Culture, My Donkey Synonym
Art Clemons
districts on how well minority students do at said schools. The howls from
many suburban NY school districts are coming in fast and furious, which implies
of course that they're well aware they're failing minority students even when
sending white students on to college and beyond.
The sad commentary is that members of the community are willing to go for
vouchers and other solutions without a proven track record or a failing track
record, instead of pressuring politicians (school board members are politicians
folks) to do something about improving how children from the community are
taught.
It's past time to stop waiting for the Roman Catholic Church (the largest
source of private schooling in the US) to create new schools to educate us, and
instead insist on things that work, and measurements that accord with the real
world. That means that instead of joke teacher certification standards, we
review how well students of that teacher do later, and not just on 4th grade,
or later exams.
Change for change's sake doesn't work folks. Just moving to the suburbs didn't
lessen poor interaction with the police, or make the youth of the community
better educated, and it's time instead that we began working to instead hold
folks accountable. Thus making life miserable (legally) for school board
members when the schools don't work should be the target of everyone of us,
whether we have children in the public schools or not, not looking to see how
far $4,000 or $700.00 will go in getting a decent education.
-art clemons-
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>folks accountable. Thus making life miserable (legally) for school board
>members when the schools don't work should be the target of everyone of us,
>whether we have children in the public schools or not, not looking to see how
>far $4,000 or $700.00 will go in getting a decent education.
Clearly that's the proper approach. The problems are that:
1. It takes work.
2. You actually have to care. A friend of mine pickets John
Demjanjuk's house for something which happened to his family more than
50 years ago. If something so remote in time matters so much to him,
why should not something _immediate_ matter to parents?
The question is, will parents actually care enough to do anything?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
DarkStar
Art, I'm beginning to wonder if you believe that most Blacks are
encapable of making good decisions.
On Sun, 14 May 2000 05:36:37 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) put
forth:
>The New York State Board of Regents is apparently considering grading school
>districts on how well minority students do at said schools. The howls from
>many suburban NY school districts are coming in fast and furious, which implies
>of course that they're well aware they're failing minority students even when
>sending white students on to college and beyond.
>
>The sad commentary is that members of the community are willing to go for
>vouchers and other solutions without a proven track record or a failing track
>record, instead of pressuring politicians (school board members are politicians
>folks) to do something about improving how children from the community are
>taught.
Art, why don't you tell us the percentage of kids in NYC who are not
performing at least at grade level. If I remember correctly, that
number was around 30%. What is so "proven" about a failure of
70%!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!
>It's past time to stop waiting for the Roman Catholic Church (the largest
>source of private schooling in the US) to create new schools to educate us, and
>instead insist on things that work, and measurements that accord with the real
>world.
Who is waiting?
1. Many catholic schools have available seats.
2. Even voucher/charter opponents admit that small private schools are
opening up at a "fast" rate and that many of them are in the "inner
cities" and are lead by minorities.
3. Some Blacks are seriously looking at home schooling systems.
....
>Thus making life miserable (legally) for school board
>members when the schools don't work should be the target of everyone of us,
>whether we have children in the public schools or not, not looking to see how
>far $4,000 or $700.00 will go in getting a decent education.
Let me tell you about a woman who won the private voucher lottery and
what it means to her two children.
Those children, who performed poorly in public school, are now
performing much better. They both have developed *POSITIVE* outlooks
towards school. They both have developed more *POSITIVE* outlooks, in
general, and their behavior have also improved. Their mother broke
down and *CRIED* when she related the change in her two children.
Let's see.... *SURE* failure in the current system, or a chance at a
new paridigm....
Which to choose.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - darks...@home.net
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.charm.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>Art, I'm beginning to wonder if you believe that most Blacks are
>encapable of making good decisions.
You miss the point, it's SUBURBAN school boards in NY State which are howling
because suddenly, the success rate of African-Americans is a measured number,
one which goes into their rating system. You seem to also miss that the
children of middle and upper class African-Americans aren't doing as well as
the offspring of economically similar whites in the same community. It's an
implication that public schools are failing even those from whom success should
be an expectation according to most.
I question vouchers because I know how they work, how they're proposed to be
funded, and that MOST of the community won't benefit. When African-Americans
are treated as a group, allowing a limited number of individuals a "chance at
success" doesn't work, or the previously mentioned students in the suburbs
would be doing well. There's racism out there, and that affects how well those
with resources & dark skin do. Remember Shaker Hts, I've lived there.
>On Sun, 14 May 2000 05:36:37 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) put
>forth:
>
>>The New York State Board of Regents is apparently considering grading school
>>districts on how well minority students do at said schools. The howls from
>>many suburban NY school districts are coming in fast and furious, which
>implies
>>of course that they're well aware they're failing minority students even
>when
>>sending white students on to college and beyond.
>>
>>The sad commentary is that members of the community are willing to go for
>>vouchers and other solutions without a proven track record or a failing
>track
>>record, instead of pressuring politicians (school board members are
>politicians
>>folks) to do something about improving how children from the community are
>>taught.
>
>Art, why don't you tell us the percentage of kids in NYC who are not
>performing at least at grade level. If I remember correctly, that
>number was around 30%. What is so "proven" about a failure of
>70%!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!
Quick Ed, since you bring up NYC, what percentage of the Roman Catholic
Parochial school system is empty. The recently deceased cardinal while
conservative in some ways did try to insure that "minorities" attended
parochial schools, and there ain't many open seats available. So uh, just what
percentage of the failing 64% (based on a claim in the NYTimes recently) will
get to attend good private schools if vouchers suddenly happen? And further
what makes you think that those already attending private schools won't get
vouchers too?
>>It's past time to stop waiting for the Roman Catholic Church (the largest
>>source of private schooling in the US) to create new schools to educate us,
>and
>>instead insist on things that work, and measurements that accord with the
>real
>>world.
>
>Who is waiting?
You are apparently. It's past time we as a group began insisting that we get
the same services as others do. That means better education for children,
police who prevent crime rather than encouraging it and a wide variety of other
things. Vouchers are a solution which won't work.
>1. Many catholic schools have available seats.
Nationwide, the vacancy rate (i.e. open available seats is low). In big
cities, the rate is even lower because those parents who can opt out of the
public schools do so if they have the funds or the diocese will subsidize their
children.
>2. Even voucher/charter opponents admit that small private schools are
>opening up at a "fast" rate and that many of them are in the "inner
>cities" and are lead by minorities.
Ed, this is sort of like the Thernstrom's claim that African-Americans joined
the middle class at a faster rate before affirmative action happened, if the
percentage is .0001% and you go to .09%, the rate of growth is incredible, but
it doesn't prove anything. Also, I at least wonder just how well some of the
graduates of the new private schools are doing let's say getting into college,
or will do if we're discussing elementary schooling.
>3. Some Blacks are seriously looking at home schooling systems.
Home Schooling is an incredible risk presently. I also note that many of those
opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs. Further the
testing methods for home schooled children do seem to discriminate against
African-Americans in the same way that most standardized testing does. The
results are still out on how well the students do in college admission too.
........
>>Thus making life miserable (legally) for school board
>>members when the schools don't work should be the target of everyone of us,
>>whether we have children in the public schools or not, not looking to see
>how
>>far $4,000 or $700.00 will go in getting a decent education.
>
>Let me tell you about a woman who won the private voucher lottery and
>what it means to her two children.
>
>Those children, who performed poorly in public school, are now
>performing much better. They both have developed *POSITIVE* outlooks
>towards school. They both have developed more *POSITIVE* outlooks, in
>general, and their behavior have also improved. Their mother broke
>down and *CRIED* when she related the change in her two children.
>
>Let's see.... *SURE* failure in the current system, or a chance at a
>new paridigm....
>
>Which to choose.
Ed, individual results are so lovely, the problem is that most folks don't win
lotteries, whether for magnet schools, exclusive charter schools, or private
schooling. Not only that, but what about the left behinds, you know the ones
who still have only the lousy public schools to attend? No private schooling
system is going to deal with over 10% of the student population in the next ten
years, and most of those in private schooling will remain white and the
offspring of the not poor.
I also note that with all of the complaints about public schools not meeting
standards with teachers, that many of the private schools people so laud have
to draw their teachers from somewhere, how many of the new private schools have
teachers who passed exams or could?
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<cm...@mciworld.com> writes:
>Clearly that's the proper approach. The problems are that:
>
>1. It takes work.
>
>2. You actually have to care. A friend of mine pickets John
>Demjanjuk's house for something which happened to his family more than
>50 years ago. If something so remote in time matters so much to him,
>why should not something _immediate_ matter to parents?
>
>The question is, will parents actually care enough to do anything?
One of the problems with vouchers, charter schools and the like is that such
solutions draw off the very same parents most likely to do so. In the suburbs,
politicians are afraid to cross that small group. In a large city, it's easier
to do, especially if lots of parents are involved in promoting parochial
schools or other private schooling. The ironic thing is that both of us went
to parochial schools in big cities, both of us know that parochial schools are
not elite schools and that most of the graduates don't get to go to elite
schools.
-art clemons-
ksp...@umich.edu
Art Clemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
>The New York State Board of Regents is apparently considering grading school
>districts on how well minority students do at said schools. The howls from
>many suburban NY school districts are coming in fast and furious, which implies
>of course that they're well aware they're failing minority students even when
>sending white students on to college and beyond.
This is a really interesting approach....innovative even.
>The sad commentary is that members of the community are willing to go for
>vouchers and other solutions without a proven track record or a failing track
>record, instead of pressuring politicians (school board members are politicians
>folks) to do something about improving how children from the community are
>taught.
Where do you get this from? Have you ever attended your community's
school board meetings? I've studied Detroit for the last few years, and
this pattern isn't duplicated. Parents come out in force to protest the
activities of the school board, as they apply to individual schools, and
as they apply to education in detroit in general.
You know what my stance is regarding vouchers and the like....I'm not with
them at ALL. But at the same time let's not make the silly proposition
that parents aren't working with and sometimes AGAINST school boards for
the sake of their children.
peace
lks
Art Clemons
writes:
>Where do you get this from? Have you ever attended your community's
>school board meetings? I've studied Detroit for the last few years, and
>this pattern isn't duplicated. Parents come out in force to protest the
>activities of the school board, as they apply to individual schools, and
>as they apply to education in detroit in general.
>
>You know what my stance is regarding vouchers and the like....I'm not with
>them at ALL. But at the same time let's not make the silly proposition
>that parents aren't working with and sometimes AGAINST school boards for
>the sake of their children.
Unless parents can make it plain to politicians that failing students as a
group are not politically desirable, groups of parents showing up at school
board meetings won't and can't do much good. In big cities like Detroit,
school boards aren't dependent on parental votes to survive (in fact, political
schemes to increase parental voting power, or alternatively only allowing
parents to vote for school boards have usually failed constitutional muster),
and parents showing up just don't have the pull. If just showing up at school
boards worked, Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Atlanta would
all have an all elite school system. The problem is that benefitting the
students, especially African-American students hasn't been a priority of school
boards and those who vote for them, or appoint them if an appointed board.
-art clemons-
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>One of the problems with vouchers, charter schools and the like is that such
>solutions draw off the very same parents most likely to do so. In the suburbs,
>politicians are afraid to cross that small group. In a large city, it's easier
>to do, especially if lots of parents are involved in promoting parochial
>schools or other private schooling. The ironic thing is that both of us went
>to parochial schools in big cities, both of us know that parochial schools are
>not elite schools and that most of the graduates don't get to go to elite
>schools.
You have to also admit thought that compared to the Chicago public
school system, the WORST Catholic school IS elite.
One problem that I have with what you say is that you seem to want to
restrict people to the public schools to FORCE change. The fallacy of
that is that of course people's kids need to learn NOW. That means
sending them to private school.
What ACTUAL leverage would Black parents have over the Chicago and
Cleveland public schools? Should we actually picket the
administrators' homes?
Von Bailey
wrote:
>>2. Even voucher/charter opponents admit that small private schools are
>>opening up at a "fast" rate and that many of them are in the "inner
>>cities" and are lead by minorities.
>
While it is true that the charter schools are popping up to meet this
demand, one has to question the competency of an institution built so
quickly to solve such a complex problem. The magic word "vouchers"
must manifest into a government program giving out money at some point
and religious organizations are not the only people who will be trying
to get a piece of this pie. Privitized the money can go into
directions that are almost impossible to trace as a private
institution can exist today and next year disappear (as some parents
of charter schools find out). As a governmental agency at least there
is a relatively easier path in finding out who screwed things up and
hopefully accountable.
Privatization can very easily turn into a program of graft and
corruption where the poor are victimized and their children can be
stuck without a school to go to next year because someone made their
money and is now vacationing in the South Pacific and oh yeah, that
school thing they tried out in Watts didn't work out.
Also, it is a false assumption that just because someone is going to a
'better' school they will 'do better' in school. Many students don't
do well in school because their parents don't have the time or
resources to supply the supplemental aspects of education, like a
library of books in the home which includes a set of encyclopedias and
a dictionary, tutors to help in the classes that they are having
difficulty in, seminars to learn better testing techniques, computers,
etc.
Giving parents vouchers to pay for the school and not give them the
resources to reinforce the higher level of expectation of these
private schools is just setting these students up for failure.
Teachers at these private schools may accept a few kids in their
classes who cannot augment their education with tools in the home and
be sympathetic at their slow progress, but a large influx of such
students will only change the private system into a copy of the public
system. That is, until they start deciding who shouldn't be attending
the school anymore.
>
>>3. Some Blacks are seriously looking at home schooling systems.
>
>Home Schooling is an incredible risk presently.
So is sending your children to public school in some quarters and I'm
not speaking just academically.
>I also note that many of those
>opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs. Further the
>testing methods for home schooled children do seem to discriminate against
>African-Americans in the same way that most standardized testing does. The
>results are still out on how well the students do in college admission too.
>
In California it is the same testing as the public schools for home
schoolers. The Stanford Nine. However, you have the option of opting
out of such testing if you wish (as my wife and I have done with our
daughter).
As far as the college admissions thing, many home schoolers who I have
met are usually pretty independent thinkers and start small businesses
instead of going to college. It allows them the control of their time
and actions that they had grown accustomed to as they grew up.
However, the other side of the coin is that many of the students who
try to get into college have problems dealing with the structured
aspect of learning in a classroom and lack of choice in 'how' they
learn. A very common solution is to choose to go to community
colleges for the first couple of years to get used to the dynamic of
classroom teaching and paying the least amount for the experience.
Once the prerequisites are out of the way (ensuring that the credits
are transferrable) they can then apply to a university for the last
couple of years to get the degree in their chosen discipline.
Just like normal schools, if done right the students are usually very
bright and creative and have little problem assimilating once they
realize it's just someone is spoon feeding you information that you
just have to memorize for a test. To quote a young man at the last
home schooling seminar I went to whom I was speaking to about his
college experience, "The academic aspect is easy. Most of the time
they don't ask you to use the information, just remember it until the
test."
von
"As the government of the United States of
America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion..."
President John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
ksp...@umich.edu
Art Clemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <2000051520...@qbert.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>, ksp...@umich.edu
>writes:
>
>group are not politically desirable, groups of parents showing up at school
>board meetings won't and can't do much good. In big cities like Detroit,
>school boards aren't dependent on parental votes to survive (in fact, political
>schemes to increase parental voting power, or alternatively only allowing
>parents to vote for school boards have usually failed constitutional muster),
>and parents showing up just don't have the pull.
Art this is how I understood the argument you made.
1. Significant numbers of black people support vouchers.
2. Vouchers are harmful to black communities.
3. The time spent on vouchers is NOT spent on pressuring politicians.
4. Time spent on pressuring politicians is more beneficial than time
spent on vouchers.
5. Parents don't pressure politicians at the same rate as they support
vouchers.
CONCLUSION: Education of black children suffers.
Now I support the conclusion...but I don't support some of the premises.
I DO see pressure placed on politicians to improve the schools...but here
is where the voucher proponents actually get it RIGHT--there is a
bureaucracy to consider that is strong enough to withstand a great deal of
political pressure. So the conclusion that you arrive at, is possible
EVEN WITH POLITICAL PRESSURE BY PARENTS. Political pressure I've seen
FIRST HAND.
>If just showing up at school
>boards worked, Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Atlanta would
>all have an all elite school system. The problem is that benefitting the
>students, especially African-American students hasn't been a priority of school
>boards and those who vote for them, or appoint them if an appointed board.
>
When you talk about pressuring school boards then, what type of activity
are you referring to?
peace
lks
Alice Holman
Art Clemons wrote:
>
> You are apparently. It's past time we as a group began insisting that we get
> the same services as others do.
Can I get an Amen over here!!!
> That means better education for children,
> police who prevent crime rather than encouraging it and a wide variety of other
> things. Vouchers are a solution which won't work.
Its always nice to see that somebody somewhere is thinking it thru to the end - not
just the glitzy start-up.
snip:
>
>
> Home Schooling is an incredible risk presently. I also note that many of those
> opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs. Further the
> testing methods for home schooled children do seem to discriminate against
> African-Americans in the same way that most standardized testing does. The
> results are still out on how well the students do in college admission too.
You bet its a big risk. College admissions people are well aware that mommy
probably won't flunk the kid when he might deserve a good flunking. We do NOT take
those standard transcripts they throw at us at face value.
Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least in this state
at public institutions) take the GED and get an acceptable score. That really
frosts them.
It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why would you want
to do that to a kid?
alice
>
>
DarkStar
forth:
....
> In big cities like Detroit,
>school boards aren't dependent on parental votes to survive (in fact, political
>schemes to increase parental voting power, or alternatively only allowing
>parents to vote for school boards have usually failed constitutional muster),
>and parents showing up just don't have the pull. If just showing up at school
>boards worked, Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Atlanta would
>all have an all elite school system. The problem is that benefitting the
>students, especially African-American students hasn't been a priority of school
>boards and those who vote for them, or appoint them if an appointed board.
So, just keep them in those schools?
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <rsdthsc6aub9ncm6n...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>Art, I'm beginning to wonder if you believe that most Blacks are
>>encapable of making good decisions.
>
>You miss the point, it's SUBURBAN school boards in NY State which are howling
>because suddenly, the success rate of African-Americans is a measured number,
>one which goes into their rating system.
I haven't missed it at all.
> You seem to also miss that the
>children of middle and upper class African-Americans aren't doing as well as
>the offspring of economically similar whites in the same community.
For those who don't, I haven't missed them either. I've mentioned what
people in my family have faced.
....
>I question vouchers because I know how they work, how they're proposed to be
>funded, and that MOST of the community won't benefit.
1. *MOST* of inner-city residents aren't benefiting now.
2. No matter how much you complain about money leaving the school
system with voucher plans, you *NEVER* address the *FACT* that the
money leaves *ANYWAY* when students leave the system because their
parents moved to the suburbs, decided to pay for private school, or
enroll their children in suburban schools by using someone else's
address.
> When African-Americans
>are treated as a group, allowing a limited number of individuals a "chance at
>success" doesn't work,
So, just let them all rot; wonderful.
....
>>Art, why don't you tell us the percentage of kids in NYC who are not
>>performing at least at grade level. If I remember correctly, that
>>number was around 30%. What is so "proven" about a failure of
>>70%!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!
>
>Quick Ed, since you bring up NYC, what percentage of the Roman Catholic
>Parochial school system is empty. The recently deceased cardinal while
>conservative in some ways did try to insure that "minorities" attended
>parochial schools, and there ain't many open seats available.
So, what about the other smaller private schools? Meanwhile, even
*WITH* pressure to better their school system, the NYC system just
gets worse.
You never answer this question: If you had kids of school age, and you
could afford to send your children to private school, would you do it,
or would you send them to a failing public school?
>So uh, just what
>percentage of the failing 64% (based on a claim in the NYTimes recently) will
>get to attend good private schools if vouchers suddenly happen? And further
>what makes you think that those already attending private schools won't get
>vouchers too?
I don't care if those who are already in private schools get help.
What you *NEVER* address is that many of the minorty parents who are
sending their kids to private schools, are *NOT* wealthy.
>>>It's past time to stop waiting for the Roman Catholic Church (the largest
>>>source of private schooling in the US) to create new schools to educate us,
>>and
>>>instead insist on things that work, and measurements that accord with the
>>real
>>>world.
>>
>>Who is waiting?
>
>You are apparently.
Really? Well tell all of us *HOW* I'm "just waiting"?
....
>things. Vouchers are a solution which won't work.
Then why, in some cases, *ARE* they working?
>>1. Many catholic schools have available seats.
>
>Nationwide, the vacancy rate (i.e. open available seats is low). In big
>cities, the rate is even lower because those parents who can opt out of the
>public schools do so if they have the funds or the diocese will subsidize their
>children.
Cite stats with your sources, Art.
>>2. Even voucher/charter opponents admit that small private schools are
>>opening up at a "fast" rate and that many of them are in the "inner
>>cities" and are lead by minorities.
>
>Ed, this is sort of like the Thernstrom's claim that African-Americans joined
>the middle class at a faster rate before affirmative action happened, if the
>percentage is .0001% and you go to .09%, the rate of growth is incredible, but
>it doesn't prove anything.
It's not the "rate of growth" that is being measured, it's the rate of
openings. There's a difference.
>Also, I at least wonder just how well some of the
>graduates of the new private schools are doing let's say getting into college,
>or will do if we're discussing elementary schooling.
But you don't ask the same questions of those in public school?
>>3. Some Blacks are seriously looking at home schooling systems.
>
>Home Schooling is an incredible risk presently.
It's no more of a risk than keeping your child in a failing school
system.
>I also note that many of those
>opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs.
And if Black parents do so for religious beliefs, so what? And if
Black parents do it for Afro-centric beliefs, so what? And if Black
parents do it because they believe they can do a better job, so what?
....
>>Let's see.... *SURE* failure in the current system, or a chance at a
>>new paridigm....
>>
>>Which to choose.
>
>Ed, individual results are so lovely, the problem is that most folks don't win
>lotteries, whether for magnet schools, exclusive charter schools, or private
>schooling.
No, most school age kids in Baltimore, for example, are stuck in a
school system that is the worse performing in the state and that has 2
schools under state control, with more pending. One of those 2
schools, a friend of mine volunteered at 3-5 days a school week. He
said it was the school system, teachers, and school administrators
that stood in the way of a better school.
>Not only that, but what about the left behinds, you know the ones
>who still have only the lousy public schools to attend?
Hopefully, the exodus would spur changes. But seeing that some systems
still don't want to change, at least *SOME* are able to get the hell
out. Meanwhile, you want all to suffer.
What about the unions? They are too busy protecting teachers. What
about the NYC teacher who couldn't get fired even though she *IS* a
heroin adict? They fired her, but not because of drug use, but for too
many days off!
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>So, just keep them in those schools?
