with school services which are replaced if you send a kid to private (or home) school.

fwiw, boeing for example, has a private fire dept. (quite good, actually), and a private security force (ditto).

they are an adjunct to local police. the private fire offers a generally better response time, better trained ff's (for the types of fires likely with avgas etc.), and better equipment than the local fire dept.). they still get public fire response when they dial 911.

similarly, their quite good, armed security force does a good job patrolling as well as conducting various investigations. they are an adjunct to local cops, though. they don't replace em

excellent post though imo. very fair minded and well thought out

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. There is an exception for school services I bet you didn't think about

If your child is disabled and enrolled in a private school, he is still entitled to special education services provided by his local public school district.

Good discussion though :)

[paulsby]

96. i can agree with that nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. A very similar program already exists

Students in 'failing' schools are allowed to transfer to a 'successful' school in their district and the district must provide transportation. That's part of NCLB.

[noamnety]

13. allowed to go to another school "in their district"

That might work in some parts of the country where one district has a mix of socioeconomic levels. It's not the case in all parts of the country, and the system doesn't address that.

[donco6]

18. Under RTTT, states are having to change that.

We've had inter- and intra-district attendance for many years. It's really not that big a deal. Vouchers are another story.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Some states have open enrollment

They are considering it in MO this year.

[Bluebear]

42. So the failing school loses students and fails MORE? No.

How about funding education as it deserves to be funded and a few less dollars on military scopes with Bible verses on them?

[donco6]

50. Stop making sense, dammit.

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. Bingo

One of the 'innovations' of NCLB is schools that perform poorly can lose students BUT they also get all kinds of extra funding for tutoring programs (which are of course managed by contractors).

[rucky]

57. How would the kids get to school?

Seems like the ones who would be left behind would be the kids with working parents.

[donco6]

61. If they can't figure it out, they should be there.

Hand them a shovel in 2nd grade and be done with it.

:sarcasm:

Like I really needed that.

[demmiblue]

63. Or the poor that do not have any means of transportation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Or the kids whose parents have no transportation

which is quite common in low income communities.

[LWolf]

64. Unnecessary.

Fully fund high quality education at every public school, allowing diversity in schools as well as students, and then fully fund transportation costs so that families can choose to attend any school in the district.

Support that with a cap in enrollment so that no school can be overwhelmed.

Public school students can transfer to another school in their district right now; districts limit how many inter- and intra-district transfers they will take because of costs.

Unless transportation is fully funded, choice in schools will not be equitable, since only those students whose parents can manage transportation themselves could go to a school not served by their neighborhood bus routes.

Why go the "voucher" route instead of fully funding all schools, and allowing all schools the same flexibility that we'd like to offer families?

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. I'm going to go out on a limb here

and suggest fully funding schools would be less expensive than vouchers. :)

[LWolf]

82. You don't have to go that far, lol.

:hi:

[demmiblue]

75. Although I agree with most of what you have said, this would become...

a logistical nightmare for big districts. Not only that, it would be far too costly.

[LWolf]

81. Costly? You bet. That's why it doesn't already happen.

It would be more manageable if big districts were broken down into smaller districts. Smaller districts with smaller schools, which means more schools closer together.

In order to make a fundamental shift like that, there would have to be a huge investment.

That's true for any of the fundamental changes education needs; they would all require a massive investment in restructuring. Politicians don't offer that kind of change; they offer surface tweaks that don't address the real issues.

Is spending that kind of money on transportation a good use of funds? I don't know. We sure need funds for other restructuring, as well.

Right now we can't even keep the doors open all year; we had to cut the number of school days to balance the budget.

Still, since so many people are convinced that they need something "different," I think we ought to give them the opportunity. Part of that may just be the saturation with "choice" propaganda suggesting that neighborhood schools are bad. I think that, if schools themselves were restructured with the flexibility the public wants, instead of being rigidly standardized, and people HAD a choice, most would probably be happy with their neighborhood schools, opting for longer bus rides only when their child has special needs.

Except for those that want to attend other schools because they don't want their child exposed to the poor or non-white or non-christian, of course.

[donco6]

86. That's definitely a start.

There's just no way a LA Unified should be allowed. It's crazy to think you can make ANYTHING that large actually function effectively.

[LWolf]

89. Yes.

I started my career in a small district. Friendly, collaborative, and everybody knew everybody else. We got things done pretty effectively.

The district grew rapidly, though; from 6 schools when I started in '83, to 27 schools when I left in '05. The bigger we got, the more dysfunctional.

Now I'm in another small district, and guess what? Friendly, everybody knows everybody else and works together to get things done, and...growing.

I hope it doesn't outgrow effectiveness while I'm still teaching.

[Romulox]

95. This quickly leads to situations in which children can't attend schools

which are mere steps from their homes. It doesn't work.

[jgraz]

87. Or... we could just fund education properly

and quit relying on market fundamentalism to fix every problem.

[Broke In Jersey]

92. Here in Jersey, kids are only allowed to go to their local/closest school

This way rich whites don't have to worry about any icky minorites into their gated towns.