Fisking the Lefties on the Politics board: Thread I

Space and/or enrollment limitations.

 

School districts don't set budgets based on the exact number of students in the system. As has been mention many times already, public schools provide expensive services (transportation, ESL, special ed) that private schools don't.

And nobody here seems to want to touch the religion issue. What do you do when, as I believe is happening in the Netherlands, people want to use their vouchers to attend schools with dubious values?

 

You are being an asshole. After the war, folks had big families. What's wrong with that?

 

Falls under enrollment requirements, if a school is full it need not accept new students.

 

Then let them opt out. Colleges do that today regarding grant money. I'll think you'll find most will want to opt in.

 

honest question. Does the government provide grants to students who attend private colleges and universities?

I've actually felt that private schools should be required to have their students take the same state tests that public schools do. If they do, they're not reported like public schools are.

 

I am to believe these costs make up the bulk of eductional budget? If so perhaps we should be handing out "transportation" vouchers and let a private companies provide bus service.

Is this really a problem in Holland? My brother is Dutch, lives in Holland, and has two daughters attending two different schools of choice. I'll have to ask him about this.

As for the Dutch system, perhaps it is one we should study? The program has been around for nearly a century, 75% of their students attend private schools, and Dutch students (both public and private) score at or near the top in math, science, and literacy.... all while spending nearly half what we do per student.

 

Sure, the is GI Bill, Pell Grants, financial aid... all sorts of assistance at the post secondary level.

 

I think that Matt has it pretty well pegged, there seems to be two possible ways that this would go:

1) Government just throws money around and we end up funding all sorts of dubious schools
2) They regulate the hell out of it and they become no different from public schools now

My guess is, they'd try 1) for awhile and after enough horror stories, move into 2). And all of those lousy administrators and teachers that everyone complains about, where do you think that they'll go? Wal-Mart? Or maybe the Sam's Club elementary school?

Of course, there is a 0.00001 chance that they'd get the balance between 1&2 right, but that's not the way to bet.

I wouldn't study Holland for too long, that is a small country with a very tightly knit culture.

 

Well then why should public school kids have to take the tests?

If Xavier Huntinginton IV is going to get where goes in life more because he bunks with Chaucer Quincy Williams then what does it matter if he has to take a couple days off to take a test.

If they're being taught to begin with, teachers won't have to stop to teach to the tests. The point is to make sure students are being taught a minimum base.

Or I guess no one in private school skates by because he's leading the football team in tackles.


Now back to college grants. If religious schools can take kids with grant money, without it being such a risk to their being, why would high schools be any different?

Not saying I would dissagree with a public only* voucher system, just wonderng.

*Where do charters schools fit in? Are they "private"?

 

Actually, plenty, and it seems after the war, families weren't as big as they used to be, but that's off the top of my head.

My main issue is your contention that your mother was being denied a choice in how to school you and your siblings just because there weren't subsidies available to use public money for private institutions. The competition for public schools is there, it just isn't priced for everyone, but neither is how one gets to work. I'm just being consistantly conservative on that one...

 

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility and Holland is the size of a State. Furthermore, the population is remarkably diverse thanks to Holland's colonial past. Given the success of their system why wouldn't you want to study it?

 

Wonder how current voucher systems determine which parochial schools are eligible?

 

Or maybe not.

 

What are you waiting for Skippy, him to rebuke your fabricated budget comments? Perhaps I can help you...

First, "operating budget" doesn't include capital improvements/new construction. Those expenses come out of the "capital budget" and believe me you don't want to add those figures into the per student calculations. Besides, it is silly to assume private schools don't make capital improvements or build new buildings.

As for maintaining the transportation fleet, that accounts for a mere 1% of the operating budget. The bulk of the money (89%) goes toward employee compensation and you can count on more than 95% of the budget going toward expenses directly related to the per student cost.

 

What you've failed to take into account, Karl, is that there are indeed some areas of academia in which you are a ********ing moron. You aren't completely stupid, but your pompous little show blinds you to information that has been presented OVER AND OVER AGAIN. In the public school system, the money is not distributed evenly to every kid. Not even close. Special education students who require, among other things, extra teachers, legally mandated smaller classes, and physical, speech, emotional and a whole slew of other specialists take up a MUCH larger chunk of the cash cow. Private schools don't have to, and frequently don't accept these students. The kinds of kids who get accepted to private schools only get a small amount of money per pupil in the public schools. As such, you can't state that those kids are entitled to an equal share of the education funds when those funds were never doled out equally to begin with.

Private schools aren't some magical panacea.

I do agree with you, however, that more money isn't the solution to the public school system. The problems are much more difficult to fix than that.

* Schools have a hard time attracting the best candidates for teachers due to the pitifully low pay when compared to other fields with the same educational requirements.

* The good old boy network in many schools chases a huge number of new teachers out of the field (it's frequently the new teachers who get the most challenging students, while the veterans hide out in the ivory tower of AP and haven't seen an IEP student or a 9th grade class in over a decade).

* Parents are more interested in the letter on the report card than the lessons learned to earn it than they used to be. The kids don't seem to care as much because they know that if they fail, Mom and Dad won't yell at them; they'll yell at the teacher.

 

All due respect, but what effect do private schools have today? If you let me kick all of the deadbeat kids out of my school and allowed me to teach only bright kids whose parents are interested/involved enough to spend big money on education, I guarantee you that my school would be just as good as, and more likely better than, most private schools. I just don't understand how people make that leap to assume that private schools have more effective instruction than public schools. They pick and choose their students. Of course they will have better results. I honestly don't think that it's going out on a limb to say that many public school teachers can out-teach many private school teachers (where the requirements for employment are frequently MUCH lower).

 

I'm largely with you with the exception of the first one. In my high school (this would be 10-15 years ago) I had plenty of longtime teachers fr. and so. years, and I did not take honors/ap courses. But I'm willing to stipulate that it probably does happen a fair amount.

I do think your last point is a big one though. And grade inflation makes it all the worse. If they didn't inflate the grades parents would pay more attention, but if little Johnny's on honor roll then he must be doing great, right.

Your next post makes a fair point as well. And I think that is a large reason why some private schools don't want their kids to take performance tests (I'm talking Ohio right now). They'll find that the top suburban schools are just as good as a lot of the private schools. However, I don't doubt that private schools do a better job for less money.

But your first stipulation that they have pitifully low pay, it's just flat wrong. They start low, although nowhere near as low as they use to, but can get a very good wage (especially considered it's 9 months work). Government jobs are paid above average, even compared to private sector workers with degrees. Plus they get better benefits including opting out of Social security so they get their own guaranteed retirement account. Teachers are compensated very well.

 

Let me just say this. There are a lot of teachers that are smart people that work very hard (10hours a day, and spend time during the summer months preparing for their year on top of that). But there are many teachers (probably many many more than those hardworking ones) who skate by working 6 hours a day and not doing anything during breaks.

Of course they are in a union and have tenure so they continue to move up the pay scale no matter what.