Ed, most of the students will still be in those schools even with vouchers
because there is NO OTHER choice. What do you suggest be done for the 90% left
behind, besides depriving them of some of the limited funds already available.
Even charter schools fail as anyone who looks at the record can see.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<cm...@mciworld.com> writes:
>You have to also admit thought that compared to the Chicago public
>school system, the WORST Catholic school IS elite.
Yes, but in the Chicagoland, the teachers in Chicago earn less than most of the
other school districts, the per pupil spending is lower than most except places
like Robbins, Ford City and Harvey, and at the same time Chicago has to spend
money on an extensive bussing system, and lots of other things, plus "da mayor"
supposedly has control of the schools courtesy of the state legislature.
Pressure has to be put on Daley, and the state legislature somehow to
adequately fund the schools and insure that African-American, Puerto Rican and
Mexican children get educated properly. Said children apparently have
different needs than white children or get their needs met less well even when
there is funding, the question instead becomes which changes to make and how
fast they can be made.
>One problem that I have with what you say is that you seem to want to
>restrict people to the public schools to FORCE change. The fallacy of
>that is that of course people's kids need to learn NOW. That means
>sending them to private school.
If I remember correctly the number of parochial seats in Chicago's diocese is
down compared to ten years ago, and new private seats haven't even replaced
that loss. I also note that most of the folks now sending their children to
private schools are already withdrawn, and that many parents already have moved
to suburbs to escape the Chicago public schools. Of course for minority
children, the public schools aren't necessarily a good risk even said schools
are "adequately funded". We also both know that just putting pressure on
people to resist won't make them resist in the right way. The problem though
is that vouchers will drain off the very people most likely to try to force
change, just as integration and moving to the suburbs originally drew off the
white parents in big cities who had kept the schools their children went to
functioning.
>What ACTUAL leverage would Black parents have over the Chicago and
>Cleveland public schools? Should we actually picket the
>administrators' homes?
Both Chicago and Cleveland have problems. Both systems are underfunded, need
extensive capital improvements, and have school boards insulated from parents
politcally. The leverage needed sadly in Ohio is already there, namely the
Ohio Supreme Ct ruling on funding, but such things have to be forced on the
legislature and the mayor. Illinois is trickier, nobody has yet convinced the
court there that the funding is horrible. Even after the funding is available,
you still have to get school districts to adequately educate minority children,
and that's even trickier ala Shaker Heights also in Cuyahoga county and
bordering Cleveland.
However sending parents off on fools errands like vouchers definitely will not
improve things, and charter schools right now are a crap shoot. Some work,
others mess up, but experiments have a high failure rate too.
One final comment, even parochial schools don't necessarily properly educate
African-American youth, the sad part though is that just teaching students to
read, and do simple math is such an improvement that it looks elite compared to
some public school systems.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
<cm...@mciworld.com> wrote:
>What ACTUAL leverage would Black parents have over the Chicago and
>Cleveland public schools? Should we actually picket the
>administrators' homes?
What?
Picket their homes?
Hell, get the outraged parents (if you can find enough who give a
damn) to get out there, vote, run for office, point these people out,
and fire their asses, if they're really the problem.
The implied threat of physical harm, and the disruption of the
neighbors who would be unfortunate enough to live next door to one of
these "administrators", makes this kind of emotional nonsense
completely absurd.
The first thing that needs to happen is that every parent, and every
student, needs to get it straight that bad schools are NOT par for the
course, and that the kids need to understand how they're getting
ripped off. Further, every dimwit gang-banging asshole needs to be
ejected from the mix, if all they can do is disrupt the education
needed to succeed in this society, and said dimwits need to be labeled
clearly as "enemies of the people".
If you're going to demonstrate outside of anybody's home, make it the
home of some of these damned gangsters that are beating up and killing
their fellow students.
Wayne "I wonder what kind of result THAT would bring" Johnson
cia...@hotmail.com
When Magic Johnson was still in high school, some
gang bangers came into the high school gym where he
worked after school and wouldn't leave at closing
time. They told him that if he didn't leave them
alone, they'd "smack him down."
Magic said, "You can smack, and smack, and smack. And
I'll be back, and back, and back."
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>So, just keep them in those schools?
So, it's vouchers, or nothing?
Wayne "It's not that simple" Johnson
ksp...@umich.edu
Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Art Clemons wrote:
>> That means better education for children,
>> police who prevent crime rather than encouraging it and a wide variety
>of other
>> things. Vouchers are a solution which won't work.
Right.
>>
>> Home Schooling is an incredible risk presently. I also note that many
>of those
>> opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs. Further the
>> testing methods for home schooled children do seem to discriminate against
>> African-Americans in the same way that most standardized testing does. The
>> results are still out on how well the students do in college admission too.
When you say that many of those opting for home schooling do so because of
religious beliefs, what is this based on? I know a few people who do
it...and some do it for religious reasons, some for political reasons.
But whatever the case, it seems to me that if the parents are trained, the
son/daughter should be BETTER prepared for college--provided that he/she
goes to comm. coll. first.
>You bet its a big risk. College admissions people are well aware that mommy
>probably won't flunk the kid when he might deserve a good flunking. We
>do NOT take
>those standard transcripts they throw at us at face value.
What is the risk? If a child goes to community college first, aces that
program....he/she should be straight.
>It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why would
>you want
>to do that to a kid?
Alice I think this is the wrong question to ask. If being "socially ept"
means:
1. Following orders...blindly accepting authority.
2. Wanting to work for someone else, rather than working for one's self.
3. Not appreciating the life of the mind....
Then I'll take socially inept over socially ept any day.
peace
lks
Pilar Quezzaire
: It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why would
: you want to do that to a kid?
I find most high schools do a job of making children socially inept too. I
think high schools must be chosen for the quality education provided AND
the social atmosphere to thrive. I went to a small boarding school and
experienced little "normal" socilization, which for me was a Good
Thing. Normal high schools can be absolutely brutal on the psyche of some
students, and personally, I'd rather school my kids at home if my
alternative was to send them to a school where I was leery of the sorts of
social skills they'd learn.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"The Headlights of Ignorance shine in my eyes, and I am the Doe of
Knowledge."
--Pilar Quezzaire-Belle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Von Bailey
many of those
> > opting for home schooling do so because of religious beliefs.
Further the
> > testing methods for home schooled children do seem to discriminate
against
> > African-Americans in the same way that most standardized testing
does. The
> > results are still out on how well the students do in college
admission too.
>
mommy
> probably won't flunk the kid when he might deserve a good flunking.
We do NOT take
> those standard transcripts they throw at us at face value.
>
schools where teachers are admiting that they are passing students to
the next grade regardless of their actual academic skills. Why is one
more relevant than the other? Sounds like an unfounded bias to me.
> Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least
in this state
> at public institutions) take the GED and get an acceptable score.
That really
> frosts them.
>
> It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why
would you want
> to do that to a kid?
>
Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
to guard against it during her educational process.
von
--
Christian: You have to understand, for me to believe what you say I
would have to admit that I have been crazy all my life.
Atheist: So you do understand my perspective, it's the same as yours.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>One final comment, even parochial schools don't necessarily properly educate
>African-American youth, the sad part though is that just teaching students to
>read, and do simple math is such an improvement that it looks elite compared to
>some public school systems.
Once again, you've broadly identified the problems. What are the
SOLUTIONS? You say that pressure has to be put on the "educational"
establishment and government, but you don't say HOW. Daley (probably
correctly) thinks he owns our votes, because certainly the Cook County
Republican organization can't even get WHITE votes.
What exactly DO we have to hold over their heads?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>The implied threat of physical harm, and the disruption of the
>neighbors who would be unfortunate enough to live next door to one of
>these "administrators", makes this kind of emotional nonsense
>completely absurd.
WHAT "implied threat of physical harm"? The people who sat-in at
lunch counters in the '60s were HARMED far more than they ever harmed
anyone. Picketing doesn't even violate anyone's property rights.
Was there an "implied threat of physical harm" in the so-called
Million Moms March? (Actually some people I know who were there in
the counter march, actually were met with physical violence, to
including being spat upon and having baby strollers [with babies in
them] rammed into them as they marched.
>If you're going to demonstrate outside of anybody's home, make it the
>home of some of these damned gangsters that are beating up and killing
>their fellow students.
But you see no danger of "physical harm" there? Don't expect any
"protection" from the Chicago Police Department. Their relationship
is all too often one of colleagues....
DarkStar
put forth:
>On Wed, 17 May 2000 00:07:12 CST, DarkStar <darks...@home.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So, just keep them in those schools?
>
>So, it's vouchers, or nothing?
>
>Wayne "It's not that simple" Johnson
>cia...@hotmail.com
I'm not saying it is that simple; just think out of the box!
I'm busy and running on little sleep these days, so let me hit some
highlights:
1. People say that charter schools take away from public schools.
Well, charter schools *ARE* public schools, and if they take away from
public schools, then the same applies for opening *NEW* public
schools. (Think about it).
2. Smaller class size means hiring more teachers which means more
needed class space which means more crowded schools and "portables".
(Think about it).
3. If losing kids takes away from public school funding because part
of the budget is based on the number of kids attending the schools,
won't the same happen when parents take their children out of the
school system because they moved, put them in private school, or used
someone's address out of the district to send them to another school?
4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In Baltimore,
the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools in the
Philly area charge around $2100/year.
I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I asked
questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the avg.
teacher salary. To my suprise, I got answers to the salary question.
And I was suprise to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
$25,000/year.
5. Arguments concerning those who attend private schools and the rate
of college attendence is a farce. *MOST* people never attend college.
I believe for all races the rate is 20% and less.
And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
private school, what would you do?
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <d704issv4m64bqvok...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>So, just keep them in those schools?
>
>Ed, most of the students will still be in those schools even with vouchers
>because there is NO OTHER choice. What do you suggest be done for the 90% left
>behind, besides depriving them of some of the limited funds already available.
"Limited funds," in the context you use, it is a farce and you know
it.
*MORE* money is lost when the poverty level of the school goes down
(Federal Title I funding) than would change from vouchers.
DarkStar
<Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> put forth:
>
>
>Art Clemons wrote:
....
>> That means better education for children,
>> police who prevent crime rather than encouraging it and a wide variety of other
>> things. Vouchers are a solution which won't work.
>
>Its always nice to see that somebody somewhere is thinking it thru to the end - not
>just the glitzy start-up.
Glitzy start-up?
You must be kidding, right?
The Prince Georges County, Maryland school system did an audit a few
years ago, and they were not able to account for about $2 million in
funding.
.....
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
>child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
>to guard against it during her educational process.
Don't worry about the "social ineptitude" arguments about home
schooling. Most of what your kids won't learn about social
interaction involves learning defensive techniques for dealing with
disciplinary problem kids in schools, that should be dealt with by the
administration, really.
You'll notice any problems that come up in interactions with other
kids at special events, such as birthday parties, outings at amusement
parks, Chucky Cheese, stuff like that. If they don't have any
problems dealing with kids for short periods - a few hours, or a day -
they won't have problems in any longer term.
All I would guard against, if I were you, is inculcating the notion
that should be dealing with problems with other people simply by
shunning them. The ability to simply self-segregate is a luxury that
home schooling affords them; they simply don't have to deal with
people they don't like, and that can be a very bad precedent for the
times in their lives when they DO have to deal with people. Some kids
become reclusive, which can be difficult.
If you see your kid(s) (I don't know how many you have, or their ages)
becoming reclusive while you'd expect them to be with a group, check
it out. But keep your eye on the group dynamics, too; there might be
a very good reason for them to stay away from a group, which you could
understand and support.
The best thing to do is to simply know your own kids, and support
them, 100%.
Wayne "The only preparation they need is for the day you aren't
around" Johnson
Art Clemons
ksp...@umich.edu writes:
>When you say that many of those opting for home schooling do so because of
>religious beliefs, what is this based on? I know a few people who do
>it...and some do it for religious reasons, some for political reasons.
>But whatever the case, it seems to me that if the parents are trained, the
>son/daughter should be BETTER prepared for college--provided that he/she
>goes to comm. coll. first.
>
My statement is based on how home schooling is being pushed, by whom it's being
pushed, and also being on a mailing list for home schoolers (no, I'm not one).
There is no requirement that parents be trained in most states, and in fact
some states have testing requirements for home schooled children. So far,
parents who teach to the tests seem to survive, but ..........
I worry though about the children of poorly educated parents, who withdraw
children from the outside world, get their child a GED, and then send said
children onto one of a number of bible colleges I think little of (No, even Bob
Jones would be an improvement compared to at least four of them). Of course,
there is no requirement that children be exposed to the world, and some of the
most successful small town public schools are very insular too, but I still
wonder how well African heritage home schooled children are doing on the tests.
So far, those folks I know of, mostly aren't passing basic testing, of course,
the public schools they're rejecting probably has students who couldn't pass
the same exams either.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
writes:
>However, those same college administrators are accepting the grades of
>schools where teachers are admiting that they are passing students to
>the next grade regardless of their actual academic skills. Why is one
>more relevant than the other? Sounds like an unfounded bias to me.
Von, one of the problems is that the schools with lots of social promotion
usually don't get a lot of grads into elite or even mediocre colleges. The
student with reccomendations from teachers at <Elite Private School> is more
likely to get in than someone from let's say Normal Big City High School in
Chicago.
Alice:
>> Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least
>>in this state at public institutions) take the GED and get an acceptable
score.
>>That really frosts them.
>>
>> It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why
>>would you want to do that to a kid?
>>
>Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
>child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
>to guard against it during her educational process.
One of the major problems presently is that said offspring don't know how to
interact consistently with others their age, or instructors whose teaching
methods are different from "Mom's". The laissez faire attitude at most
colleges is especially killing for youth, who had to be pushed constantly to
prepare things, or to concentrate on subjects where weakness is shown.
The other of course is that others aren't as tolerant of stupidity on the part
of offspring as mom & dad are, and junior just isn't used to it.
-art clemons-
Alice Holman
ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> >You bet its a big risk. College admissions people are well aware that mommy
> >probably won't flunk the kid when he might deserve a good flunking. We
> >do NOT take
> >those standard transcripts they throw at us at face value.
>
> What is the risk? If a child goes to community college first, aces that
> program....he/she should be straight.
Ya see, they don't WANT to go to a community college first. And they don't WANT to
take the GED. They have been given the impression (most of them, but not all,
nothing is ever all) that they are SPECIAL. And while every living human being is
SPECIAL, they still got to follow the rules. But their parents have made up the
rules for so long they don't realize that when you are dealing with a large crowd
in order to have any kind of order and to keep down an uproar, there are certain
rules that must be followed. Like take the GED and shut up. If you're that well
educated it won't matter a bit. You'll ace it and I won't have to explain to all
the legislators, etc who make these rules, why I should still be allowed to keep
my job after I let you slide. I got to eat too.
>
>
> >It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why would
> >you want
> >to do that to a kid?
>
> Alice I think this is the wrong question to ask. If being "socially ept"
> means:
>
> 1. Following orders...blindly accepting authority.
>
> 2. Wanting to work for someone else, rather than working for one's self.
>
> 3. Not appreciating the life of the mind....
>
> Then I'll take socially inept over socially ept any day.
Nope. That's not what I meant at all. If that was all that was involved I'd be the
first to say "Hurrah!" for them. What I am speaking about is they come in, they of
course are better than you, a mere servant, they talk down to you, act a fool, are
insulting, tell you how dumb you are and then expect favors. Do you see what I
mean? The only people they know how to relate to in terms of getting what they
want and need are their parents and apparently some of them have been running
their parents around in circles for years and they think they can do that to every
adult they run across. And it ain't so. Somebody needs to tell them how to get
what they need in a diplomatic manner. But of course, it can't be you because you
are dumb. Isn't that what education is about? Learning to deal in the world you
have to live in?
alice
> lks
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>The Prince Georges County, Maryland school system did an audit a few
>years ago, and they were not able to account for about $2 million in
>funding.
But Ed, $2,000,000.00 out of how big a budget. Yes, it's a lot of money, but
it doesn't prove that even more money is needed before the schools will work
right. If I recall correctly, Prince Georges County spends less per pupil than
most other school districts in Metro DC.
The fact that fraud happens isn't astounding, of course most people committing
fraud learn to hide it better so that it's not immediately apparent that the
money disappeared too.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<cm...@mciworld.com> writes:
>Once again, you've broadly identified the problems. What are the
>SOLUTIONS? You say that pressure has to be put on the "educational"
>establishment and government, but you don't say HOW. Daley (probably
>correctly) thinks he owns our votes, because certainly the Cook County
>Republican organization can't even get WHITE votes.
>
>What exactly DO we have to hold over their heads?
Quite simple, we have to find things that annoy and bother politicians who have
influence over schooling, and do them unless the schools work. In Daley's case,
unless he's caught raping an underage boy or girl, while snorting cocaine, and
accepting 32 bribes an hour, there isn't much one can do. In the land of the
Cleve, well, it's more complicated. What don't politicians like in Cleveland
is a key question. I also suggest that even more important than abortion,
guns, snow removal, or crime is the question of education. Make politicians
afraid to have students as poorly treated as we are now. Adopt MADD's
techniques on education, and incidentally I note that there are white students
equally poorly served by many school systems too, who MIGHT benefit from
techniques which work on African-American students. We also need to find
political allies on this issue. Quite frankly, right now a politician can
mouth platitudes about schooling, show up at a few home & school meetings, and
escape retribution while the schools decline continually. Showing up at school
board meetings is probably still necessary, but it doesn't cure things, it will
just keep up pressure on the politicians ultimately with the power to create
change. In other words, it's agitation and more agitation, and no falling for
showy solutions like vouchers or even charter schools. Charter schools work
best when the schools are small, the schools have a limited set of desirable
goals, and an administrator who knows how to make sure the goals are met. When
the goals are vague, charter schools frankly don't seem to work, or when the
funding gets cut (I can tell tales about some of the failed charter schools),
but nobody quite catches on. We also need MORE money per pupil actually spent
on education, and we need practical assesment of student weaknesses and
strengths at least every two years so pupils don't fall through the cracks, and
we have to pressure politicians to do that. We need voters, we need
showmanship to embarrrass politicians over failed schools and we need to tie
the success of our schools to the politicians with the power to change things.
That still leaves open the question of what will work for said students. We
know for example that the suburban middle class instruction techniques seem to
not work well for most African-Americans, and that big city techniques function
even less well, so the first priority has to be educational research aimed at
improving African-American students immediately, and attention has to be paid
to what works, what should and what doesn't. We also have to make racism in
the assignment of teachers (i.e. send the duds to the south side of Chicago, or
North Philadelphia, or Roxbury in Boston, or the Bronx in NYC) not palatable
too, and we have to teach parents how to know when their children aren't doing
well in school. But first, we have to organize and decide to make every
public school system work for us.
-art clemons-
Alice Holman
Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
> Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
> I find most high schools do a job of making children socially inept too. I
> think high schools must be chosen for the quality education provided AND
> the social atmosphere to thrive. I went to a small boarding school and
> experienced little "normal" socilization, which for me was a Good
> Thing. Normal high schools can be absolutely brutal on the psyche of some
> students, and personally, I'd rather school my kids at home if my
> alternative was to send them to a school where I was leery of the sorts of
> social skills they'd learn.
I hear what you are saying and in some measure agree. However, where we differ is
that the world is not going to revolve around one way of doing something or
relating to something: there are going to be many many different ways to get what
you want and the more people you come in contact with the better prepared you are
to make your way thru a sometimes hostile world.
I always thought education was a preparation for living in the world. Yes, there
are difficult and hostile folk in the high school....you think there aren't
difficult and hostile people in the world of work? (even if you are self-employed,
you still have to wheel and deal to get what you need in terms of financing,
supplies, etc) And if you have had to negotiate your way thru some of the murky
waters as you grow up, it won't be nearly the shock it is if the only murkiness
you ran across was your momma on a bad day.
I kinda get a kick out of the "soccer moms" as they try to do all negotiating for
their kids, protect them from worms and flies, rant and rave at the "authorities"
when their brat is not an exception to some idiotic rule that they have supported
in the first place - but only for those commoner kids - you know the ones with the
worn out sneakers and the tatty clothes?
alice
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Holman
Von Bailey wrote:
> In article <392122F2...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> However, those same college administrators are accepting the grades of
> schools where teachers are admiting that they are passing students to
> the next grade regardless of their actual academic skills. Why is one
> more relevant than the other? Sounds like an unfounded bias to me.
It probably is. And those same parents have supported ALL of these stupid
rules that involve college. (have you notice how scared college
administrators are running?) They just never thought it would affect their
little sweetheart. So I ain't go NO sympathy. They would be the first ones
whining about how their kid got left out because some colored kid took
their place.
>
>
> > Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least
> in this state
> > at public institutions) take the GED and get an acceptable score.
> That really
> > frosts them.
> >
> > It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why
> would you want
> > to do that to a kid?
> >
> Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
> child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
> to guard against it during her educational process.
the inability to relate to many different styles of folk you run into on a
regular basis: such as, don't wig out because you don't get exactly what
you want on the first try. Have an arsenal of ways to negotiate your way
thru difficult situations without whining. Be aware that there is an
inordinate amount of bullies running loose in the world. Learn how to
either placate them or difuse them but don't be surprised by them. Don't
lose your cool at small frustrations. The world is a frusting place. Don't
expect instant gratification.
And honestly, I do believe that some people probably can successfully
homeschool their children. Its just that my experiences (and those of my
peers to whom I have spoken) have not been good. We seem to get the whining
demanding off-spring who think the world revolves around them. And even as
we sit in our professional organizations (sessions on homeschooling usually
headed up by homeschooling parents) the parents are usually carrying on in
the same manner that their kids do - like why don't you stop YOUR life and
do what they want you to do - as if you had the same amount of time to
spend on ONE kid as they do. Therein lies my frustration. Understand that
there are limitations to ANY system of education.
alice
>
>
>
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>1. People say that charter schools take away from public schools.
>Well, charter schools *ARE* public schools, and if they take away from
>public schools, then the same applies for opening *NEW* public
>schools. (Think about it).
Nope, for one thing in places like Pennsylvania, school districts not only have
to fund charter schools, but also provide transportation to the charter schools
(which is an extra expense), and although charter schools are public schools
supposedly, they aren't under the control of the school district. I also note
that usually charter schools have higher costs in acquiring a school bldg than
a school whose cost is amortized over 20 years with bonds. You're not thinking
this through, unless the charter school gets a public school bldg, it has to
lease (it can't build a new school) an existing bldg and renovate it. That
cost comes out of the per pupil funds allocated to the school.
>2. Smaller class size means hiring more teachers which means more
>needed class space which means more crowded schools and "portables".
>(Think about it).
Smaller class size so far has been the best predictor of success for
African-American students. I also note that you can't have crowded schools if
there are sufficient classrooms for all the students. One of the problems
presently is that poor school districts have more students per teacher in part
to save money and also to avoid spending money on new school bldgs.
>3. If losing kids takes away from public school funding because part
>of the budget is based on the number of kids attending the schools,
>won't the same happen when parents take their children out of the
>school system because they moved, put them in private school, or used
>someone's address out of the district to send them to another school?
Yes and no. For example in Pennsylvania, charter schools sometimes don't get
counted in the student count for a variety of reasons. I also note once again
that in many locales, school districts have to pay to transport students to
private or charter schools, even if normally they don't provide transport.
What you ignore about vouchers is that funds are allocated on a per pupil
basis. If the number of students goes down in the count, the amount allocated
goes down too, while the school system now has an additional subtraction,
namely the amount for the vouchers. That's the complaint about vouchers.
>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In Baltimore,
>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools in the
>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
Your Philly figure is low for sure. The cheapest I know of is about $2300,
with at least two schools charging at least $4000 in the Philadelphia Arch
diocese.
>I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I asked
>questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the avg.
>teacher salary. To my suprise, I got answers to the salary question.
>And I was suprise to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
>$25,000/year.
If they're paying $25,000, they're getting a lot of turnover, and just how are
they keeping qualified teachers on such a low salary, probably with no
benefits? I also know that in Philly, the parochial schools are paying about
what the public schools pay, but there is extreme pressure on the diocese to
increase salaries and talk about unionization and strikes. The Camden diocese
(across the river from Philly in NJ) almost was struck recently, and wages
apparently are set to rise drastically.
The other point to consider is that if you're discussing parochial schools and
there are nuns, brothers or priest teaching (assuming a vow of charity on their
part), the amount attributable to salary is about $5,000 per year, a technique
which lowers the available salaries. I don't know of any private school paying
25K to start that's worth attending, but Baltimore & Washington could be
different. The other problem
>5. Arguments concerning those who attend private schools and the rate
>of college attendence is a farce. *MOST* people never attend college.
>I believe for all races the rate is 20% and less.
You have to use generational figures. Last time I checked, over 60% of 1996 HS
grads attend at least one semester of college (something I read in US News &
World Report around October or Nov 1999) with females more likely to attend
than males.
The other problem is that completing college pays even for African-Americans in
increased income.
>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
>private school, what would you do?
You of course send your child to a private school. The problem is that if the
public schools remain poor where you live, you also later have to live with the
consequences of that poor schooling, namely few new jobs, higher crime rates
and a decline in the value of your residence if you own it. Pay now or pay
later!
-art clemons-
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>In article <2ar6isc4pvkipo3bk...@4ax.com>, Christopher Morton
><cm...@mciworld.com> writes:
>
>>Once again, you've broadly identified the problems. What are the
>>SOLUTIONS? You say that pressure has to be put on the "educational"
>>establishment and government, but you don't say HOW. Daley (probably
>>correctly) thinks he owns our votes, because certainly the Cook County
>>Republican organization can't even get WHITE votes.
>>
>>What exactly DO we have to hold over their heads?
>
>Quite simple, we have to find things that annoy and bother politicians who have
>influence over schooling, and do them unless the schools work. In Daley's case,
>unless he's caught raping an underage boy or girl, while snorting cocaine, and
>accepting 32 bribes an hour, there isn't much one can do. In the land of the
So then perhaps when it comes to places like Chicago, we should do
what our grandparents did regarding the "apartheid" South in the
"teens" and '20s and LEAVE.
Pilar Quezzaire
: I hear what you are saying and in some measure agree. However, where we
: differ is : that the world is not going to revolve around one way of
: doing something or : relating to something there are going to be many
: many different ways to get what you want and the more people you come
: in contact with the better prepared you are to make your way thru a
: sometimes hostile world.
We do not disagree on such a supposition, Alice. In fact, I find your
comments against homeschoolers particularly unsettling in light of your
stated opinions.
I believe you are arguing that these children are spoiled and difficult to
deal with. I have found the opposite to be true. I admit they have a
harder time with their peers, because of the emphasis on the education and
not the social experience of schooling.
That is rarely any true deterent, if all goes well.
: I always thought education was a preparation for living in the world.
Correct.
: Yes, there are difficult and hostile folk in the high school....you
: think there aren't difficult and hostile people in the world of work?
Of course. I encounter them on a regular basis. Alternative educations do
not preclude an ability to deal with such things. Most of my friends who
are of alternate educational backgrounds are often well-adjusted --
moreso than their publicly-educated peers.
: And if you have had to negotiate your way thru some of the murky
: waters as you grow up, it won't be nearly the shock it is if the only murkiness
: you ran across was your momma on a bad day.
Alice, it sounds to me that you've had a bad experience with a
homeschooled colleague. I can assure you that most people I know of
alternate educations are nto as you describe. It is a touch insulting to
assume one needs to go to a high school in order to be socially adjusted,
or aware of the world and its workings. MANY alternately-schooled young
adults get work experience as part of their education. So in a way, we're
better prepared than most. Not true of everyone, definitely true of a lot
of us, myself included. I was better able to thrive without the social
pressures of high school. I would have also had to have taken a lower
standard of education and performance had I gone to a "normal" high
school. Able to work at my own pace, I was a good bit ahead of most of my
peers. Socially, I was pretty bored with "normal" students -- my
priorities were not the same at all.
Once I got to college, I found far more people of like mind and
ambition. I had few problems with social adjustment.
: I kinda get a kick out of the "soccer moms" as they try to do all
: negotiating for : their kids, protect them from worms and flies, rant
: and rave at the "authorities" when their brat is not an exception to
: some idiotic rule that they have supported in the first place - but
: only for those commoner kids - you know the ones with the : worn out
: sneakers and the tatty clothes?
"Homeschooled" and "brats" are not the same thing. This is beginning to
feel like a rant, so I will bow out. I can only stress that I've seen the
same sort of bad behavior amongst normally-schooled students, and I do not
understand your hostility. The use of the term "commoner" is a clue, and I
might suggest to you that you consider if homeschooling is the issue, or a
matter of wealth and status. Poor children get homeschooled all the time.
Von Bailey
wrote:
>In article <8furva$ro4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Von Bailey <orang...@my-deja.com>
>writes:
>
>>However, those same college administrators are accepting the grades of
>>schools where teachers are admiting that they are passing students to
>>the next grade regardless of their actual academic skills. Why is one
>>more relevant than the other? Sounds like an unfounded bias to me.
>
>Von, one of the problems is that the schools with lots of social promotion
>usually don't get a lot of grads into elite or even mediocre colleges. The
Good point Art, but my point was the bias in the assumption that
parents would harm their child's chances by falsifing records to make
their child appear smarter than they are. Some would, I'm sure. No
group is totally honest. For instance, some in the public educational
system would pay to learn the best ways of taking the SAT which is
probably the worst indicator of being prepared for college or for
that matter relative intelligence created instead of focus on
improving the childs actual learning skills. It's called teaching to a
test instead of actual learning. Or maybe they would make sure their
kid played really good basketball, there's another great indicator of
college material.
But let's assume some of us home schooling parents are honest people
who truly want what's best for our children. Why would I choose to
remove my child from a system that isn't teaching her to not teach her
myself? It is insulting to home schooling parents for college
adminstrators to take the word of a system that admits it's false
promotion practices (resulting in these same colleges having to give
remedial classes in english, math and composition just to bring these
student's skill sets up to a competent level) and at the same time
smuggly look down on the attempts of these parents to save their child
from that failing system.
>student with reccomendations from teachers at <Elite Private School> is more
>likely to get in than someone from let's say Normal Big City High School in
>Chicago.
>
>Alice:
>>> Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least
>>>in this state at public institutions) take the GED and get an acceptable
>score.
>>>That really frosts them.
>>>
Because no one has been able to prove that any document that the
educational system puts out PROVES any real competence. We have
college graduates figuring out how to build rockets that burn in the
sky as they enter the atmosphere of other planets and manage an
economic system that assumes a need for poverty and certain levels of
unemployment. And this same system says that my child is mis-educated
and not intelligent enough for not having one of their pieces of paper
while making it almost impossible to get a decent job without one.
Yeah, we're frosted alright. The gall is astonishing.
>>> It leaves some of them socially inept in a noticible way also. Why
>>>would you want to do that to a kid?
>>>
>>Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
>>child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
>>to guard against it during her educational process.
>
>One of the major problems presently is that said offspring don't know how to
>interact consistently with others their age, or instructors whose teaching
>methods are different from "Mom's".
This assumes that the child sits in a room all by themself and doesn't
have plenty of other opportunities to inteact with other children
out-side of the academic environment. This is not true to my
experience. Most home schooling parents that I interact with have
their children in classes such as martial arts, dance, creative
crafts, etc. to make sure that the interaction is had and
socialization is a part of the educational experience.
Maybe the ineptitude comes in where people who have gone through the
educational process have a problem dealing with an independent thinker
who brings new ideas and thinks out of the boxes that a formal
education imposes.
>The laissez faire attitude at most
>colleges is especially killing for youth, who had to be pushed constantly to
>prepare things, or to concentrate on subjects where weakness is shown.
>
Home schooling is exactly this laissez faire environment that you are
talking about. If done correctly then the child will be a self
starter and learning will be a part of their living paradymn.
It seems to me that you present an argument that says that home
schooling is a more viable alternative to someone who is expecting to
go to college as the environment is more similar to the home schooling
dynamic. And the forced attendance of the normal educational process
is a hinderance to their furthering college goals.
>The other of course is that others aren't as tolerant of stupidity on the part
>of offspring as mom & dad are, and junior just isn't used to it.
>-art clemons-
>
The assumption of stupidity is insulting to any parent willing to
stay at home and teach their child. That's all I will say on that.
von
"As the government of the United States of
America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion..."
President John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
ksp...@umich.edu
Art Clemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <2000051716...@stargate.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>,
>ksp...@umich.edu writes:
>
>>When you say that many of those opting for home schooling do so because of
>>religious beliefs, what is this based on? I know a few people who do
>>it...and some do it for religious reasons, some for political reasons.
>>But whatever the case, it seems to me that if the parents are trained, the
>>son/daughter should be BETTER prepared for college--provided that he/she
>>goes to comm. coll. first.
>>
>
>My statement is based on how home schooling is being pushed, by whom it's being
>pushed, and also being on a mailing list for home schoolers (no, I'm not one).
> There is no requirement that parents be trained in most states, and in fact
>some states have testing requirements for home schooled children. So far,
>parents who teach to the tests seem to survive, but ..........
I feel you here. There is a STRONG homeschool movement rooted in various
Protestant denominations. And much of this material is objectionable.
But we should acknowledge that though this homeschool "school of thought"
is prominent, it is by no means DOMINANT.
>I worry though about the children of poorly educated parents, who withdraw
>children from the outside world, get their child a GED, and then send said
>children onto one of a number of bible colleges I think little of (No, even Bob
>Jones would be an improvement compared to at least four of them). Of course,
>there is no requirement that children be exposed to the world, and some of the
>most successful small town public schools are very insular too, but I still
>wonder how well African heritage home schooled children are doing on the tests.
I'd argue that we won't know for sure for a few years....because the
African heritage homeschoolers are only NOW starting to go to college--the
movement can't be more than 20 years old I'd bet, though I can't say for
sure.
> So far, those folks I know of, mostly aren't passing basic testing, of course,
>the public schools they're rejecting probably has students who couldn't pass
>the same exams either.
The homeschooled students I know are HELLUVA.
peace
lks
ksp...@umich.edu
Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>> What is the risk? If a child goes to community college first, aces that
>> program....he/she should be straight.
>
>Ya see, they don't WANT to go to a community college first. And they
>don't WANT to
>take the GED. They have been given the impression (most of them, but not all,
>nothing is ever all) that they are SPECIAL.
I don't know many homeschooled children granted....but the ones I know are
going to Community College for a couple of reasons:
1. It's cheaper than normal college.
2. It gets them acclimated to a non-homeschool environment.
3. They can get learning from the college that they can't get at home.
Are these kids the norm or the exception? I think we need more data
before we can be sure....but I'd be willing to bet that it depended on
the region and homeschool model you use as an individual, among other
things.
>And while every living human being is
>SPECIAL, they still got to follow the rules. But their parents have made up the
>rules for so long they don't realize that when you are dealing with a
>large crowd
>in order to have any kind of order and to keep down an uproar, there are certain
>rules that must be followed. Like take the GED and shut up. If you're that well
>educated it won't matter a bit. You'll ace it and I won't have to explain to all
>the legislators, etc who make these rules, why I should still be allowed to keep
>my job after I let you slide. I got to eat too.
I assume you are basing this on personal experience. How often do you
encounter homeschooled kids, or the parents of homeschooled kids that act
this way?
[Stuff about being socially inept deleted.]
>Nope. That's not what I meant at all. If that was all that was involved
>I'd be the
>first to say "Hurrah!" for them. What I am speaking about is they come
>in, they of
>course are better than you, a mere servant, they talk down to you, act a
>fool, are
>insulting, tell you how dumb you are and then expect favors. Do you see what I
>mean? The only people they know how to relate to in terms of getting what they
>want and need are their parents and apparently some of them have been running
>their parents around in circles for years and they think they can do
>that to every
>adult they run across. And it ain't so. Somebody needs to tell them how to get
>what they need in a diplomatic manner. But of course, it can't be you
>because you
>are dumb. Isn't that what education is about? Learning to deal in the world you
>have to live in?
This is really interesting, because the undergraduates here at Michigan
act in much the same way you describe above, and the vast majority of them
went to "regular" high school. I don't think this is a product of
homeschooling at ALL....but simply of bad parenting.
But it brings up an interesting question. I argue that homeschooling
takes a special type of commitment from a parent--a commitment that most
parents are unwilling to take, and SOME are unable to take. The
homeschooled kids I know are the most humble, mature, and mild-mannered
kids I've encountered. I think it's because of parenting and being
homeschooled.
Which story holds true over the aggregate though? Are most homeschoolers
arrogant asses....or mature young adults?
Although it's obvious where my bias lies, I do think that more data is
needed to say with any degree of certainty which picture is the most
accurate....
peace
lks
ksp...@umich.edu
Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>I always thought education was a preparation for living in the world. Yes, there
>are difficult and hostile folk in the high school....you think there aren't
>self-employed,
>you still have to wheel and deal to get what you need in terms of financing,
>waters as you grow up, it won't be nearly the shock it is if the only murkiness
>you ran across was your momma on a bad day.
Our system of "education" DOES prepare you for living in the world....as
an apolitical (except for voting...MAYBE), narrow visioned, wage slave.
This is what it does.....this is why education emphasizes route
memorization, and blind respect for authority.
I am STILL trying to reverse decades of brainwashing....
>I kinda get a kick out of the "soccer moms" as they try to do all
>negotiating for
>their kids, protect them from worms and flies, rant and rave at the
>"authorities"
>when their brat is not an exception to some idiotic rule that they have
>supported
>in the first place - but only for those commoner kids - you know the
>ones with the
>worn out sneakers and the tatty clothes?
What homeschooling is about--for ME anyway--is NOT protecting my kids from
the mean old world....but giving them the AGENCY to realize that they can
CHANGE the world in any way they see fit.
peace
lks
Von Bailey
<Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Von Bailey wrote:
>
>> In article <392122F2...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
>> Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> However, those same college administrators are accepting the grades of
>> schools where teachers are admiting that they are passing students to
>> the next grade regardless of their actual academic skills. Why is one
>> more relevant than the other? Sounds like an unfounded bias to me.
>
>It probably is.
As long as you admit it...
>And those same parents have supported ALL of these stupid
>rules that involve college. (have you notice how scared college
>administrators are running?)
Please show me data that proves this is the case with home schooling
parents.
>They just never thought it would affect their
>little sweetheart. So I ain't go NO sympathy. They would be the first ones
>whining about how their kid got left out because some colored kid took
>their place.
>
I think you lost me here...
>> Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
>> child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
>> to guard against it during her educational process.
>
>the inability to relate to many different styles of folk you run into on a
>regular basis: such as, don't wig out because you don't get exactly what
>you want on the first try. Have an arsenal of ways to negotiate your way
>thru difficult situations without whining. Be aware that there is an
>inordinate amount of bullies running loose in the world. Learn how to
>either placate them or difuse them but don't be surprised by them. Don't
>lose your cool at small frustrations. The world is a frusting place. Don't
>expect instant gratification.
>
....and going through the normal school system passes on these
experiences and skill sets? I may be wrong here, but I would like you
to point out half the incidence of murder and mahem committed by home
schooled children compared to public school children.
>And honestly, I do believe that some people probably can successfully
>homeschool their children. Its just that my experiences (and those of my
>peers to whom I have spoken) have not been good. We seem to get the whining
>demanding off-spring who think the world revolves around them. And even as
>we sit in our professional organizations (sessions on homeschooling usually
>headed up by homeschooling parents) the parents are usually carrying on in
>the same manner that their kids do - like why don't you stop YOUR life and
>do what they want you to do - as if you had the same amount of time to
>spend on ONE kid as they do. Therein lies my frustration. Understand that
>there are limitations to ANY system of education.
>
....and of course you don't get the same kind of treatment from the
parents and students who have gone through the public school system.
I think not.
Pilar Quezzaire
: In article <392122F2...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
: Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
:> those standard transcripts they throw at us at face value.
: Alice, you paint a picture of home schools that is at best
: woefully innaccurate. I assume you've never had any real
: experience with home schooling.
I agree. Home and alternative schooling (I include both) are hardly as
dangerous as Alice suggests. But I've said that. Several times.
: 2) Home school curriculums are general much TOUGHER than anything you
: would find in a private or public school. They have to be because
: so that they can be accredited wherever there students happen to be
: living.
They are also better tailored to a child's ability. That is often the
reason homeschooled children are advanced academically.
: I literally knew more than the teacher. When I would get my tests
: back, they would usually have a 70% on them. After I got through
: showing him from the textbook what the correct answers were my grade
: would rise to a 90% or above.
I had a similar experience when I was taking a math course at a rather
exclusive, private school. Math was my worse subject, but because my
schooling allowed for me to be more comfortable with the subject, I could
at least ask questions. I had to have an assignment re-graded because I
showed the teacher I'd come up with a BETTER proof than the book offered,
and this particulat assignment didn't require a specific proof. Had I not
spoken up, I would have been marked poorly.
:> Also, in order to meet admissions requirements, they must (at least
:> in this state at public institutions) take the GED and get an
:> acceptable score. That really frosts them.
: And it SHOULD frost them. What kind of idiot would ask someone to
: take a GED instead of taking the ACT? The ACT is a much tougher test
: and a much better gauge of whether someone is prepared for college
: or not. And home schoolers normally do good on the ACT and SAT test.
: (about the same as the top private schools).
Agreed.
: Actually there have been studies to show that home schooled kids are
: better at independent thinking than public or private school kids.
Alice is not advocating independent thinking. She wants
alternatively-schooled children to conform. From the sound of her
argument (please corect me if I am wrong) she thinks homeschooling makes
us "snobbish" or otherwise socially difficult. In a way, it's a
compliment, if alternative schooling creates more independent thinkers who
are more inclined to education than the social pressures of their peers.
Wayne Johnson
>In article <39237045...@nntp.we.mediaone.net>,
> cia...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:27:17 CST, Von Bailey <orang...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Please define the term 'socially inept'. As I am home schooling my
>> >child I would like to know how to recognize the manifestation of this
>> >to guard against it during her educational process.
>
>Well I guess that shoots down the "all home schoolers are doing it
>for religious reasons" argument. ;-)
My children were home schooled for over a year, and religion had
absolutely nothing to do with it, either. Neither did any political
doctrine.
The problem was that the public school system, in my area, was in a
state of total meltdown at the time. The principals at all three
local elementary schools were replaced due to parental and staff
complaints of incompetence, within that year.
I kid you not.
I'm snipping the rest of JMDrake's comments, with which I am in
complete agreement.
Wayne "I think praying for your kid to come home alive from school
every day could be construed as a religious motivation for opting out"
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <61q6is0fns58u8rid...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>1. People say that charter schools take away from public schools.
>>Well, charter schools *ARE* public schools, and if they take away from
>>public schools, then the same applies for opening *NEW* public
>>schools. (Think about it).
>
>Nope, for one thing in places like Pennsylvania, school districts not only have
>to fund charter schools, but also provide transportation to the charter schools
>(which is an extra expense),
Nope, meaning you won't think about it?
Look, schools provide transportation for their students. So, the
difference is what?
> and although charter schools are public schools
>supposedly, they aren't under the control of the school district.
If they aren't under school district control, how can the school
district revoke their charter?
....
> You're not thinking
>this through, unless the charter school gets a public school bldg, it has to
>lease (it can't build a new school) an existing bldg and renovate it. That
>cost comes out of the per pupil funds allocated to the school.
I am thinking this through because you are not accounting for upkeep
of existing schools, which comes out of the per pupil funds allocated
to a scholl.
>>2. Smaller class size means hiring more teachers which means more
>>needed class space which means more crowded schools and "portables".
>>(Think about it).
>
>Smaller class size so far has been the best predictor of success for
>African-American students.
No it hasn't, Art.
....
>Yes and no. For example in Pennsylvania, charter schools sometimes don't get
>counted in the student count for a variety of reasons. I also note once again
>that in many locales, school districts have to pay to transport students to
>private or charter schools, even if normally they don't provide transport.
Excuse me, Art. But when students attend school that is beyond walking
distance, those students have always received transportation. So the
difference is what?
>What you ignore about vouchers is that funds are allocated on a per pupil
>basis. If the number of students goes down in the count, the amount allocated
>goes down too, while the school system now has an additional subtraction,
>namely the amount for the vouchers. That's the complaint about vouchers.
And when people leave the school system because the parents move, the
amount spent *STILL* goes down. So do you want to force people outside
of the school system to send their kids to the school system they
left?
>>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In Baltimore,
>>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools in the
>>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
>
>Your Philly figure is low for sure. The cheapest I know of is about $2300,
>with at least two schools charging at least $4000 in the Philadelphia Arch
>diocese.
Okay, $2300/yr.
>>I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I asked
>>questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the avg.
>>teacher salary. To my suprise, I got answers to the salary question.
>>And I was suprise to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
>>$25,000/year.
>
>If they're paying $25,000, they're getting a lot of turnover,
Turnover is high in "inner city" schools. So the difference is what?
>and just how are
>they keeping qualified teachers on such a low salary, probably with no
>benefits?
Ask the teachers who stay despite the pay.
....
>>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
>>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
>>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
>>private school, what would you do?
>
>You of course send your child to a private school.
So are you going to condemn those parents because they sent their kids
to private school, causing the per pupil funding to drop?
>The problem is that if the
>public schools remain poor where you live, you also later have to live with the
>consequences of that poor schooling, namely few new jobs, higher crime rates
>and a decline in the value of your residence if you own it. Pay now or pay
>later!
Andmaintainingthe current mess will make it better?
NOT!
DarkStar
forth:
....
>As a governmental agency at least there
>is a relatively easier path in finding out who screwed things up and
>hopefully accountable.
That's bullshit.
Otherwise NY schools would be doing better as would the LA schools.
>Privatization can very easily turn into a program of graft and
>corruption where the poor are victimized and their children can be
>stuck without a school to go to next year because someone made their
>money and is now vacationing in the South Pacific and oh yeah, that
>school thing they tried out in Watts didn't work out.
Like that's *JUST* like what's not happening now.
>Also, it is a false assumption that just because someone is going to a
>'better' school they will 'do better' in school.
Tell that to Marva Collins.
DarkStar
forth:
> I also note that most of the folks now sending their children to
>private schools are already withdrawn, and that many parents already have moved
>to suburbs to escape the Chicago public schools.
And you steadfastly refuse to admit that their money is going with
them, along with "per student" funding.
....
>The problem though
>is that vouchers will drain off the very people most likely to try to force
>change,
They are already gone.
....
>However sending parents off on fools errands like vouchers definitely will not
>improve things, and charter schools right now are a crap shoot. Some work,
>others mess up, but experiments have a high failure rate too.
Hey...
YET AGAIN....
CHARTER SCHOOLS *ARE* PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They just fall under "less
restrictive" rules.
And it's crap to complain about messing things up and experiments but
you don't say a dang thang about the mess and experiments that exist
now and in the past. Shall I mention "schools without walls"?
>One final comment, even parochial schools don't necessarily properly educate
>African-American youth, the sad part though is that just teaching students to
>read, and do simple math is such an improvement that it looks elite compared to
>some public school systems.
Yet, you want to *CONDEMN* Black kids to continue in those schools.
DarkStar
forth:
....
>But Ed, $2,000,000.00 out of how big a budget. Yes, it's a lot of money, but
>it doesn't prove that even more money is needed before the schools will work
>right. If I recall correctly, Prince Georges County spends less per pupil than
>most other school districts in Metro DC.
That "money per pupil" includes costs to fix the schools that are in
poor shape. D.C. spends the most and the results are the worse.
jd_remarq
artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) wrote:
>In article <61q6is0fns58u8rid...@4ax.com>,
DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>1. People say that charter schools take away from public
schools.
>>Well, charter schools *ARE* public schools, and if they take
away from
>>public schools, then the same applies for opening *NEW* public
>>schools. (Think about it).
>
>Nope, for one thing in places like Pennsylvania, school
districts not only have
>to fund charter schools, but also provide transportation to the
charter schools
>(which is an extra expense), and although charter schools are
public schools
>supposedly, they aren't under the control of the school
district.
And this is the REAL issue. Charter school ARE public schools
but they aren't under the inept (in many cases) bloated control
of the official public school system, thus some administrators
in these inept systems feel threated.
Charter schools are public in the all important measures of the
2 R's name race and religion. With a charter school it's easier
to make sure that the school is open to all races and is
religion neutral. These are the main two legitimate concerns
about vouchers. That's not to say that it's not possible to
violate one of the two R's with a charter school, but it's
certainly more difficult.
Charter schools are public schools. That is a simple
unassailable fact. The most prominent opponent of vouchers
today is the Clinton administration. But they are also the
most prominent supporters of charter schools.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jd_remarq
artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) wrote:
> There is no requirement that parents be trained in most
states, and in fact
>some states have testing requirements for home schooled
children.
There is a simple reason why parents are not required to
be trained. The actual teacher (the one who makes up the
lesson plans, writes out the lesson, grades and records
the work) is usually NOT the parent but a certified teacher
working from a remote location. Home schooling is the
forerunner of distance education that so many people are
raving about today. This is no different from a public
school that lets its kids take AP courses through distance
learning. The local teacher doesn't have to be certified
in the subject matter because the remote teacher is. In
such a case the public school teacher becomes a glorified
"teacher's aide" or "tutor" which is similair to the role
that a parent plays in most home school situations. So
rather than having one teacher the child really has two.
jd_remarq
DarkStar <darks...@home.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:23:23 CST, cia...@hotmail.com (Wayne
Johnson)
>put forth:
>
>>On Wed, 17 May 2000 00:07:12 CST, DarkStar
<darks...@home.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>So, just keep them in those schools?
>>
>>So, it's vouchers, or nothing?
>>
>>Wayne "It's not that simple" Johnson
>>cia...@hotmail.com
>
>I'm not saying it is that simple; just think out of the box!
>
>I'm busy and running on little sleep these days, so let me hit
some
>highlights:
>
>1. People say that charter schools take away from public
schools.
>Well, charter schools *ARE* public schools, and if they take
away from
>public schools, then the same applies for opening *NEW* public
>schools. (Think about it).
You know that, I know that, President Clinton knows that. I
think that thosed opposed to charter schools are only a small
minority of those opposed to vouchers. I've done no scientific
survey though.
>
>2. Smaller class size means hiring more teachers which means
more
>needed class space which means more crowded schools
and "portables".
>(Think about it).
>
>3. If losing kids takes away from public school funding because
part
>of the budget is based on the number of kids attending the
schools,
>won't the same happen when parents take their children out of
the
>school system because they moved, put them in private school,
or used
>someone's address out of the district to send them to another
school?
>
If you're speaking about the loss of funding based upon the
number of students, then yes. But vouchers makes the problem
TWICE as bad. Not only does the school loose funding directly,
but then they loose funding indirectly in that the more money
is taken out of the system to fund the vouchers. That's why
I say "come up with another method to fund vouchers." Perhaps
there should be a pledge drive similair to UNCF. Just a thought.
But taking money from already financially strapped schools is
like throwing water on a drowning man.
>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In
Baltimore,
>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools
in the
>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
>
>I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I
asked
>questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the
avg.
>teacher salary. To my suprise, I got answers to the salary
question.
>And I was suprise to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
>$25,000/year.
That's about right. Why were you surprised? Teachers in
general are underpaid in this country, public or private.
I have relatives who've worked both in public and private
schools. The compensation levels in most public schools are
slightly better than most private schools and there is more
room for advancement in public schools because there are
more layers of bueracracy. That is THE problem in education
that no one seems to want to talk about. Compensation of
teachers is not equivilent to the service they provide society
and compensation of teachers is not tied to their performance.
A good teacher and a sorry teacher get paid exactly the same.
The only hope for real advancement in to get promoted up the
school hiearchy chain which takes the good teacher out of the
classroom where he or she is really needed.
>5. Arguments concerning those who attend private schools and
the rate
>of college attendence is a farce. *MOST* people never attend
college.
>I believe for all races the rate is 20% and less.
>
>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head"
on this
>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that
has
>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child
to a
>private school, what would you do?
Well I've found myself in the strange position of being in the
middle of the road on this issue, but I'll tackle your question
anyway.
Yes I will personally probably send my child to a private school
even if I live in a community with a good public school. No I
am not in support of vouchers. I do not view this as a
contridiction. While I'm not for using public funds to support
private education I have no qualms about using my OWN money
to support private education. And I do put my money where my
mouth is. Although we currently don't have any children we
do send a significant amount of money directly to a very good
private school in the city where we used to live and are
considering sponsoring some kids we know in the city we live
now.
At the same token I'm a firm supporter of public schools. The
last chance I had to vote on a referrendum for increasing taxes
for schools I voted YES! I contrast that to a parent I knew
who's child had gone to public school K-12 who voted against
a similair tax increase who said "Why should I care? My child
has already graduated." Personally I see this kind of attitude
as a clear violation of the rule "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you." Where would her child be if others
property owners had had the same attitude when her child was
going through?
I don't see private versus public school as an "either or"
issue. I don't think public school supporters have to
misrepresent the facts about private and home school in
order to stop the hemmorraging of the public schools. I
don't think that private school proponents have to "rob
Peter to pay Paul" and divert needed public school funds
to the private sector. I find it disturbing that some
of the same people who defended the rights of the
"trenchcoat mafia" to express themselves by way of
death threats posted on web pages are willing to lump
all homeschoolers in one bucket labelled "socially inept".
The same who wish to de-regulate the crack industry want
to overregulate education. We all supposedly just want the
best for all of our children. We should act like it.
Alice Holman
Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
> Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I believe you are arguing that these children are spoiled and difficult to
> deal with.
Yes, many of them are. Or maybe just the rude ones show up here.
> I have found the opposite to be true.
I'm glad you're running into the nice ones.
> I admit they have a
> harder time with their peers, because of the emphasis on the education and
> not the social experience of schooling.
I hate to be the one to point it out - but socialization is a part of life.
>
>
>
>
> Alice, it sounds to me that you've had a bad experience with a
> homeschooled colleague.
Nope. Not colleagues. Kids. My colleagues are having the same experiences that I am
having: rude, demanding kids who don't know they could get exactly what they want
when they want it if only they had the social skills at their command. There is no
law that says anybody - whether in public service or not - has to put up with
somebody's brat. Especially when every other word out of their mouth is "I'll get my
daddy's lawyer on you." Even for those colleagues of mine who smile and act as if
they are doing what the brats want have numerous ways of NOT doing what the brat is
demanding. All I'm saying is that the brat ought to wise enough to know you catch
flies with honey - not vinegar.
alice
>
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Moving is of course a solution, but one that will work only if
>African-Americans as a group retain enough cohesion to pressure where they live
>to improve. It didn't work in places like Shaker Hts for example precisely
>because much of the populace ascribed the failure to lazy students or
>"culture", or some inherent flaw in African-Americans. It's really ironic btw
>to discover that African-American students who get tested on IQ tests as
>"gifted" around 4th grade, are rated as below normal by 10th grade and
>incapable of keeping up with even "normal" classes in such places. I'm
>convinced that we can't run away from racism, and that developing coping skills
>takes away from time and opportunity to learn other skills which the greater
>society values.
Then what you seem to be saying is the unless we DO move out of places
like Chicago, there ISN'T a solution. At least you haven't stated one
to which you seem to attribute any chance of success.
As for myself, children or none, I have about as much intention of
moving back to Chicago as the head of B'nai Brith does of moving to
Seven Hills, OH.
Art Clemons
<cm...@mciworld.com> writes:
>hen what you seem to be saying is the unless we DO move out of places
>like Chicago, there ISN'T a solution. At least you haven't stated one
>to which you seem to attribute any chance of success.
>
>As for myself, children or none, I have about as much intention of
>moving back to Chicago as the head of B'nai Brith does of moving to
>Seven Hills, OH.
If you can't move the political system, then it's time to move where you can.
If you can shake up the system, then you stay. Mayor for Life or until
Conviction Rich Daley is a prime example. However you'll note I did mention
suburban school districts which were underfunded and failing just as badly if
not worse than the Chicago schools. Without a middle class to pressure
politicians, change just doesn't happen. The other implication is that folks
who move to suburbs like Shaker Hts also should move where they can move the
system to benefit their offspring.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
> I also note that most of the folks now sending their children to
>>private schools are already withdrawn, and that many parents already have
>moved
>>to suburbs to escape the Chicago public schools.
>
>And you steadfastly refuse to admit that their money is going with
>them, along with "per student" funding.
Ed, what stops the parents already sending their offspring to private schools
from applying for vouchers if they exist? As far as I can tell, putting an
income cap will either make vouchers less politically feasible.
Of course the money is leaving, but the school district also isn't forced to
also cough up money for the students going to private schools in the form of
vouchers. Isn't a student not counted, who doesn't cost the voucher amount
less expensive than one who is not counted in the per student funding, but
still has to get vouchers out of the school district budget. At least with
charter schools, the child is counted.
>....
>
>>The problem though
>>is that vouchers will drain off the very people most likely to try to force
>>change,
>
>They are already gone.
Nope, vouchers will also drain off the loudmouths who try to embarrass the
school district into acting properly or addressing the needs of students,
because they no longer have a real stake in the school system. Most big city
schools are already underfunded compared to suburban schools in the same metro
region, and vouchers just make that worse by at the least removing funds.
>....
>
>>However sending parents off on fools errands like vouchers definitely will
>not
>>improve things, and charter schools right now are a crap shoot. Some work,
>>others mess up, but experiments have a high failure rate too.
>
>Hey...
>YET AGAIN....
>
>CHARTER SCHOOLS *ARE* PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They just fall under "less
>restrictive" rules.
Ed, I know what charter schools are. Telling me they're public schools is
nice, but they're Chartered schools, schools supposedly with a limited set of
goals, there are a limited number of them, always will be a limited number of
them, and they do nothing for the left behinds. Some of them also fail
drastically, and I know the parents of offspring who were in some failed
schools. Yes, charter schools can be decertified, or have their charters
pulled. I also point out that there is a political process to getting a
charter approved, and that alone means that some will work better than others.
>And it's crap to complain about messing things up and experiments but
>you don't say a dang thang about the mess and experiments that exist
>now and in the past. Shall I mention "schools without walls"?
The problem is that most experiments fail in the long run. Besides, we already
know that suburban public schools work for white youth in general. Why aren't
we trying to adapt that model so that it works for African-American students,
instead of trying experiments, most of which won't work out as hoped?
>>One final comment, even parochial schools don't necessarily properly educate
>>African-American youth, the sad part though is that just teaching students
>to
>>read, and do simple math is such an improvement that it looks elite compared
>to
>>some public school systems.
>
>Yet, you want to *CONDEMN* Black kids to continue in those schools.
Where else are they going to go Ed? All private schooling in the US accounts
for less than 10% of the school age population attending schools. I keep on
asking you where the new schools are going to pop up, and how they're going to
be funded.
What exists has to be improved right now. We don't need possibilities, we need
what works. I would be more in favor of charter schools if I didn't know what
the chartering process was like presently. If you have proposals for an
Afro-centric model school and one that focuses on math, it's a good bet that
the math one is more likely to be chartered. If you have politically connected
members of the chartering proposal board on one side, and just competent former
teachers on the other, guess which proposal wins. The existing charter school
I'm most familiar with, actually in effect bribed one politician with praise
and political support in order to get chartered (in other words no money or
illegal actions took effect), but that political connection also meant that the
charter school wasn't really an experiment anymore too.
I keep on asking you, what the hell happens to the left behind children, and
you point to examples of single individuals and outliers. Just what happens to
a few academically successful African heritage children if most African
heritage students aren't, and what good does a small number of folks do, when
everybody should be getting a good education?
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
ac:
>>But Ed, $2,000,000.00 out of how big a budget. Yes, it's a lot of money,
>but
>>it doesn't prove that even more money is needed before the schools will work
>>right. If I recall correctly, Prince Georges County spends less per pupil
>than
>>most other school districts in Metro DC.
>
>That "money per pupil" includes costs to fix the schools that are in
>poor shape. D.C. spends the most and the results are the worse.
DC has lots of problems in its school district, including congressional
meddling, graft, and details mandated that ordinarily a state would have to
deal with. I also note that DC can't for example just hire contractors who
have offices in the District. Besides, I remind you that metro DC includes
portions of VA too, where more is spent and the results seem to better. DC is
also the only large city I know of with a higher per student amount than other
more successful districts. DC proves absolutely nothing except that congress
can't run a flush toilet properly.
-art clemons-
Von Bailey
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2000 23:58:59 CST, red...@ccinet.com (Von Bailey) put
>forth:
>
>....
>
>>As a governmental agency at least there
>>is a relatively easier path in finding out who screwed things up and
>>hopefully accountable.
>
>That's bullshit.
>Otherwise NY schools would be doing better as would the LA schools.
>
No, just that we can more easily point out who is to blame for the
mishandling of funds. I said HOPEFULLY accountable. In case you
haven't noticed, I don't believe this government takes responsibility
for much of it's negative impact. I don't exclude the educational
system from this.
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>Tell that to Marva Collins.
I note that Marva C. is under attack by many white conservative "ex spurts" on
edumacation. I also note that she can't take any more students and that nobody
has come forward to fund schools running with her methods in Chicago for
example. You can find folks who went to segregated schools with one classroom
for eight grades and a teacher who didn't finish high school, who were
successful, but what about all the left behinds?
-art clemons-
jmd...@my-deja.com
Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
>
> > Alice, it sounds to me that you've had a bad experience with a
> > homeschooled colleague.
>
> Nope. Not colleagues. Kids. My colleagues are having the same
experiences that I am
> having: rude, demanding kids who don't know they could get exactly
what they want
> when they want it if only they had the social skills at their
command. There is no
> law that says anybody - whether in public service or not - has to put
up with
> somebody's brat. Especially when every other word out of their mouth
is "I'll get my
> daddy's lawyer on you." Even for those colleagues of mine who smile
and act as if
> they are doing what the brats want have numerous ways of NOT doing
what the brat is
> demanding. All I'm saying is that the brat ought to wise enough to
know you catch
> flies with honey - not vinegar.
>
> alice
Alice, I have a very hard time believe that all of the homeschool
kids you've run into have been "brats" and none of the public school
kids you've run into have been "brats". I've taught college also.
Every brat I ever ran into was a public school kid. Some of my
friends who have taught college will tell you the EXACT same thing.
For example, the mother of one such child came to one of my friends
and said to her "Could my child please get some extra credit to help
his grade? You see he was emotionally disturbed at the time you
gave the final exam. He girlfriend had just broken up with him
and....."
Alice, this was NOT a homeschool or private school kid. This was
a public school kid from the BEST public school system in the state.
And I've heard almost the exact same story from another friend
teaching at the same college. (I'm not sure if it was the same
kid or not). The idea that there is some correlation between being
homeschooled and being a brat is just plain ridiculous. There
are spoiled kids rich and poor in public school. There are spoiled
kids rich and poor in private school. There are spoiled kids rich
and poor in home school. There are hard working responsible kids
rich and poor in public school. There are hard working responsible
kids rich and poor in private school. There are hard working
responsible kids rich and poor in home school. So far almost all
of the home schooled kids that I know have been of the hard working
responsible variety, though the law of averages says there must
be some in the other category also.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Von Bailey
artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) wrote:
> In article <dbqeiso5enr122jbl...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
> <darks...@home.net> writes:
>
> The problem is that most experiments fail in the long run. Besides,
>we already know that suburban public schools work for white youth in
>general.
>
system of the United States is a failure as it relates to non-
upperclass people or wealthy whites. What do you do when it's a
failure, you try something else.
Also, I would challange the assumption that suburban public schools
work for white youth. There is more to their ability to succeed (and I
assume that your are only speaking in terms of monetary gain) than just
good schools and doing well in school. The entire economic paradymn is
geared towards their success, from the connections (read friends in the
business commuity) that their parents have to resources available (read
as libraries, computers, extra finances for tutors, etc) to them that
are not available to others, not to mention the assumption of higher
expectations from society as a whole.
George W. Bush was no great scholar but he was successful in
the business world despite all his failures and low grades in school.
Contacts got him where he is and it is the same for most of the white
community. A white male with a high school diploma usually does as
well or better than a black person with just a BS or BA.
>Why aren't we trying to adapt that model so that it works for African-
American students,
> instead of trying experiments, most of which won't work out as hoped?
Just because you can get a cat to use a cat litterbox properly doesn't
mean that you would or could get a lion, tiger or panther to use it the
same way and get the same results. The cat litter was created for a
certain class of cat just like the educational system of the united
states was created for a certain class of person. Your assumption that
the system is a one size fits all condition is incorrect.
von
--
Christian: You have to understand, for me to believe what you say I
would have to admit that I have been crazy all my life.
Atheist: So you do understand my perspective, it's the same as yours.
Art Clemons
writes:
>Yes, most experiments fail, and the experiment that is the educational
>system of the United States is a failure as it relates to non-
>upperclass people or wealthy whites. What do you do when it's a
>failure, you try something else.
Actually, even the offspring of middle class whites seem to be better served
than the offspring of most well to do African-Americans. I note that the long
term wealthy African-Americans seem to aim their children towards heritage
colleges too. The system does produce mostly students who can read (remember
most students in public schools are white and middle class), do basic math, and
survive the college experience. That system works for them, I'm asking for
something that works for African-Americans too.
>Also, I would challange the assumption that suburban public schools
>work for white youth. There is more to their ability to succeed (and I
>assume that your are only speaking in terms of monetary gain) than just
>good schools and doing well in school. The entire economic paradymn is
>geared towards their success, from the connections (read friends in the
>business commuity) that their parents have to resources available (read
>as libraries, computers, extra finances for tutors, etc) to them that
>are not available to others, not to mention the assumption of higher
>expectations from society as a whole.
Whether or not connections do more to get you hired than educational success or
not, most whites don't have great connections either. Higher assumptions of
course is a two edged sword, but one that we don't have to despair about
either.
>George W. Bush was no great scholar but he was successful in
>the business world despite all his failures and low grades in school.
>Contacts got him where he is and it is the same for most of the white
>community. A white male with a high school diploma usually does as
>well or better than a black person with just a BS or BA.
Much of the college experience is making contacts. He still managed to
graduate from an elite school, know lots of other elite graduates. The income
figures you mention however ignore that an African-American male with a high
school dipoloma can't earn a living wage in general (statistical assumption
folks, I don't really want to discuss outliers and statistical abnormalities)
>>Why aren't we trying to adapt that model so that it works for African-
>American students,
>> instead of trying experiments, most of which won't work out as hoped?
>
>Just because you can get a cat to use a cat litterbox properly doesn't
>mean that you would or could get a lion, tiger or panther to use it the
>same way and get the same results. The cat litter was created for a
>certain class of cat just like the educational system of the united
>states was created for a certain class of person. Your assumption that
>the system is a one size fits all condition is incorrect.
I said adapt the model, you'll note I've previously mentioned that it presently
doesn't work for middle class children of the community, so it has to be
adapted, not adopted.
-art clemons-
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>not worse than the Chicago schools. Without a middle class to pressure
>politicians, change just doesn't happen. The other implication is that folks
>who move to suburbs like Shaker Hts also should move where they can move the
>system to benefit their offspring.
>From what I've seen, Shaker Heights doesn't hold a candle to Chicago.
But other than Mexico City, Grozny, and most parts of Sierra Leone,
what place does?
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
ac:
>>Nope, for one thing in places like Pennsylvania, school districts not only
>>have to fund charter schools, but also provide transportation to the charter
>>schools (which is an extra expense),
>
>
>Look, schools provide transportation for their students. So, the
>difference is what?
I have thought about it. Most big city public schools don't transport most
children to their respective schools absent court orders or other emergent
situations. Having to pay for busing, in addition to paying for the schools
does lessen the money available for all students. Most big city schools
feature the student getting there on his or her own (usually two feet). Some
school districts bus a large proportion of their students others don't, if they
don't normally bus, it's an extra expense, and unless the charter school is on
the route of an existent bus, it's also an extra expense.
>> and although charter schools are public schools
>>supposedly, they aren't under the control of the school district.
>
>If they aren't under school district control, how can the school
>district revoke their charter?
School districts in many states don't offer the charters, a state appointed or
mandated board usually does. The school district instead gets to pay for the
charter school.
>....
>
>> You're not thinking
>>this through, unless the charter school gets a public school bldg, it has to
>>lease (it can't build a new school) an existing bldg and renovate it. That
>>cost comes out of the per pupil funds allocated to the school.
>
>I am thinking this through because you are not accounting for upkeep
>of existing schools, which comes out of the per pupil funds allocated
>to a scholl.
I am thinking this through. You'll note that I mentioned a charter school
getting an existing school as an option. Most however have to lease other
bldgs and adapt them to being used as a school, and then pay for maintenance
one way or another too. That's extra cost sir!
Ed:
>>>2. Smaller class size means hiring more teachers which means more
>>>needed class space which means more crowded schools and "portables".
>>>(Think about it).
>>
>>Smaller class size so far has been the best predictor of success for
>>African-American students.
>
>No it hasn't, Art.
Yes it is, whether you want to discuss Marva Collins, the private schools that
educate the offspring of African-Americans with old money, or the few public
school systems which actually produce good results for African-Americans.
What's even funnier is that the same correlation works for whites too. I also
note that the more successful parochial, Seventh Day Adventist, Friend's
Schools and Baptist ones seem to have low student to teacher ratios too.
>....
>
>>Yes and no. For example in Pennsylvania, charter schools sometimes don't
>get
>>counted in the student count for a variety of reasons. I also note once
>again
>>that in many locales, school districts have to pay to transport students to
>>private or charter schools, even if normally they don't provide transport.
>
>Excuse me, Art. But when students attend school that is beyond walking
>distance, those students have always received transportation. So the
>difference is what?
Actually, that isn't true in many districts. I've lived too many locales to
believe it. Yes some districts will bus the students, but in others, the
parents are responsible for transportation, not the school district. Besides,
for high school students in places like Boston, NYC, and Philly, the students
are expected to ride public transit if they can't walk to school albeit with
some form of student discount offered by the respective transit agencies.
>>What you ignore about vouchers is that funds are allocated on a per pupil
>>basis. If the number of students goes down in the count, the amount
>allocated
>>goes down too, while the school system now has an additional subtraction,
>>namely the amount for the vouchers. That's the complaint about vouchers.
>
>And when people leave the school system because the parents move, the
>amount spent *STILL* goes down. So do you want to force people outside
>of the school system to send their kids to the school system they
>left?
You miss the point! Forcing a school district to pay vouchers for students not
attending its schools is costlier on several counts. If the student moves, the
student isn't counted, and state/federal funds aren't allocated for that
student either. If vouchers exist, state and/or federal funds still may not be
allocated, the student isn't counted, and the vouchers come out of the funds
available to the school district. Thus the cost is higher for vouchers, any
way you want to shake it.
>>>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>>>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In Baltimore,
>>>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools in the
>>>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
>>
>>Your Philly figure is low for sure. The cheapest I know of is about $2300,
>>with at least two schools charging at least $4000 in the Philadelphia Arch
>>diocese.
>
>Okay, $2300/yr.
Incidentally, the Philly Arch-Diocese claims its total expenditure per student
is higher than the amount Philadelphia spends per student, raising the
interesting question of how long vouchers exist. Also the $2300 per year
figure doesn't include school supplies, uniforms and some other necessary
expenses per student by the parents.
>>>I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I asked
>>>questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the avg.
>>>teacher salary. To my suprise, I got answers to the salary question.
>>>And I was suprise to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
>>>$25,000/year.
>>
>>If they're paying $25,000, they're getting a lot of turnover,
>
>Turnover is high in "inner city" schools. So the difference is what?
Yes, the turnover is high, and for most big city schools, the teachers are also
paid less than in the nearby suburban schools too. That's part of the cause of
the turnover in big city schools presently, that and the fact that some of
those leaving aren't suited to be teachers either.
>>and just how are
>>they keeping qualified teachers on such a low salary, probably with no
>>benefits?
>
>Ask the teachers who stay despite the pay.
Most are dedicated. Most also have to find summer jobs, and don't get
additional education as soon as their more well paid cohort (yes I'm aware a
masters or doctoral degree doesn't improve teaching ability, just theoretically
the knowledge base). Some of course can't find other jobs for a variety of
reasons (I for example know three parochial teachers who couldn't pass
certification exams, but probably are competent, their prospects for finding
work are low) and others remain because they believe in the goals of the
school, or money doesn't matter as much as doing a particular job well.
However, when you want to buy a new house, new car, or pay for your child to
attend school, you do need more money eventually.
>....
>
>>>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
>>>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
>>>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>>>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
>>>private school, what would you do?
>>
>>You of course send your child to a private school.
>
>So are you going to condemn those parents because they sent their kids
>to private school, causing the per pupil funding to drop?
No, but I do condemn vouchers if any funds disappear out of the public schools.
Remember a student who doesn't attend the school system also doesn't cost the
school system money, while vouchers cost the school system money, and at the
same time decrease the amount of money allocated to the district.
>>The problem is that if the
>>public schools remain poor where you live, you also later have to live with
>the
>>consequences of that poor schooling, namely few new jobs, higher crime rates
>>and a decline in the value of your residence if you own it. Pay now or pay
>>later!
>
>Andmaintainingthe current mess will make it better?
>NOT!
Most students will still be attending the public schools even if vouchers
exist. Why don't you address what happens to the left behinds, or address how
removing money from underfunded schools will improve things for them?
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Just because you can get a cat to use a cat litterbox properly doesn't
>mean that you would or could get a lion, tiger or panther to use it the
>same way and get the same results. The cat litter was created for a
>certain class of cat just like the educational system of the united
>states was created for a certain class of person. Your assumption that
>the system is a one size fits all condition is incorrect.
Well, you had to bring it up.
**********************************
We're sitting around during lunch, talking about pets.
Then Jan tells us about this gimmick her sister gave her, for her
cats. Jan has three cats. Her sister saw this weird robot cat box on
TV, and gets it for her, since Jan is always complaining about
cleaning up the cat box after these three kitties.
This box has an arm with a rake on the end, and the way it works
sounds OK. The kitty goes in, and does his or her business, and
sensors feel the weight of the kitty in the box. A timer waits ten
minutes, and then this rake comes out, scratches through the litter,
and drags clumps of cat poop or whatever into a bin. Sounds OK.
So Jan sets up the box, and the cats are quite interested in the
thing, watching the entire setup procedure. Finally, a few minutes
later, the first cat goes in, gingerly answers a call of nature,
carefully covers it up, and steps out of the box. No problem.
The other kitties, seeing nothing unusual here, wander off. Jan is
happy with her new machine.
Nine minutes later, the second kitty steps in, settles in to get
going, and then all of a sudden this big ass claw reaches out with a
godawful roar, and tries to murder the kitty, right in the middle of a
bowel movement. From behind. Well, the arm doesn't move fast enough
to catch a snail, really, but that's not how the kittie saw the
situation.
It just happened all of a sudden, and the kitty goes
rrrrRRRAAAOWW PSSSST
and spins around, clawing and fighting for his life, and then runs
across the room, freaked out to the bone, and hides under a desk.
The other kitties run in, see nothing happening (the unit has finished
cycling) and the third kitty says, hey, what the hell, while I'm here
may as well go to the bathroom. He steps in, and got dam if the
Terminator Kitty Box don't kick in and try to eat this kitty, too,
right when he goes to hunch up and get started. Only this time, it
didn't wait ten minutes.
Freaked him out.
Now, the first kitty - so far, the only one who's managed to answer a
call of nature since this whole mess started - sees what's happening
to the third kitty and decides he's never going to get back in that
damn thing again.
Turns out that Jan discovers that the dust or gravel or something from
the kitty litter can foul up the sensor, and this thing can take off
any time, freaking out. So she cleans it, and then spends a whole day
convincing the kitties that this thing isn't some kitty grinder or
whatever.
She'd put them in the box, they'd run out, then back in the box, until
they'd stay there, for maybe ten seconds.
Then when the timer would go off, and the arm would come out, they'd
jump out from wherever they were hiding, and hiss and spit at it. It
just wasn't going to happen.
So Jan had to give the robot kitty box back to her sister and tell her
to get her fifty bucks back, or whatever it was. Sometimes it's clear
technology doesn't have all the answers.
Wayne "Jan found a whole bunch of poop under her husband's desk, which
I guess is the equivalent of a letter to the Kitty Product Safety
Commission" Johnson
Von Bailey
wrote:
>In article <8gen6d$v73$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Von Bailey <orang...@my-deja.com>
>writes:
>
>>Yes, most experiments fail, and the experiment that is the educational
>>system of the United States is a failure as it relates to non-
>>upperclass people or wealthy whites. What do you do when it's a
>>failure, you try something else.
>
>Actually, even the offspring of middle class whites seem to be better served
>than the offspring of most well to do African-Americans. I note that the long
>term wealthy African-Americans seem to aim their children towards heritage
>colleges too. The system does produce mostly students who can read (remember
>most students in public schools are white and middle class), do basic math, and
>survive the college experience. That system works for them, I'm asking for
>something that works for African-Americans too.
>
....and I'm saying that maybe the dynamic that works for African
Americans (or any other assorted group who doesn't do well in the
present system), has nothing to do with sitting in a classrom smiling
at a teacher who assumes negatives on you from the begining and then
bad mouths you for failing.
There is no doubt that the current system works for many, but there is
obvious evidence that it isn't anywhere near a univerally sound
dynamic and alternatives should be explored. This isn't to imply a
desire for something as uncontrolled as vouchers. I don't think that
the dynamics are in place for the masses of people to effectively
utilze such a tool without unacceptable amounts of misuse and abuse
from both ignorance and malice. I'm for improving public schools but
I recognize that it has become stagnant in intent and procedure and
needs some robust change to accomodate the changing mentality and
group dynamics of american society. Everyone doesn't want to get a
good job and have safe investments for retirement. Some people have
broader asperations and ideals and a good educational system would
take that into consideration.
>>George W. Bush was no great scholar but he was successful in
>>the business world despite all his failures and low grades in school.
>>Contacts got him where he is and it is the same for most of the white
>>community. A white male with a high school diploma usually does as
>>well or better than a black person with just a BS or BA.
>
>Much of the college experience is making contacts. He still managed to
>graduate from an elite school, know lots of other elite graduates. The income
>figures you mention however ignore that an African-American male with a high
>school dipoloma can't earn a living wage in general (statistical assumption
>folks, I don't really want to discuss outliers and statistical abnormalities)
>
I agree, much of the college experience is making contacts. It
appears at the actual detriment of educational advancement as evident
that the majority in attendance are only going to get paid better
instead of actually learning something. Not to mention the
advancement of our economic theories to evolve out of the draconian
dynamic of a small percentage doing really well a larger percentage
starving to death and a middle that is manipulated into working uphill
and off balance to stay out of one extreme and get to the other.
However, this is easily justified in a society where who you know is
more valuable than what you know. It can even get you a bid at the
Whitehouse.
>>>Why aren't we trying to adapt that model so that it works for African-
>>American students,
>>> instead of trying experiments, most of which won't work out as hoped?
>>
>>Just because you can get a cat to use a cat litterbox properly doesn't
>>mean that you would or could get a lion, tiger or panther to use it the
>>same way and get the same results. The cat litter was created for a
>>certain class of cat just like the educational system of the united
>>states was created for a certain class of person. Your assumption that
>>the system is a one size fits all condition is incorrect.
>
>I said adapt the model, you'll note I've previously mentioned that it presently
>doesn't work for middle class children of the community, so it has to be
>adapted, not adopted.
>
No matter what you do to a litterbox it ain''t gonna work for a lion.
Why the need to hold onto a model that isn't really that has in no way
proven to help but a relative few?
Heather Aston
I hesitated to join this conversation, because my experiences are the
opposite of what everyone is assuming to be true. You say that it doesn't
work for middle class black children? It worked for me, my brother, and
most of my (middle class) friends. Actually, now that I think of it, it
worked for nearly all of my middle class friends. It didn't work too well
for some of the lower class kids though. Maybe my experience was an
exception to the rule. But now that I think about it, our schooling was
excellent. We all went on to college (some of us dropped out though) got
jobs, and experienced varying degrees of success.
Art Clemons
writes:
>....and I'm saying that maybe the dynamic that works for African
>Americans (or any other assorted group who doesn't do well in the
>present system), has nothing to do with sitting in a classrom smiling
>at a teacher who assumes negatives on you from the begining and then
>bad mouths you for failing.
It's already known that most students who have poor teachers won't do well.
All one can do about poor teachers though is get them away from other African
heritage students, and be sure that if such teachers are rated in any way that
their ratings are drastically lowered for such a failure. We do know for
example that some Africans do well with just sitting and learning by rote. The
problem is that just trying things out won't work. Things we know are
necessary like low pupil to teacher ratio, proper teacher supervision, safe
surroundings, adequate learning materials and the like all are missing from the
failing big city schools. Tracking, the new form of de facto segregation in
the suburbs just got busted in NY State by what I thought originally was
another do nothing Bd of Regents, and we should see some small changes in the
NY suburban model of educating us.
>There is no doubt that the current system works for many, but there is
>obvious evidence that it isn't anywhere near a univerally sound
>dynamic and alternatives should be explored. This isn't to imply a
>desire for something as uncontrolled as vouchers. I don't think that
>the dynamics are in place for the masses of people to effectively
>utilze such a tool without unacceptable amounts of misuse and abuse
>from both ignorance and malice. I'm for improving public schools but
>I recognize that it has become stagnant in intent and procedure and
>needs some robust change to accomodate the changing mentality and
>group dynamics of american society. Everyone doesn't want to get a
>good job and have safe investments for retirement. Some people have
>broader asperations and ideals and a good educational system would
>take that into consideration.
Every system will have some folks who don't do well. The problem is that all
too many of those not doing well are us in the present system. We both know
that if the system suddenly starting producing educated African heritage folk
and failing let's say 20% of the white students, whites would be demanding
immediate and irrevocable change too regardless of the cost. Great change also
usually means that failures happen, for example although I thought "new math"
was a great means of teaching math, most of the folks who learned math using it
as a the core basis now can't do relatively simple math like for example doing
standard deviation calculations, and frankly something had to change. It is a
good example of a failed method. In reading, there is a re-emphasis on
phonics, but early readers usually instead learn to sight read rather than how
to break things down phonetically, and I suspect that there will soon be a
swing back to some learning to sight read. Frankly, I suspect that education
will always have to make corrections for things that don't work, but vast
shifts always fail. We need a model which works for us, and that means lots of
little experiments rather than huge ones, since a real attempt to adapt the
successful methods requires being able to understand what actually needs to be
changed.
von:
>>>George W. Bush was no great scholar but he was successful in
>>>the business world despite all his failures and low grades in school.
>>>Contacts got him where he is and it is the same for most of the white
>>>community. A white male with a high school diploma usually does as
>>>well or better than a black person with just a BS or BA.
>>
ac:
>>Much of the college experience is making contacts. He still managed to
>>graduate from an elite school, know lots of other elite graduates. The
>income
>>figures you mention however ignore that an African-American male with a high
>>school dipoloma can't earn a living wage in general (statistical assumption
>>folks, I don't really want to discuss outliers and statistical
>abnormalities)
>>
>
>I agree, much of the college experience is making contacts. It
>appears at the actual detriment of educational advancement as evident
>that the majority in attendance are only going to get paid better
>instead of actually learning something. Not to mention the
>advancement of our economic theories to evolve out of the draconian
>dynamic of a small percentage doing really well a larger percentage
>starving to death and a middle that is manipulated into working uphill
>and off balance to stay out of one extreme and get to the other.
>However, this is easily justified in a society where who you know is
>more valuable than what you know. It can even get you a bid at the
>Whitehouse.
Going to an elite school is an awakening experience for many. Even if the
professors are awful, the other students provide some educational experience
that doesn't get graded. The majors that folks pick out seem to be based not
on interest but either earnings potential or grad school potential. This
society emphasized college as a means of making money, college grads do make
more money than their cohort of just high school grads, but sadly such focusing
also means that some people don't learn how to learn.
ac:
>>>>Why aren't we trying to adapt that model so that it works for African-
>>>American students,
>>>> instead of trying experiments, most of which won't work out as hoped?
>>>
von:
>>>Just because you can get a cat to use a cat litterbox properly doesn't
>>>mean that you would or could get a lion, tiger or panther to use it the
>>>same way and get the same results. The cat litter was created for a
>>>certain class of cat just like the educational system of the united
>>>states was created for a certain class of person. Your assumption that
>>>the system is a one size fits all condition is incorrect.
>>
ac:
>>I said adapt the model, you'll note I've previously mentioned that it
>presently
>>doesn't work for middle class children of the community, so it has to be
>>adapted, not adopted.
>>
>No matter what you do to a litterbox it ain''t gonna work for a lion.
>Why the need to hold onto a model that isn't really that has in no way
>proven to help but a relative few?
Actually in a zoological garden if you provide a sand pit (sand is what people
used before the clay in cat litter became popular) most big cats will relieve
themselves in the sandpit, assuming of course that the sand is regularly
changed, so I suspect that training a lion to use a large litter box probably
isn't all that difficult. Of course, I want to see someone train herbivores to
only go in specified locations instead.
Part of any educational experience that is successful is teaching people to
think in a particular way concerning the material in question, whether we're
discussing how to multiply, or how to interpret sexual innuendo properly. Part
of the problem for African heritage youth is that teachers have really low
expectations of such youth, but another part is that nobody bothers to try to
really educate us either. Dressing up in authentic African garb from Mali
won't improve our lives forever or even improve the chances of getting a
better education. We do have to figure out why African heritage youth aren't
learning and then correct those factors, but that's a long term prospect. In
the meantime, we have to get folks to recognize that what's measured in high
school has little to do with how well one can perform as a thirty year old
employee too.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
<jmdrake...@collegeclub.com.invalid> put forth:
>In article <61q6is0fns58u8rid...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <darks...@home.net> wrote:
....
>>
>>I'm busy and running on little sleep these days, so let me hit
>some
>>highlights:
....
>>3. If losing kids takes away from public school funding because
>part
>>of the budget is based on the number of kids attending the
>schools,
>>won't the same happen when parents take their children out of
>the
>>school system because they moved, put them in private school,
>or used
>>someone's address out of the district to send them to another
>school?
>>
>
>If you're speaking about the loss of funding based upon the
>number of students, then yes. But vouchers makes the problem
>TWICE as bad. Not only does the school loose funding directly,
>but then they loose funding indirectly in that the more money
>is taken out of the system to fund the vouchers.
1. It's going to come out if they leave, anyway.
2. Not all implementations take money away from the existing school
budget.
....
>>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In
>Baltimore,
>>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools
>in the
>>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
>>
>>I did some calling to non-exclusive non-public schools, and I
>asked
>>questions about cost and scholarships. I also asked about the
>avg.
>>teacher salary. To my surprise, I got answers to the salary
>question.
>>And I was surprised to learn that the teacher's pay avg. around
>>$25,000/year.
>
>That's about right. Why were you surprised? Teachers in
>general are underpaid in this country, public or private.
I thought they were on par with public school teachers.
....
....
>I don't see private versus public school as an "either or"
>issue. I don't think public school supporters have to
>misrepresent the facts about private and home school in
>order to stop the hemmorraging of the public schools. I
>don't think that private school proponents have to "rob
>Peter to pay Paul" and divert needed public school funds
>to the private sector.
Many voucher supporters are not private school proponents. They are
epeople that recognize that there is a problem and it won't change
quickly, given the red-tape and politics of school systems.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <dbqeiso5enr122jbl...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>> I also note that most of the folks now sending their children to
>>>private schools are already withdrawn, and that many parents already have
>>moved
>>>to suburbs to escape the Chicago public schools.
>>
>>And you steadfastly refuse to admit that their money is going with
>>them, along with "per student" funding.
>
>Ed, what stops the parents already sending their offspring to private schools
>from applying for vouchers if they exist? As far as I can tell, putting an
>income cap will either make vouchers less politically feasible.
Nothing, but so what?
>Of course the money is leaving, but the school district also isn't forced to
>also cough up money for the students going to private schools in the form of
>vouchers.
The school district isn't paying anything extra. If they opened a
"regular" school, the same money would have to be spent.
> Isn't a student not counted, who doesn't cost the voucher amount
>less expensive than one who is not counted in the per student funding, but
>still has to get vouchers out of the school district budget. At least with
>charter schools, the child is counted.
It's the same difference.
....
>>>The problem though
>>>is that vouchers will drain off the very people most likely to try to force
>>>change,
>>
>>They are already gone.
>
>Nope, vouchers will also drain off the loudmouths who try to embarrass the
>school district into acting properly or addressing the needs of students,
>because they no longer have a real stake in the school system.
A look at the charter system in D.C. shows exactly what is likey to
happen with vouchers with the spaces that are available. It won't be
the "loud mouths," but the average parents.
You consistantly sell Black parents short.
> Most big city
>schools are already underfunded compared to suburban schools in the same metro
>region, and vouchers just make that worse by at the least removing funds.
Vouchers would remove funding that would be removed when the
children's parents leave the area. And if Baltimore is any example,
they are leaving.
....
>>CHARTER SCHOOLS *ARE* PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They just fall under "less
>>restrictive" rules.
>
>Ed, I know what charter schools are. Telling me they're public schools is
>nice, but they're Chartered schools, schools supposedly with a limited set of
>goals, there are a limited number of them, always will be a limited number of
>them, and they do nothing for the left behinds.
What left behinds? The people who don't want to attend?
Do you express the same "concern" for those in public schools who are
"left behind" by children attending magnets or other specialized
public schools?
D.C. has a charter school specializing in math and science. It also
has a charter school specializing in "hospitality services." It has
another specializing in "at risk boys." It has another specializing in
world political science. Do you also voice concern about the "left
behinds" of those who attend public vo-tech schools?
In Baltimore, Poly is an engineering and science "magnet" school.
City is a liberal arts "magnet" school. School for the Arts (famous
alumni include Tupac and Jade Pinket-Smith) is an arts "magnet"
school. Mervo is a technical trade "magnet" school. Walbrook is a
"service acadamy" "magnet" school. What about the "left behinds" of
the public school system? Do you care about them?
> Some of them also fail
>drastically, and I know the parents of offspring who were in some failed
>schools.
So, the *FACT* that the L.A. school system admitted that they will
have to continue passing students who shouldn't pass, points to the
"success" of the L.A. school system?
....
>>And it's crap to complain about messing things up and experiments but
>>you don't say a dang thang about the mess and experiments that exist
>>now and in the past. Shall I mention "schools without walls"?
>
>The problem is that most experiments fail in the long run.
You mean like math programs that don't stress getting the right answer
or how to get the right answer?
....
>>Yet, you want to *CONDEMN* Black kids to continue in those schools.
>
>Where else are they going to go Ed?
How about some going to private schools? How about some being home
schooled? How about some new schools opening up? How about some doing
school via the internet or mail?
....
>What exists has to be improved right now. We don't need possibilities, we need
>what works.
And much of the crap you are defending doesn't work and won't work.
You are even giving reasons *WHY* it won't work, yet you want to
condemn our children to what *YOU* say doesn't and won't work!
>I would be more in favor of charter schools if I didn't know what
>the chartering process was like presently. If you have proposals for an
>Afro-centric model school and one that focuses on math, it's a good bet that
>the math one is more likely to be chartered.
It seems like there is no trouble getting an Afro-centric school
chartered if all paperwork is done on time. And, in fact, it's the
paperwork that dooms most proposals of schools, be it Afro-centric or
not!
....
>I keep on asking you, what the hell happens to the left behind children, and
>you point to examples of single individuals and outliers.
Art, that's not true and you know it! You keep moaning about the
children that will be "left behind," but don't say squat about those
that are left behind now, because of *PUBLIC* schools like magnet
schools or just plain bad schooling!
Your "left behind" question is a red-herring.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <i6reis0sbmkv0kjqj...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>ac:
>>>Nope, for one thing in places like Pennsylvania, school districts not only
>>>have to fund charter schools, but also provide transportation to the charter
>>>schools (which is an extra expense),
>>
>>Nope, meaning you won't think about it?
>>
>>Look, schools provide transportation for their students. So, the
>>difference is what?
>
>I have thought about it. Most big city public schools don't transport most
>children to their respective schools absent court orders or other emergent
>situations.
False. There are the "yellow" buses or public transportation that is
subsidized by the school system. I did the later and kids are doing it
today, with no court orders.
....
>>If they aren't under school district control, how can the school
>>district revoke their charter?
>
>School districts in many states don't offer the charters, a state appointed or
>mandated board usually does. The school district instead gets to pay for the
>charter school.
The school district gets to have say so in the approval and revoking
of the charter.
....
Art:
>>>Smaller class size so far has been the best predictor of success for
>>>African-American students.
Me:
>>No it hasn't, Art.
>
>Yes it is, whether you want to discuss Marva Collins, the private schools that
>educate the offspring of African-Americans with old money, or the few public
>school systems which actually produce good results for African-Americans.
Try again, Art. I provided a link that showed otherwise.
>What's even funnier is that the same correlation works for whites too. I also
>note that the more successful parochial, Seventh Day Adventist, Friend's
>Schools and Baptist ones seem to have low student to teacher ratios too.
....
>>>>4. In D.C., the "average" cost of non-public schools is around
>>>>$3000/year. (Cali is a different beast economically). In Baltimore,
>>>>the cost is around $2500/year. I was told that Catholic schools in the
>>>>Philly area charge around $2100/year.
>>>
>>>Your Philly figure is low for sure. The cheapest I know of is about $2300,
>>>with at least two schools charging at least $4000 in the Philadelphia Arch
>>>diocese.
>>
>>Okay, $2300/yr.
>
>Incidentally, the Philly Arch-Diocese claims its total expenditure per student
>is higher than the amount Philadelphia spends per student, raising the
>interesting question of how long vouchers exist.
Doesn't matter, it's cost to the parents.
> Also the $2300 per year
>figure doesn't include school supplies, uniforms and some other necessary
>expenses per student by the parents.
Do you care to calculate the additional costs to public school parents
for clothes, supplies, and paying fees for some extra-curricular
activities?
....
>>>>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
>>>>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
>>>>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>>>>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
>>>>private school, what would you do?
>>>
>>>You of course send your child to a private school.
>>
>>So are you going to condemn those parents because they sent their kids
>>to private school, causing the per pupil funding to drop?
>
>No, but I do condemn vouchers if any funds disappear out of the public schools.
People who pull their children out of public school cause money to
disappear out of the public schools. Are you going to condemn them?
....
>>Andmaintainingthe current mess will make it better?
>>NOT!
>
>Most students will still be attending the public schools even if vouchers
>exist. Why don't you address what happens to the left behinds, or address how
>removing money from underfunded schools will improve things for them?
I have addressed it and I'll address it again: If you don't give a
damn about the current left behinds in public schools due to *OTHER*
public schools like *MAGNET* schools, why worry about the left behinds
due to vouchers or charters?
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
ac:
>>Ed, what stops the parents already sending their offspring to private
>schools
>>from applying for vouchers if they exist? As far as I can tell, putting an
>>income cap will either make vouchers less politically feasible.
>
>Nothing, but so what?
Then you've just increased the amount of money that HAS TO be spent for
vouchers.
Where does the money come from?
>>Of course the money is leaving, but the school district also isn't forced to
>>also cough up money for the students going to private schools in the form of
>>vouchers.
>
>The school district isn't paying anything extra. If they opened a
>"regular" school, the same money would have to be spent.
No Ed, you're missing the point. If a school district operates a school, it
gets a certain amount of money allocated per student from the state & federal
government.
Federal funds can't be used for vouchers presently, so the federal money as
paltry as it is walks.
>
>> Isn't a student not counted, who doesn't cost the voucher amount
>>less expensive than one who is not counted in the per student funding, but
>>still has to get vouchers out of the school district budget. At least with
>>charter schools, the child is counted.
>
>It's the same difference.
Let's do a basic example. You have Big City, it has 50,000 students of school
age.
45,000 of the students attend the lousy Big City Schools, and State gives
$2,000 per student per year (90 Million dollars per year), and the feds offer
$500 per student per year (22.5 Million), the rest of Big City's funding is
made up of property taxes and the like provided by local taxes, with a total
expenditure per student of $6,000 (270 Million in effect for a school district)
State legislature decides to implement a voucher plan for $3000 per year with
the school district providing the voucher to each student's parents, and an
additional 1000 students leave the public schools because those parents can now
afford private schooling. Let's now do the math. State's new allocation (88
Million), Fed's new allocation (22 Million), School district's new expenditure
for 6000 students in private schooling (18 Million) leaving the students left
behind with even less money per student (assuming Big City still has
157.5Million from local taxes, or a total budget of 267.5 Million, from which
18 million plus has already been extracted for vouchers, leaving a total of
249.5 Million, or $5670.45 per student) If the state instead pays the
amount, vouchers still reduce the amount available per student unless the state
allocates extra money for vouchers, because the most likely source of money is
the funds allocated for supporting schools. If you means test vouchers, you
not only reduce the political support for such things, you may reduce the
amount of money subtracted from school districts but you also reduce the
impetus to provide new seats in private schooling. When you do a basic
analysis of the math for vouchers, school districts and the students left
behind lose money, more money than the students just not attending.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>>>Look, schools provide transportation for their students. So, the
>>>difference is what?
>>
>>I have thought about it. Most big city public schools don't transport most
>>children to their respective schools absent court orders or other emergent
>>situations.
>
>False. There are the "yellow" buses or public transportation that is
>subsidized by the school system. I did the later and kids are doing it
>today, with no court orders.
OK Ed, let's be rational. Is Baltimore busing most of its kids? DC isn't,
Philly isn't, Boston isn't, NYC surely isn't, so where are MOST of the kids
being transported at the expense of the school district in big cities besides
possibly LA? If reliable public transit is used to transport students, and
there is a discount student fare, the financing of the subsidy varies from
place to place, with some states offering a block grant, and in others, the
school district having to pay for it. Either way, the majority of students in
a school district that's large don't get there on public transit in general. I
admit I went to high school on public transit or if I was really energetic, I
walked (it was from 20 - 50 blocks).
>....
>
>>>If they aren't under school district control, how can the school
>>>district revoke their charter?
>>
>>School districts in many states don't offer the charters, a state appointed
>or
>>mandated board usually does. The school district instead gets to pay for
>the
>>charter school.
>
>The school district gets to have say so in the approval and revoking
>of the charter.
Not in most states! You seem to miss how charter schools operate. If the
school gets to pick out whom it wants to have a charter, then it also controls
the school, defeating the basic purpose of the chartering process according to
proponents.
>....
>
>Art:
>>>>Smaller class size so far has been the best predictor of success for
>>>>African-American students.
>
>Me: (Ed)
>>>No it hasn't, Art.
>>
>>Yes it is, whether you want to discuss Marva Collins, the private schools
>that
>>educate the offspring of African-Americans with old money, or the few public
>>school systems which actually produce good results for African-Americans.
>
>Try again, Art. I provided a link that showed otherwise.
Ed, I don't remember the link, and nobody yet has shown over the years that
smaller classes don't translate into better student performance.
>....
>
Ed:
>>>Okay, $2300/yr.
ac:
>>Incidentally, the Philly Arch-Diocese claims its total expenditure per
>student
>>is higher than the amount Philadelphia spends per student, raising the
>>interesting question of how long vouchers exist.
>
>Doesn't matter, it's cost to the parents.
It does matter if you're going to have NEW students in the parochial schools.
How does a diocese fund new seats, when it's already spending most of its money
on educating the children it has? Who is going to fund the new schools for
$2300 tuition?
>> Also the $2300 per year
>>figure doesn't include school supplies, uniforms and some other necessary
>>expenses per student by the parents.
>
>Do you care to calculate the additional costs to public school parents
>for clothes, supplies, and paying fees for some extra-curricular
>activities?
Parochial schools often don't provide some text supplements that public schools
usually do. Most parents in parochial schools in the three dioceses I'm most
familiar with the operation of end up spending more per year for those, and one
wouldn't have that expense in most public schools. As for comparing costs for
clothing et al, that's tricky. You can't for example let a child play in a
school uniform after school regularly or you need to spend more on replacement
uniforms.
>....
>
>>>>>And will someone who is attempting to "beat me over the head" on this
>>>>>issue please answer this question: If you live in an area that has
>>>>>poor schools, and you have a child that will start schooling the
>>>>>upcoming school year, and you earned enough to send your child to a
>>>>>private school, what would you do?
>>>>
>>>>You of course send your child to a private school.
>>>
>>>So are you going to condemn those parents because they sent their kids
>>>to private school, causing the per pupil funding to drop?
>>
>>No, but I do condemn vouchers if any funds disappear out of the public
>schools.
>
>People who pull their children out of public school cause money to
>disappear out of the public schools. Are you going to condemn them?
>....
>
>>>Andmaintainingthe current mess will make it better?
>>>NOT!
>>
>>Most students will still be attending the public schools even if vouchers
>>exist. Why don't you address what happens to the left behinds, or address
>how
>>removing money from underfunded schools will improve things for them?
>
>I have addressed it and I'll address it again: If you don't give a
>damn about the current left behinds in public schools due to *OTHER*
>public schools like *MAGNET* schools, why worry about the left behinds
>due to vouchers or charters?
Ed, vouchers inherently cost a school district money under any proposal I've
ever read besides just the cost of student allocations by the state and federal
government. Magnet schools are basically an attempt by school districts to
have the equivalent of charter schools under the control of the school
district. If you condemn magnet schools, you're condemning charter schools
too.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <c3mris8r4f95n4aio...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>ac:
>>>Ed, what stops the parents already sending their offspring to private
>>schools
>>>from applying for vouchers if they exist? As far as I can tell, putting an
>>>income cap will either make vouchers less politically feasible.
>>
>>Nothing, but so what?
>
>Then you've just increased the amount of money that HAS TO be spent for
>vouchers.
>Where does the money come from?
>From the money that won't be spent from kids going to public school.
>>>Of course the money is leaving, but the school district also isn't forced to
>>>also cough up money for the students going to private schools in the form of
>>>vouchers.
>>
>>The school district isn't paying anything extra. If they opened a
>>"regular" school, the same money would have to be spent.
>
>No Ed, you're missing the point. If a school district operates a school, it
>gets a certain amount of money allocated per student from the state & federal
>government.
>Federal funds can't be used for vouchers presently, so the federal money as
>paltry as it is walks.
The federal money is tied to *CERTAIN* programs, which would still
stay around if the students stay or if enough students stay. As I
wrote before, if the poverty level of a school falls beneth a certain
level, schools can loose federal funding. So, do you complain about
such situations? Or do you try to keep poor kids in the school?
>>> Isn't a student not counted, who doesn't cost the voucher amount
>>>less expensive than one who is not counted in the per student funding, but
>>>still has to get vouchers out of the school district budget. At least with
>>>charter schools, the child is counted.
>>
>>It's the same difference.
>
>
>Let's do a basic example. You have Big City, it has 50,000 students of school
>age.
>45,000 of the students attend the lousy Big City Schools, and State gives
>$2,000 per student per year (90 Million dollars per year), and the feds offer
>$500 per student per year (22.5 Million), the rest of Big City's funding is
>made up of property taxes and the like provided by local taxes, with a total
>expenditure per student of $6,000 (270 Million in effect for a school district)
State allocation: X*2000
Fed allocation: X*500
Local allocation: X*3500
>State legislature decides to implement a voucher plan for $3000 per year with
>the school district providing the voucher to each student's parents, and an
>additional 1000 students leave the public schools because those parents can now
>afford private schooling. Let's now do the math. State's new allocation (88
>Million), Fed's new allocation (22 Million), School district's new expenditure
>for 6000 students in private schooling (18 Million) leaving the students left
>behind with even less money per student (assuming Big City still has
>157.5Million from local taxes, or a total budget of 267.5 Million, from which
>18 million plus has already been extracted for vouchers, leaving a total of
>249.5 Million, or $5670.45 per student)
Let's see, why don't you include decreased costs for books, teachers,
and buildlings? Further more,
If the state instead pays the
>amount, vouchers still reduce the amount available per student unless the state
>allocates extra money for vouchers, because the most likely source of money is
>the funds allocated for supporting schools. If you means test vouchers, you
>not only reduce the political support for such things, you may reduce the
>amount of money subtracted from school districts but you also reduce the
>impetus to provide new seats in private schooling. When you do a basic
>analysis of the math for vouchers, school districts and the students left
>behind lose money, more money than the students just not attending.
>
>
>
>-art clemons-
---
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <87qrisopejnsvc7fd...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>>>Look, schools provide transportation for their students. So, the
>>>>difference is what?
>>>
>>>I have thought about it. Most big city public schools don't transport most
>>>children to their respective schools absent court orders or other emergent
>>>situations.
>>
>>False. There are the "yellow" buses or public transportation that is
>>subsidized by the school system. I did the later and kids are doing it
>>today, with no court orders.
>
>OK Ed, let's be rational. Is Baltimore busing most of its kids?
Those who don't live within walking distance get bus tickets for
public transportation. I don't know if it's full cost or reduced cost.
> DC isn't,
Yes it is.
>Philly isn't,
I've been told otherwise Art.
> Boston isn't, NYC surely isn't, so where are MOST of the kids
>being transported at the expense of the school district in big cities besides
>possibly LA?
So far Art, it seems like you don't have your facts right.
.....
>>The school district gets to have say so in the approval and revoking
>>of the charter.
>
>Not in most states! You seem to miss how charter schools operate. If the
>school gets to pick out whom it wants to have a charter, then it also controls
>the school, defeating the basic purpose of the chartering process according to
>proponents.
Try again, Art. Your not accurate.
.....
>Ed:
>>>>Okay, $2300/yr.
>ac:
>>>Incidentally, the Philly Arch-Diocese claims its total expenditure per
>>student
>>>is higher than the amount Philadelphia spends per student, raising the
>>>interesting question of how long vouchers exist.
>>
>>Doesn't matter, it's cost to the parents.
>
>It does matter if you're going to have NEW students in the parochial schools.
>How does a diocese fund new seats, when it's already spending most of its money
>on educating the children it has? Who is going to fund the new schools for
>$2300 tuition?
Again, Art. You ignore the number of new schools that are currently
opening. The Baltimore Arch-Diocese is now in the midst of a fund
raising campaign to upgrade its schools. And in some areas, non-parish
members pay more than parish members.
....
>>Do you care to calculate the additional costs to public school parents
>>for clothes, supplies, and paying fees for some extra-curricular
>>activities?
>
>Parochial schools often don't provide some text supplements that public schools
>usually do. Most parents in parochial schools in the three dioceses I'm most
>familiar with the operation of end up spending more per year for those, and one
>wouldn't have that expense in most public schools. As for comparing costs for
>clothing et al, that's tricky. You can't for example let a child play in a
>school uniform after school regularly or you need to spend more on replacement
>uniforms.
Not one parent who pays for school uniforms says it's more costly than
if the kids went to schools without uniforms.
....
>>>Most students will still be attending the public schools even if vouchers
>>>exist. Why don't you address what happens to the left behinds, or address
>>how
>>>removing money from underfunded schools will improve things for them?
>>
>>I have addressed it and I'll address it again: If you don't give a
>>damn about the current left behinds in public schools due to *OTHER*
>>public schools like *MAGNET* schools, why worry about the left behinds
>>due to vouchers or charters?
>
>Ed, vouchers inherently cost a school district money under any proposal I've
>ever read
Art, that's because you are biased. I'm willing to be you never
account for other costs involved.
> besides just the cost of student allocations by the state and federal
>government. Magnet schools are basically an attempt by school districts to
>have the equivalent of charter schools under the control of the school
>district. If you condemn magnet schools, you're condemning charter schools
>too.
I *DON'T* condemn magnet schools, but if you are going to whine about
those left behind, you better pour the whine in the direction of
magnet schoos as well because kids are *STILL* being left behind.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <c3mris8r4f95n4aio...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>ac:
>>>Ed, what stops the parents already sending their offspring to private
>>schools
>>>from applying for vouchers if they exist? As far as I can tell, putting an
>>>income cap will either make vouchers less politically feasible.
>>
>>Nothing, but so what?
>
>Then you've just increased the amount of money that HAS TO be spent for
>vouchers.
No I didn't. The local jurisdictions *MAKE* money on parents who don't
send their children to public schools. They get the tax money and get
to spend it on other people's children.
>>>Of course the money is leaving, but the school district also isn't forced to
>>>also cough up money for the students going to private schools in the form of
>>>vouchers.
>>
>>The school district isn't paying anything extra. If they opened a
>>"regular" school, the same money would have to be spent.
>
>No Ed, you're missing the point. If a school district operates a school, it
>gets a certain amount of money allocated per student from the state & federal
>government.
>Federal funds can't be used for vouchers presently, so the federal money as
>paltry as it is walks.
It walks when the family moves to another region also. It moves if the
boundaries get re-drawn and percentage of students below the poverty
level goes below a certain threshhold. It walks at the whim of
congress.
>>> Isn't a student not counted, who doesn't cost the voucher amount
>>>less expensive than one who is not counted in the per student funding, but
>>>still has to get vouchers out of the school district budget. At least with
>>>charter schools, the child is counted.
>>
>>It's the same difference.
>
>
>Let's do a basic example. You have Big City, it has 50,000 students of school
>age.
>45,000 of the students attend the lousy Big City Schools, and State gives
>$2,000 per student per year (90 Million dollars per year), and the feds offer
>$500 per student per year (22.5 Million), the rest of Big City's funding is
>made up of property taxes and the like provided by local taxes, with a total
>expenditure per student of $6,000 (270 Million in effect for a school district)
Okay.
>State legislature decides to implement a voucher plan for $3000 per year with
>the school district providing the voucher to each student's parents, and an
>additional 1000 students leave the public schools because those parents can now
>afford private schooling.
Great for the parents.
>Let's now do the math. State's new allocation (88
>Million),
$2000 x 44,000 = $88,000,000
>Fed's new allocation (22 Million),
$500 x 44,000 = $22,000,000
>School district's new expenditure
>for 6000 students in private schooling (18 Million) leaving the students left
>behind with even less money per student (assuming Big City still has
>157.5Million from local taxes, or a total budget of 267.5 Million, from which
>18 million plus has already been extracted for vouchers, leaving a total of
>249.5 Million, or $5670.45 per student)
Sorry, that doesn't work. You see those parents who now send there
children to private schools, are more likely to have left the
district, losing the money per studen and a funding source. Not only
that, you aren't accounting for any savings that occurs because of
fewer students in the system. For example, in D.C., schools are slated
to close because students are leaving the system because parents are
moving. The costs associated with maintaining those schools will go to
zero once the buildings are sold.
Do all of the math, Art, and not just a selected part of it. Besides,
from what I've read, the amount of money proposed for vouchers has
always been *LESS* than the current per child cost for the public
schools.
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
ac:
>>No Ed, you're missing the point. If a school district operates a school, it
>>gets a certain amount of money allocated per student from the state &
>federal
>>government.
>>Federal funds can't be used for vouchers presently, so the federal money as
>>paltry as it is walks.
>
>It walks when the family moves to another region also. It moves if the
>boundaries get re-drawn and percentage of students below the poverty
>level goes below a certain threshhold. It walks at the whim of
>congress.
Sure does, but as I pointed out, when I do all of the math, the amount of money
still decreases per student because of vouchers whether fed funds exist or not.
That's the point, and one you seem to ignore.
ac:
>>Let's do a basic example. You have Big City, it has 50,000 students of
>school
>>age.
>>45,000 of the students attend the lousy Big City Schools, and State gives
>>$2,000 per student per year (90 Million dollars per year), and the feds
>offer
>>$500 per student per year (22.5 Million), the rest of Big City's funding is
>>made up of property taxes and the like provided by local taxes, with a total
>>expenditure per student of $6,000 (270 Million in effect for a school
>district)
>
>Okay.
>
>>State legislature decides to implement a voucher plan for $3000 per year
>with
>>the school district providing the voucher to each student's parents, and an
>>additional 1000 students leave the public schools because those parents can
>now
>>afford private schooling.
>
>Great for the parents.
Only for the 6000 parents who get to send their offspring to private schooling,
what about those whose offspring are left behind, or those with no offspring in
the public schools, whose local tax money still goes to fund such things, but
with less likelihood of success for those who attend the schools.
>>Let's now do the math. State's new allocation (88
>>Million),
>
>$2000 x 44,000 = $88,000,000
Comment, did I make a math error, I assumed you could check my math?
>>Fed's new allocation (22 Million),
>
>$500 x 44,000 = $22,000,000
>
>>School district's new expenditure
>>for 6000 students in private schooling (18 Million) leaving the students
>left
>>behind with even less money per student (assuming Big City still has
>>157.5Million from local taxes, or a total budget of 267.5 Million, from
>which
>>18 million plus has already been extracted for vouchers, leaving a total of
>>249.5 Million, or $5670.45 per student)
>
>Sorry, that doesn't work. You see those parents who now send there
>children to private schools, are more likely to have left the
>district, losing the money per studen and a funding source. Not only
>that, you aren't accounting for any savings that occurs because of
>fewer students in the system. For example, in D.C., schools are slated
>to close because students are leaving the system because parents are
>moving. The costs associated with maintaining those schools will go to
>zero once the buildings are sold.
Unless DC is going to tear down schools, there will still be costs associated
with just maintaining empty bldgs. Ed, I know how funding works. Vouchers
won't keep enough middle class families in DC to improve things. It should
also be noted that DC job counts are declining too, as Congress allows agencies
to move outside DC, meaning that folks move or face long DC are commutes. DC
has to improve its schools, but unless it's going to raze schools, or sell them
off to unknown buyers, it will still have maintenance costs for closed schools.
The present congressional mandate that DC can't require workers to live within
DC is also ludicrous. For example, can a state employee in Virginia reside in
Maryland normally? Those folks who make their money from DC, probably should
have to live in DC.
>Do all of the math, Art, and not just a selected part of it. Besides,
>from what I've read, the amount of money proposed for vouchers has
>always been *LESS* than the current per child cost for the public
>schools.
I've done all of the math. Students and their families moving away have less
of an effect on money lost than vouchers which come out of a state allocation,
or vouchers which a school district must fund. Yes, parents are moving to
suburbs for a taste of the suburban life, but note, for MOST African heritage
parents, their offspring still won't do as well as the white cohort. Remember
I started this thread mentioning that now the NY Bd of Regents was going to
begin measuring how well African-American students did in a school district on
its testing and the suburban school boards are howling because the students
aren't doing that well because of tracking and racism in the schools.
So far vouchers are a remedy which costs those left behind big time with little
real benefit for minorities too.
-art clemons-
Rich Thompson
darks...@home.net wrote:
> No I didn't. The local jurisdictions *MAKE* money on parents who don't
> send their children to public schools. They get the tax money and get
> to spend it on other people's children.
PRESENTLY.
But under a voucher system, they will have to give these parents money,
rather than the opposite. These kids will be NEW expenses for the
jurisdictions, no?
> Do all of the math, Art, and not just a selected part of it. Besides,
> from what I've read, the amount of money proposed for vouchers has
> always been *LESS* than the current per child cost for the public
> schools.
Taking into account students that the district has NEVER had to pay for
until now?
--
Rich Thompson, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist, P-Funk fan, "Stats Guy"
"Don't mess with Mother Nature."
-Koko Taylor
Rich Thompson
darks...@home.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 19:57:52 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) put
> forth:
> >Philly isn't,
>
> I've been told otherwise Art.
>
> > Boston isn't, NYC surely isn't, so where are MOST of the kids
> >being transported at the expense of the school district in big cities besides
> >possibly LA?
>
> So far Art, it seems like you don't have your facts right.
Well, he's right about Philly.
DarkStar
<mice_el...@yahoo.com> put forth:
>In article <kau0js80qilsbk2bb...@4ax.com>,
> darks...@home.net wrote:
>
>> No I didn't. The local jurisdictions *MAKE* money on parents who don't
>> send their children to public schools. They get the tax money and get
>> to spend it on other people's children.
>
>PRESENTLY.
>
>But under a voucher system, they will have to give these parents money,
>rather than the opposite. These kids will be NEW expenses for the
>jurisdictions, no?
No. The building and material expenses associated with children
attending a school won't be present.
>
>
>
>> Do all of the math, Art, and not just a selected part of it. Besides,
>> from what I've read, the amount of money proposed for vouchers has
>> always been *LESS* than the current per child cost for the public
>> schools.
>
>Taking into account students that the district has NEVER had to pay for
>until now?
Yes.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <kau0js80qilsbk2bb...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
....
>>It walks when the family moves to another region also. It moves if the
>>boundaries get re-drawn and percentage of students below the poverty
>>level goes below a certain threshhold. It walks at the whim of
>>congress.
>
>Sure does, but as I pointed out, when I do all of the math, the amount of money
>still decreases per student because of vouchers whether fed funds exist or not.
> That's the point, and one you seem to ignore.
I want all variables included, and you are not including them all.
....
>>Great for the parents.
>Only for the 6000 parents who get to send their offspring to private schooling,
>what about those whose offspring are left behind, or those with no offspring in
>the public schools, whose local tax money still goes to fund such things, but
>with less likelihood of success for those who attend the schools.
Until you start asking "what about those left behind" for those who
don't attend magnet public schools, your question is nothing but a
red-herring.
....
>>Sorry, that doesn't work. You see those parents who now send there
>>children to private schools, are more likely to have left the
>>district, losing the money per studen and a funding source. Not only
>>that, you aren't accounting for any savings that occurs because of
>>fewer students in the system. For example, in D.C., schools are slated
>>to close because students are leaving the system because parents are
>>moving. The costs associated with maintaining those schools will go to
>>zero once the buildings are sold.
>
>Unless DC is going to tear down schools, there will still be costs associated
>with just maintaining empty bldgs.
They are selling them.
> Ed, I know how funding works. Vouchers
>won't keep enough middle class families in DC to improve things. It should
>also be noted that DC job counts are declining too, as Congress allows agencies
>to move outside DC, meaning that folks move or face long DC are commutes.
D.C. is starting to get an influx of middle class and above, of all
races. It's also getting an influx of poor.
....
>>Do all of the math, Art, and not just a selected part of it. Besides,
>>from what I've read, the amount of money proposed for vouchers has
>>always been *LESS* than the current per child cost for the public
>>schools.
>
>I've done all of the math. Students and their families moving away have less
>of an effect on money lost than vouchers which come out of a state allocation,
>or vouchers which a school district must fund. Yes, parents are moving to
>suburbs for a taste of the suburban life, but note, for MOST African heritage
>parents, their offspring still won't do as well as the white cohort.
If it doesn't happen, it's because people like you don't expect it to
happen who are always saying Black people can't do this or do that.
> Remember
>I started this thread mentioning that now the NY Bd of Regents was going to
>begin measuring how well African-American students did in a school district on
>its testing and the suburban school boards are howling because the students
>aren't doing that well because of tracking and racism in the schools.
You started the thread on a false premise, as far as I'm concerned.
Art Clemons
<mice_el...@yahoo.com> writes:
Ed:
>> So far Art, it seems like you don't have your facts right.
>
>Well, he's right about Philly.
Just for the record, I'm right about Boston, Philly, and NYC for sure. None of
them bus most of their students to school.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <8gtpsp$c2g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Rich Thompson
Art, you have done it again! You shifted what was written!
I said that they bus kids to school either by the yellow bus or public
transportation. I *NEVER* said *ANYTHING* about M O S T.
I talked with someone who went to Philly schools and is now a part of
the system, and that person received tokens to go to a city-wide
school. Students who are within walking distance, walk.
Pilar Quezzaire
: I talked with someone who went to Philly schools and is now a part of
: the system, and that person received tokens to go to a city-wide
: school. Students who are within walking distance, walk.
In the Boston area, children also receive token or reduced fares if the
school is within the train system, and the children have to be over seven
years old.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"The Headlights of Ignorance shine in my eyes, and I am the Doe of
Knowledge."
--Pilar Quezzaire-Belle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>I said that they bus kids to school either by the yellow bus or public
>transportation. I *NEVER* said *ANYTHING* about M O S T.
>
>I talked with someone who went to Philly schools and is now a part of
>the system, and that person received tokens to go to a city-wide
>school. Students who are within walking distance, walk.
Ed, in Philly, the tokens are purchased by the student, usually with money
provided by the parents. The tokens or pass costs less than the regular fare,
but the school district only sells the tokens or pass, it doesn't provide the
transport. That's also true in Boston, NYC, Chicago and other large east coast
cities. If a school district has its funding cut and also has to bus students
to private schooling, then it has even less money to spend per pupil in the
real world.
I also note that I said MOST students walk to school, and you seemed to claim
Philly showed otherwise. Once again, I discuss most, and you are discussing
exceptions. Busing costs money, money that comes out of an education budget if
it happens. Please also note that a discount rate for tokens or transit passes
usually isn't funded by a school district.
The following is a quote from May 26, 2000 in the same thread, note what you
responded to, and how you responded. I didn't twist what you said, I responded
to what you wrote.
ac:
>I have thought about it. Most big city public schools don't transport most
>children to their respective schools absent court orders or other emergent
>situations.
ED:
False. There are the "yellow" buses or public transportation that is
subsidized by the school system. I did the later and kids are doing it
today, with no court orders.
You'll note your claim. Public transit isn't provided by school districts,
although it may be relied on to get students to school. Once again, most
places with such discounts for students have state funding or county funding
rather than school district funding for the subsidy.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> writes:
>In the Boston area, children also receive token or reduced fares if the
>school is within the train system, and the children have to be over seven
>years old.
I note once again that you're not discussing a school district funded project.
The MBTA has had the same program for over 35 years. Remember Ed claimed the
school district provided the subsidy, the Commonwealth instead provides the
subsidy. The system used to have a plastic pass issued at the beginning of the
air, which entitled the student to a reduced fare on school days.
Remember what this discussion evolved or devolved from, a discussion of the
school district having to provide extra funding or paying to bus students.
Boston does not bus most of its students, and even in the heyday of busing
didn't bus most of its students, even if most high school students ride the T.
A student living in Boston, and attending a private school in Cambridge or the
reverse is eligible for the reduced fares, needless to say, Boston and
Cambridge don't operate a joint school district.
Students attending public schools and private schools are eligible presently,
but unless things have changed recently, it's funded by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and not the individual school districts. There are school
districts in Metro Boston where most of the students get bused, but neither
Boston nor Cambridge could afford to bus most of its students or pay a subsidy.
I note finally that a subsidy is also not the complete cost of riding. I no
longer know what the reduced fare is, but a pass or school token still costs
the student (meaning usually the family) some money, unlike a bus system, which
is normally paid for through taxes.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <8hh7k4$hpj$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Pilar Quezzaire
><quez...@fas.harvard.edu> writes:
>
>>In the Boston area, children also receive token or reduced fares if the
>>school is within the train system, and the children have to be over seven
>>years old.
>
>I note once again that you're not discussing a school district funded project.
>The MBTA has had the same program for over 35 years. Remember Ed claimed the
>school district provided the subsidy, the Commonwealth instead provides the
>subsidy.
Whoop
deeee
dannngggggggg
doooooooooooooooooooo!
The commonwealth vs the school district.
....
>I note finally that a subsidy is also not the complete cost of riding.
In some cases, no, in other cases yes. And *THAT'S* something you
should be complaining about! Are you?
> I no
>longer know what the reduced fare is, but a pass or school token still costs
>the student (meaning usually the family) some money, unlike a bus system, which
>is normally paid for through taxes.
>-art clemons-
---
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>Whoop
>deeee
>dannngggggggg
>doooooooooooooooooooo!
>
>The commonwealth vs the school district.
It's a major difference. The funds don't come out of the school district
budget, and while that seems unimportant to you, it also means that it can't be
a service provided by the school district. I also note that public transit
agencies usually seek out such subsidies as a justification for governmental
funding in part. The school district usually has little control over the
transit service as opposed to for example a private school bus company with
which the district has a contract, or school buses which the district operates.
Finally, the general public gets to also use the public transit, and I don't
know of any big city where folks can use school buses to get to work.
>....
>
>>I note finally that a subsidy is also not the complete cost of riding.
>
>In some cases, no, in other cases yes. And *THAT'S* something you
>should be complaining about! Are you?
Ed, I've apparently lived more places than you, and I don't know of a single
big city where the entire cost of students riding to school on public transit
is paid for.
I can't see for example lessening a school budget to pay for students to ride
to school on public transit, and I note that busing on the yellow-orange buses
can be a major expense. There may be well programs in some states which pay
for some students to ride without cost, but I don't know of one.
I hesitate to suggest that governments spend even more money on transit as an
educational expense, in lieu of using the money to improve the educational
experience. You should too! You'll also note that one of my complaints about
vouchers originally in this newsgroup was that transit usually would become a
major consideration and cost for the parents, aren't you trying to sneak in
extra costs for vouchers in the guise of having transit funded totally for
students, costs which a school district would also end up bearing?
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <m8ttjssvpfjh37uck...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>Whoop
>>deeee
>>dannngggggggg
>>doooooooooooooooooooo!
>>
>>The commonwealth vs the school district.
>
>It's a major difference. The funds don't come out of the school district
>budget, and while that seems unimportant to you, it also means that it can't be
>a service provided by the school district.
Art, IMO, you're playing bean counting games by saying it comes out of
pot A vs pot B when it's all the same damn pot; tax dollars.
....
>>In some cases, no, in other cases yes. And *THAT'S* something you
>>should be complaining about! Are you?
>
>Ed, I've apparently lived more places than you, and I don't know of a single
>big city where the entire cost of students riding to school on public transit
>is paid for.
Baltimore used to be that way because I received the bus tickets. I
don't know the state of it now. And despite your denials, I'm told
that Philly pays for student's transportation for those who attend
city-wide schools.
....
>I hesitate to suggest that governments spend even more money on transit as an
>educational expense, in lieu of using the money to improve the educational
>experience. You should too! You'll also note that one of my complaints about
>vouchers originally in this newsgroup was that transit usually would become a
>major consideration and cost for the parents, aren't you trying to sneak in
>extra costs for vouchers in the guise of having transit funded totally for
>students, costs which a school district would also end up bearing?
Extra costs?
The costs are already there! And they're in the open!
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>Art, IMO, you're playing bean counting games by saying it comes out of
>pot A vs pot B when it's all the same damn pot; tax dollars.
Let's see, you have states with surplus funds paying for transit for school
children, while at the same time local school districts which have tax
opponents complaining about the heavy tax burden don't usually have the money
to pay teachers in the big city school district as well as the suburban school
districts and are spending less per pupil even with all of the waste than the
more successful school districts in the same metro region. You're missing the
point! Forcing a school district to lose money, or to pay for services has a
higher costs for students than a state or commonwealth paying for a service.
It's not just tax money, one has to consider the source too.
>....
>
>>>In some cases, no, in other cases yes. And *THAT'S* something you
>>>should be complaining about! Are you?
>>
>>Ed, I've apparently lived more places than you, and I don't know of a single
>>big city where the entire cost of students riding to school on public
>transit
>>is paid for.
>
>Baltimore used to be that way because I received the bus tickets. I
>don't know the state of it now. And despite your denials, I'm told
>that Philly pays for student's transportation for those who attend
>city-wide schools.
Want to stack your Philadelphia school district sources against mine Ed?
The school district does not provide tokens to poor students. It does bus some
students in the lower grades, students going to private schooling or to charter
schools, but it does not pay for students attending let's say Central High
School, or MastBaum or Girl's High, and students have to get to those schools
on their own. The school district also buses handicapped students, and
students in lower grades who have NO school within reasonable walking distance,
or who require special services.
Once again there is a discounted SEPTA fare for students in Philadelphia, with
either tokens or a transit pass offered at less than the going rate for
transit. The school district does sell both to students, but it does not fund
them.
In Boston, and NYC, the situation is functionally equivalent except that Boston
does have some neighborhoods which don't have enough seats and has to bus
students to other schools with seats, but once again, most students either walk
or pay for their subsidized transit.
>
>....
>
>>I hesitate to suggest that governments spend even more money on transit as
>an
>>educational expense, in lieu of using the money to improve the educational
>>experience. You should too! You'll also note that one of my complaints
>about
>>vouchers originally in this newsgroup was that transit usually would become
>a
>>major consideration and cost for the parents, aren't you trying to sneak in
>>extra costs for vouchers in the guise of having transit funded totally for
>>students, costs which a school district would also end up bearing?
>
>Extra costs?
>The costs are already there! And they're in the open!
Increasing the need for busing is an extra expense Ed. Just as I showed that
no matter how you sliced it, vouchers would cost a school district money unless
the school district receives money based not on how many students attend its
schools but rather how many students are in its district.
Let's also not ignore that the original title referred to a problem in suburban
school districts in NY state, and their abominable treatment of African
heritage students. BTW, looking at parochial schools, very few African
heritage students who graduate from parochial schools get to attend elite
schools, said students just get a bare level competent education that's
subsidized in a variety of ways even if the parents only pay $3,000 per year
for tuition. Cutting back the funds available to poor students never improves
their education in any study I've ever seen, and even for white students, more
money spent on education usually translates statistically into better outcomes.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <of9bks8jj65gve4v0...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>Art, IMO, you're playing bean counting games by saying it comes out of
>>pot A vs pot B when it's all the same damn pot; tax dollars.
>
>Let's see, you have states with surplus funds paying for transit for school
>children, while at the same time local school districts which have tax
>opponents complaining about the heavy tax burden don't usually have the money
>to pay teachers in the big city school district as well as the suburban school
>districts and are spending less per pupil even with all of the waste than the
>more successful school districts in the same metro region.
Uhhh....
Excuse me, but like I said before, some already paid for the
transportation, as it did in my case. From what I know, the surplus
funds only recently happened.
>You're missing the
>point! Forcing a school district to lose money, or to pay for services has a
>higher costs for students than a state or commonwealth paying for a service.
>It's not just tax money, one has to consider the source too.
They are already *PAYING* for transportation!
....
>>Baltimore used to be that way because I received the bus tickets. I
>>don't know the state of it now. And despite your denials, I'm told
>>that Philly pays for student's transportation for those who attend
>>city-wide schools.
>
>Want to stack your Philadelphia school district sources against mine Ed?
I've asked again and I've received the same response.
....
>>Extra costs?
>>The costs are already there! And they're in the open!
>
>
>Increasing the need for busing is an extra expense Ed.
Not when it's already *DONE* and no matter how strongly you deny it,
it's done.
>Just as I showed that
>no matter how you sliced it, vouchers would cost a school district money unless
>the school district receives money based not on how many students attend its
>schools but rather how many students are in its district.
Art, you didn't account for all costs. For example, you stated that
there are costs for maintaining closed schools in D.C., while I
pointed out that those schools are sold.
....
>BTW, looking at parochial schools, very few African
>heritage students who graduate from parochial schools get to attend elite
>schools,
So, in your world, only "elite" schools matter and if kids who go to
college don't get into "elite" schools, they are not well off?
What a load of garbage! Not only that, you don't hold public schools
to the same damn standards!
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>>Let's see, you have states with surplus funds paying for transit for school
>>children, while at the same time local school districts which have tax
>>opponents complaining about the heavy tax burden don't usually have the
>money
>>to pay teachers in the big city school district as well as the suburban
>school
>>districts and are spending less per pupil even with all of the waste than
>the
>>more successful school districts in the same metro region.
>
>Uhhh....
>Excuse me, but like I said before, some already paid for the
>transportation, as it did in my case. From what I know, the surplus
>funds only recently happened.
Actually let's be honest, public transit is a factor for schools in only a
limited number of states. If a school district can space schools slightly more
because students can use public transit, it does allow larger schools (usually
not an improvement) and it also allows the school district not to spend more
money on transit for students. Instead parents pay out of their own pockets,
or the student earns said funds, either way, the district doesn't pay. That's
a key difference from a school district paying a school bus company or
operating its own bus fleet, and paying all of the cost out of its budget.
>>You're missing the
>>point! Forcing a school district to lose money, or to pay for services has
>a
>>higher costs for students than a state or commonwealth paying for a service.
>
>>It's not just tax money, one has to consider the source too.
>
>They are already *PAYING* for transportation!
Whom do you mean, the parents in paying for the transit with a subsidy usually
or the state/commonwealth? For example since you love Philly so much, it has
to provide transit to charter schools either on its own fleet or with a
subcontractor. That sir, is an extra expense for the school district, one that
it doesn't normally provide absent "special needs". Those funds also come out
of the per pupil budget, lowering the funds available to teach or otherwise
provide services. If you mean that the states are already paying, let me note
that the per ride cost for a transit system is usually less than the per ride
cost for a school bus in a big city, are you suggesting that school districts
get more funding for school buses?
....
>
>>Increasing the need for busing is an extra expense Ed.
>
>Not when it's already *DONE* and no matter how strongly you deny it,
>it's done.
Increasing the expense is still a real world decrease in funds available to
educate, and we're discussing schools which are underfunded.
>>Just as I showed that
>>no matter how you sliced it, vouchers would cost a school district money
>unless
>>the school district receives money based not on how many students attend its
>>schools but rather how many students are in its district.
>
>Art, you didn't account for all costs. For example, you stated that
>there are costs for maintaining closed schools in D.C., while I
>pointed out that those schools are sold.
Really, DC has managed to sell all its closed schools. I don't think so, or at
least the southern windbags on the house DC supervising committee don't seem to
think so, at least two are complaining about the expenses of maintaining closed
schools in the DC school budget. I also note in the real world that removing
let's say another one percent as for example in example with 50,000 students
doesn't result in the closing of a single school. Dropping from 30 per class
to 28 per class doesn't usually justify closing a school in that situation. DC
btw is a special case, it's losing students in large numbers without vouchers
as folks move out or at least pretend to move out so that their offspring can
attend other schools. How much money per student is added by selling several
schools for example in DC? Isn't that sale also a one time event, and not a
continuing source of funding? I did account for real world costs, how much
money is an old school worth, and don't you also eventually need to put up
funding to build new schools to replace the decrepit schools in most big
cities? What real world costs for most cities did I ignore in the example? Do
the counting for the number of students based on any rational measurement of
students per school you want, then tell me how students leaving from around the
city justify closing ONE school, especially since the students are drawn from
all grades in a voucher system or attending private schooling already. Even
assuming that schools closed in my example how does decreasing the funding
available per student improve things for the students still trapped in the
public schools?
>....
>
>>BTW, looking at parochial schools, very few African
>>heritage students who graduate from parochial schools get to attend elite
>>schools,
>
>So, in your world, only "elite" schools matter and if kids who go to
>college don't get into "elite" schools, they are not well off?
No, but in the real world, a high school diploma from a parochial school is
just a diploma, we're also not discussing great education in the parochial
schools just adequate education for a limited number of students, and I note
that in many places parochial schools in poor neighborhoods are still in danger
of closing despite full enrollments in places like Chicago. You also miss the
real world stats indicating that elite college educations have a higher payoff
for African-Americans than attending Roly Poly U.
>What a load of garbage! Not only that, you don't hold public schools
>to the same damn standards!
Gee, I haven't complained about suburban public schools in places like Shaker
Hts not meeting the same standard? You'll also note my point in complaining
about the concept of vouchers, namely that they don't do ANYTHING for the
students who can't take advantage of them and decrease the funding available in
a variety of ways.
I don't know of a single diocese ready to increase enrollment by 10% if
vouchers suddenly come about, and neither do you. In no place do suggested
voucher amounts cover the cost of education per student in a parochial school,
just barely tuition and the parents are left with increased costs for things
like supplemental texts which the public schools normally have to supply for
students. I also note that Stanley Crouch of all people decimated vouchers and
republicans advocating them on May 26 in Salon magazine. You'll note by the
way that many of his arguments coincide with mine, but one of his points you
should consider, the claim that students leaving public schools will cause them
to improve is ludicrous considering that vouchers will draw off poor students,
and the thousands of wealthier students already leaving for private schools
hasn't done a thing to improve the public schools.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <us1rks8ng63fj1o21...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>>Let's see, you have states with surplus funds paying for transit for school
>>>children, while at the same time local school districts which have tax
>>>opponents complaining about the heavy tax burden don't usually have the
>>money
>>>to pay teachers in the big city school district as well as the suburban
>>school
>>>districts and are spending less per pupil even with all of the waste than
>>the
>>>more successful school districts in the same metro region.
>>
>>Uhhh....
>>Excuse me, but like I said before, some already paid for the
>>transportation, as it did in my case. From what I know, the surplus
>>funds only recently happened.
>
>Actually let's be honest, public transit is a factor for schools in only a
>limited number of states.
Until I read an independent source, I refuse to concede that point.
And since you are wrong about much concerning this topic, my
scepticism is not misplaced.
....
>>>It's not just tax money, one has to consider the source too.
>>
>>They are already *PAYING* for transportation!
>Whom do you mean, the parents in paying for the transit with a subsidy usually
>or the state/commonwealth?
The school, city, local community, or state.
>For example since you love Philly so much, it has
>to provide transit to charter schools either on its own fleet or with a
>subcontractor. That sir, is an extra expense for the school district, one that
>it doesn't normally provide absent "special needs".
Again, I've been told you are wrong.
....
>>Not when it's already *DONE* and no matter how strongly you deny it,
>>it's done.
>
>Increasing the expense is still a real world decrease in funds available to
>educate, and we're discussing schools which are underfunded.
Not if it is already done and accounted for. There are no school
systems that do not take current demographics and expected future
demographics into account when doing funding.
....
>>Art, you didn't account for all costs. For example, you stated that
>>there are costs for maintaining closed schools in D.C., while I
>>pointed out that those schools are sold.
>
>Really, DC has managed to sell all its closed schools. I don't think so, or at
>least the southern windbags on the house DC supervising committee don't seem to
>think so, at least two are complaining about the expenses of maintaining closed
>schools in the DC school budget.
The schools have been sold and the House politicians are saying that
more schools can be closed because of the loss of population.
> I also note in the real world that removing
>let's say another one percent as for example in example with 50,000 students
>doesn't result in the closing of a single school. Dropping from 30 per class
>to 28 per class doesn't usually justify closing a school in that situation.
Since D.C. is losing people, the decrease in the number of kids in a
class is not because of smaller class size efforts.
....
> I did account for real world costs, how much
>money is an old school worth, and don't you also eventually need to put up
>funding to build new schools to replace the decrepit schools in most big
>cities?
The cost of building a new school is going to happen no matter what.
So that added cost is still an added cost.
>Do
>the counting for the number of students based on any rational measurement of
>students per school you want, then tell me how students leaving from around the
>city justify closing ONE school,
Maybe you can see why it's about to happen in D.C.
....
>>>BTW, looking at parochial schools, very few African
>>>heritage students who graduate from parochial schools get to attend elite
>>>schools,
>>
>>So, in your world, only "elite" schools matter and if kids who go to
>>college don't get into "elite" schools, they are not well off?
>
>No, but in the real world, a high school diploma from a parochial school is
>just a diploma, we're also not discussing great education in the parochial
>schools just adequate education for a limited number of students,
So, overall, students at those schools outperform students in city
schools, and now you want to claim their education is "just adequate"?
> and I note
>that in many places parochial schools in poor neighborhoods are still in danger
>of closing despite full enrollments in places like Chicago. You also miss the
>real world stats indicating that elite college educations have a higher payoff
>for African-Americans than attending Roly Poly U.
And Blacks attending Roly Poly U have better chances than those not
attending at all.
>>What a load of garbage! Not only that, you don't hold public schools
>>to the same damn standards!
>
>Gee, I haven't complained about suburban public schools in places like Shaker
>Hts not meeting the same standard? You'll also note my point in complaining
>about the concept of vouchers, namely that they don't do ANYTHING for the
>students who can't take advantage of them and decrease the funding available in
>a variety of ways.
But you don't write *SQUAT* about magnet schools! Why not? The
situation is still the same. Most students aren't able to take
advantage. But you have no complaints about them!
No, Art. Most of your claims are smoke and mirrors.
>I don't know of a single diocese ready to increase enrollment by 10% if
>vouchers suddenly come about, and neither do you. In no place do suggested
>voucher amounts cover the cost of education per student in a parochial school,
>just barely tuition and the parents are left with increased costs for things
>like supplemental texts which the public schools normally have to supply for
>students.
No place?
You mean like in Cleveland?
....
> You'll note by the
>way that many of his arguments coincide with mine, but one of his points you
>should consider, the claim that students leaving public schools will cause them
>to improve is ludicrous considering that vouchers will draw off poor students,
>and the thousands of wealthier students already leaving for private schools
>hasn't done a thing to improve the public schools.
Funny thing, the scores really improved in Florida where schools were
under the gun.
Art Clemons
<darks...@home.net> writes:
>>>Not when it's already *DONE* and no matter how strongly you deny it,
>>>it's done.
>>
>>Increasing the expense is still a real world decrease in funds available to
>>educate, and we're discussing schools which are underfunded.
>
>Not if it is already done and accounted for. There are no school
>systems that do not take current demographics and expected future
>demographics into account when doing funding.
Ed, one more time in the real world, where demographics are taken into account,
IF student enrollment drops, funding from the state and federal government
decreases too. In a few states, some money is given per child in an enrollment
district, but please note that in many states, private schools for example
don't have to provide school nurses, that's the responsibility of the school
district, as for example reading teachers and folks for some "special
education" classes can be. Big city school systems like Philadelphia are
underfunded per pupil by any measure you want to make, and I note according to
the Philadelphia School System's own figures, it provides yellow bus transit to
8% of its total student population with most of those "special needs",
de-segregation ordered or hazardous route to school students. It has to also
provide transit for students attending private schooling more than 1.5 miles
away from their home in elementary & middle school grades, and this is usually
done using contractor bus companies. Now, if you increase the number of
children riding the bus, that has to be paid for somehow, and knowing what the
numbers are in advance will not increase the amount of money available for
educating students still in the public school system.
>....
>
>>>Art, you didn't account for all costs. For example, you stated that
>>>there are costs for maintaining closed schools in D.C., while I
>>>pointed out that those schools are sold.
>>
>>Really, DC has managed to sell all its closed schools. I don't think so, or
>at
>>least the southern windbags on the house DC supervising committee don't seem
>to
>>think so, at least two are complaining about the expenses of maintaining
>closed
>>schools in the DC school budget.
>
>The schools have been sold and the House politicians are saying that
>more schools can be closed because of the loss of population.
Ed, in the real world, how long can you fund a school district by selling off
its capital assets like school buildings? Don't you just get a one year
infusion of cash, which you can either use to pay off bonds, or add to the
general fund, but either way, the income is only there ONCE! I didn't know
that for example 10 million dollars for one school would fund a big city school
district or do much for the students left behind in years to come. How does
this new economic model work?
>
>> I also note in the real world that removing
>>let's say another one percent as for example in example with 50,000 students
>>doesn't result in the closing of a single school. Dropping from 30 per
>class
>>to 28 per class doesn't usually justify closing a school in that situation.
>
>Since D.C. is losing people, the decrease in the number of kids in a
>class is not because of smaller class size efforts.
You're missing the point. I mentioned the previous example I gave with 50,000
pupils (btw in an effort to avoid discussing specific school districts because
each has idiosyncrasies) and noted that removing 1000 pupils from 12 grades is
about 70-85 per class (demographic assumptions, there's a variance from grade
to grade in the number of children) and that said students would probably not
all come from the same area, allowing a school to close. Bringing up DC which
is going to continue to lose population is irrelevant, most big cities aren't
losing population at the same rate, and most of the left behinds tend to be
poor, limiting mobility options. In fact, that's one of the problems in DC,
the middle class is leaving the city as fast as it can. How in the 50,000
student example I gave are you going to get rid of a school or two when most
likely no middle school, elementary school or high school will have enough
pupils gone to justify closing one. I also note once again that closing a
school may save money and generate short term income, but it doesn't solve the
funding shortage over the long term and can't for more than a short period of
time.
>....
>
>> I did account for real world costs, how much
>>money is an old school worth, and don't you also eventually need to put up
>>funding to build new schools to replace the decrepit schools in most big
>>cities?
>
>The cost of building a new school is going to happen no matter what.
>So that added cost is still an added cost.
Yes, and normally in most funding, if a district can sell the land/building,
that money goes either to paying off bonds, or to aid in building the new
schools. Aren't you suggesting that the money be spent as part of the school
budget to offset losses caused by a drop in subsidies from the federal and
state governments.
>>Do
>>the counting for the number of students based on any rational measurement of
>>students per school you want, then tell me how students leaving from around
>the
>>city justify closing ONE school,
>
>Maybe you can see why it's about to happen in D.C.
You'll note that you changed the subject from the 50,000 example to the
District, I didn't do that. DC has more than 50,000 students, gets NO state
subsidy and has even more restrictions on what it can do with federal funds
than most local school districts because of congressional oversight. Please
also note that federal funds aren't general funds, but rather allocated for
specific tasks.
>....
>
>>>>BTW, looking at parochial schools, very few African
>>>>heritage students who graduate from parochial schools get to attend elite
>>>>schools,
>>>
>>>So, in your world, only "elite" schools matter and if kids who go to
>>>college don't get into "elite" schools, they are not well off?
>>
>>No, but in the real world, a high school diploma from a parochial school is
>>just a diploma, we're also not discussing great education in the parochial
>>schools just adequate education for a limited number of students,
>
>So, overall, students at those schools outperform students in city
>schools, and now you want to claim their education is "just adequate"?
Yes, it's just barely adequate and less than African-Americans should get.
Incidentally the supposed order for African-Americans in terms of good outcomes
is
1.) Elite Private Schools (no big surprise if you at all believe you get what
you pay for)
2.) Elite Suburban School districts, but note that performance is really down
for middle class African-American students
3.) Middling Private schooling in areas like Philadelphia (which only educates
75% of the students residing in the county of Philadelphia, unlike most large
cities where 90-95% of students go to public schools)
4.) Middling public school districts in the suburbs
5.) Parochial schools in big cities
6.) Big City Public Schools
7.) Poor suburban school districts (Places like Robbins, Illinois or Ford
Heights, Illinois as examples)
7.) Lousy Private schools, like for example a certain infamous now closed
academy in Cleveland.
Now, note what I'm saying, the education is just adequate for most of the
graduates, and African-Americans in order to succeed in this world have to
usually be better than their white cohort sadly.
>> and I note
>>that in many places parochial schools in poor neighborhoods are still in
>danger
>>of closing despite full enrollments in places like Chicago. You also miss
>the
>>real world stats indicating that elite college educations have a higher
>payoff
>>for African-Americans than attending Roly Poly U.
>
>And Blacks attending Roly Poly U have better chances than those not
>attending at all.
Yes, but attending let's say a community college usually means that one doesn't
get the benefits of a degree. Remember that for African-Americans, some
college doesn't have a tremendous economic payoff, we have to finish college to
get a benefit.
>>>What a load of garbage! Not only that, you don't hold public schools
>>>to the same damn standards!
>>
>>Gee, I haven't complained about suburban public schools in places like
>Shaker
>>Hts not meeting the same standard? You'll also note my point in complaining
>>about the concept of vouchers, namely that they don't do ANYTHING for the
>>students who can't take advantage of them and decrease the funding available
>in
>>a variety of ways.
>
>But you don't write *SQUAT* about magnet schools! Why not? The
>situation is still the same. Most students aren't able to take
>advantage. But you have no complaints about them!
Ed, should I complain about magnet schools in places like Chicago, where they
were the only public schools seemingly functioning well? I also note that
school districts can't get away with devoting all of their resources to magnet
schools while neglecting the rest. Yes they produce left behinds, but the
schools are public schools, and if I recall correctly you noted that I
shouldn't complain about charter schools costing slightly more. One other
comment, magnet schools are one of the few places that public schools in BIG
cities get to experiment successfully. If a working model is going to come
about, it has to be one derived in part from magnet schools. I detest the fact
that all too often the magnet schools are too white, and filled with the
offspring of the politically connected, but once again, they are public
schools, the funding of magnet schools doesn't drastically decrease the funds
available per student either.
>No, Art. Most of your claims are smoke and mirrors.
No, you haven't paid attention. Once again, try countering my 50,000 student
example before you make this claim. Instead you raise individual school
districts. When I note for example that increasing the number of students
being bused increases costs, you want to discuss Baltimore without explaining
why Baltimore or DC or Philly is relevant to the discussion. Should we for
example discuss urban music sales in Raleigh, NC as typical for urban music
sales across the nation when discussing urban music.
>>I don't know of a single diocese ready to increase enrollment by 10% if
>>vouchers suddenly come about, and neither do you. In no place do suggested
>>voucher amounts cover the cost of education per student in a parochial
>school,
>>just barely tuition and the parents are left with increased costs for things
>>like supplemental texts which the public schools normally have to supply for
>>students.
>
>No place?
>You mean like in Cleveland?
You'll note that Ohio's Supreme Court ordered changes in the funding method for
big city schools, the state legislature there refused to fund, and instead
allowed experimentation. Vouchers, charter schools and all of the things you
love haven't improved things, and several private academies in Cleveland have
turned out to be shams, with one shutting down in the middle of the school
year, leaving students in effect without a school.
>....
>
>> You'll note by the
>>way that many of his arguments coincide with mine, but one of his points you
>>should consider, the claim that students leaving public schools will cause
>them
>>to improve is ludicrous considering that vouchers will draw off poor
>students,
>>and the thousands of wealthier students already leaving for private schools
>>hasn't done a thing to improve the public schools.
>
>Funny thing, the scores really improved in Florida where schools were
>under the gun.
They also changed the test being given, and further I've been spending a lot of
time recently in Northern Florida (in fact, I'm typing this from Northern
Florida right now), I've been reading local newspapers with claims that lots of
school districts haven't improved and face sanctioning. I also don't think
that schools in St. John County and Duval County are exactly greatly improved
because of the tests. You should be careful of the examples you choose and the
spin put on things. Since you never take my word, try calling the Jacksonville
Urban League for details.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <bpi5lsk2pda977id2...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><darks...@home.net> writes:
>
>>>>Not when it's already *DONE* and no matter how strongly you deny it,
>>>>it's done.
>>>
>>>Increasing the expense is still a real world decrease in funds available to
>>>educate, and we're discussing schools which are underfunded.
>>
>>Not if it is already done and accounted for. There are no school
>>systems that do not take current demographics and expected future
>>demographics into account when doing funding.
>
>Ed, one more time in the real world, where demographics are taken into account,
>IF student enrollment drops, funding from the state and federal government
>decreases too.
Which is what I've been writing from jump!
> In a few states, some money is given per child in an enrollment
>district, but please note that in many states, private schools for example
>don't have to provide school nurses, that's the responsibility of the school
>district, as for example reading teachers and folks for some "special
>education" classes can be.
Umm.... School nurses? People who only have to be in the school a few
hours, if that, a day?
Non-issue.
>Big city school systems like Philadelphia are
>underfunded per pupil by any measure you want to make, and I note according to
>the Philadelphia School System's own figures, it provides yellow bus transit to
>8% of its total student population with most of those "special needs",
>de-segregation ordered or hazardous route to school students.
URL?
>It has to also
>provide transit for students attending private schooling more than 1.5 miles
>away from their home in elementary & middle school grades, and this is usually
>done using contractor bus companies. Now, if you increase the number of
>children riding the bus, that has to be paid for somehow, and knowing what the
>numbers are in advance will not increase the amount of money available for
>educating students still in the public school system.
Art, *WHAT* education?
I know a woman who graduated from a Philly high school near the top of
her class. Yet, she never wrote an essay. When she went to college,
she wondered why she was getting failing grades on her essays, which
were nothing but outlines.
*WHAT* education?
>>>>Art, you didn't account for all costs. For example, you stated that
>>>>there are costs for maintaining closed schools in D.C., while I
>>>>pointed out that those schools are sold.
>>>
>>>Really, DC has managed to sell all its closed schools. I don't think so, or
>>at
>>>least the southern windbags on the house DC supervising committee don't seem
>>to
>>>think so, at least two are complaining about the expenses of maintaining
>>closed
>>>schools in the DC school budget.
>>
>>The schools have been sold and the House politicians are saying that
>>more schools can be closed because of the loss of population.
>
>Ed, in the real world, how long can you fund a school district by selling off
>its capital assets like school buildings?
In the real world, the population is decreasing for a myriad of
reasons, with poor education being in the top 5 of the reasons. That's
the reasons the schools are being closed in D.C.
....
>>Since D.C. is losing people, the decrease in the number of kids in a
>>class is not because of smaller class size efforts.
>
>You're missing the point. I mentioned the previous example I gave with 50,000
>pupils (btw in an effort to avoid discussing specific school districts because
>each has idiosyncrasies) and noted that removing 1000 pupils from 12 grades is
>about 70-85 per class (demographic assumptions, there's a variance from grade
>to grade in the number of children) and that said students would probably not
>all come from the same area, allowing a school to close. Bringing up DC which
>is going to continue to lose population is irrelevant, most big cities aren't
>losing population at the same rate, and most of the left behinds tend to be
>poor, limiting mobility options.
Hmmmm....
Baltimore is losing people as is Philly. They are not alone.
.....
>>>Do
>>>the counting for the number of students based on any rational measurement of
>>>students per school you want, then tell me how students leaving from around
>>the
>>>city justify closing ONE school,
>>
>>Maybe you can see why it's about to happen in D.C.
>
>You'll note that you changed the subject from the 50,000 example to the
>District, I didn't do that.
I didn't switch, I just used D.C. as a real life example.
....
> Please
>also note that federal funds aren't general funds, but rather allocated for
>specific tasks.
Which is what I wrote before.
....
>>So, overall, students at those schools outperform students in city
>>schools, and now you want to claim their education is "just adequate"?
>
>Yes, it's just barely adequate and less than African-Americans should get.
It's "barely adequate," and you're complaining about that, meanwhile,
they are, on average, better than public education. But, you are
defending the lower standards of the public education.
....
>> You also miss
>>the
>>>real world stats indicating that elite college educations have a higher
>>payoff
>>>for African-Americans than attending Roly Poly U.
>>
>>And Blacks attending Roly Poly U have better chances than those not
>>attending at all.
>
>Yes, but attending let's say a community college usually means that one doesn't
>get the benefits of a degree. Remember that for African-Americans, some
>college doesn't have a tremendous economic payoff, we have to finish college to
>get a benefit.
Art, and elite school is that way for a reason. By definition, *MOST*
people are left out. Trying to use elite schools to bolster your
argument is intellectually lazy.
>>>>What a load of garbage! Not only that, you don't hold public schools
>>>>to the same damn standards!
>>>
>>>Gee, I haven't complained about suburban public schools in places like
>>Shaker
>>>Hts not meeting the same standard? You'll also note my point in complaining
>>>about the concept of vouchers, namely that they don't do ANYTHING for the
>>>students who can't take advantage of them and decrease the funding available
>>in
>>>a variety of ways.
>>
>>But you don't write *SQUAT* about magnet schools! Why not? The
>>situation is still the same. Most students aren't able to take
>>advantage. But you have no complaints about them!
>
>Ed, should I complain about magnet schools in places like Chicago, where they
>were the only public schools seemingly functioning well?
If you want to maintain your fear of the students that are "left
behind," you're damn right. Why aren't all schools of the same calibur
of high performing magnet schools?
> I also note that
>school districts can't get away with devoting all of their resources to magnet
>schools while neglecting the rest. Yes they produce left behinds, but the
>schools are public schools, and if I recall correctly you noted that I
>shouldn't complain about charter schools costing slightly more.
Charter schools *ARE* public schools, which is what I've been writing
from the start, but you keep complaining about those public schools
and those who are "left behind." You are not being consistant at all.
....
>>No, Art. Most of your claims are smoke and mirrors.
>
>No, you haven't paid attention. Once again, try countering my 50,000 student
>example before you make this claim. Instead you raise individual school
>districts. When I note for example that increasing the number of students
>being bused increases costs, you want to discuss Baltimore without explaining
>why Baltimore or DC or Philly is relevant to the discussion.
Excuse me?
You wrote that school districts don't provide transportation, and I
stated that Baltimore does, because I went there. I stated that,
despite what you have written, a person who is part of the Philly
school system told me that subsidized transportation is provided for
those who go outside of their local school. Someone else pointed out
that Boston provides some form of transportation to school.
Relevant to the discussion? You claimed that transportation is an
added cost, when it is currently cost of the present system.
....
>>>I don't know of a single diocese ready to increase enrollment by 10% if
>>>vouchers suddenly come about, and neither do you. In no place do suggested
>>>voucher amounts cover the cost of education per student in a parochial
>>school,
>>>just barely tuition and the parents are left with increased costs for things
>>>like supplemental texts which the public schools normally have to supply for
>>>students.
>>
>>No place?
>>You mean like in Cleveland?
>
>You'll note that Ohio's Supreme Court ordered changes in the funding method for
>big city schools, the state legislature there refused to fund, and instead
>allowed experimentation. Vouchers, charter schools and all of the things you
>love haven't improved things, and several private academies in Cleveland have
>turned out to be shams, with one shutting down in the middle of the school
>year, leaving students in effect without a school.
You fail to mention that private schools, which you are now calling
private acadamies to warp the discussion, have started up and closed
down on a regular basis before vouchers ever arrived. And many such
schools will continue to open and close, with some surviving for the
long term.
Meanwhile, when the public school system admits that they pass
students along, even if they aren't performing at their proper level,
you don't write squat about that? And then when students in such
systems drop out at high rates, you then complain about the system
treating Blacks unfairly.
.....
>>Funny thing, the scores really improved in Florida where schools were
>>under the gun.
>
>They also changed the test being given, and further I've been spending a lot of
>time recently in Northern Florida (in fact, I'm typing this from Northern
>Florida right now), I've been reading local newspapers with claims that lots of
>school districts haven't improved and face sanctioning. I also don't think
>that schools in St. John County and Duval County are exactly greatly improved
>because of the tests. You should be careful of the examples you choose and the
>spin put on things.
I never said the tests were the reason for improvement. But the
schools being put on notice is something that must be done. I disagree
with the fact that they have a few years to recover. They should have
*ZERO TOLERANCE* for failing schools.