School Choice/Vouchers (split from '7 point Drain the Swamp')

I would hope the behavior, tone & tenor of everyone in this thread is being examined, and that nobody is being given a pass on behavior standards because they are engaging in conversation directly with a Mod.

Let us be reasonable, but not so reasonable that we turn a blind eye to egregious behavior.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
I would hope the behavior, tone & tenor of everyone in this thread is being examined, and that nobody is being given a pass on behavior standards because they are engaging in conversation directly with a Mod.

Let us be reasonable, but not so reasonable that we turn a blind eye to egregious behavior.
Click to expand...
Shoot, I wish!

 
Sargon said:
Zoogs

zoogs said:
OMG shut the h up before you even type that. What is the cost of one decent tablet compared to the cost of 10 thick paper texts? The answer is....get rid of paper books already duh.
Click to expand...
Do you think perhaps technology adaption (and not the existence of public K-12) is a reason for nondigital textbooks or the continued existence of teachers instead of prerecorded video lectures? I mean, I do love the idea of using taxpayer money to buy iPads for public schools.
default_biggrin.png

That's an epic rant there.

To go back to what QMany said about school choice, do people without children get to not pay any taxes for schools? How would that affect cost? Since you say you do believe taxpayers should be allowed to choose which school system their money goes, it's not clear to me what your leading "Definitely not" refers to.

Regarding Obamacare, do you actually think the federal government could have hired more nurses and doctors to improve public health? How would that work in terms of delivering care?
Click to expand...
Zoogs

Your first sentence doesn't make sense.

No ipods, android and chrome those are both free.

Epic...no I'd need to triple the volume and emoting, IMO, to get there.

Choice!!! Choice!!! Let the peoples' has der choices!!!

Why go back to Qmany and your question. This is simple. Give poor folks vouchers (means ANYBODY...who want's em. Period. No gov't forms. No questions. Simply apply..receive...done). Then let supply = demand. It always does when there's money and voucher money around.

you said "do people without children get to not pay any taxes for schools? How would that affect cost?"

First, I never said a thing about who can avoid current taxation for school spending. I'd leave it as is....or any good change idea I'm open to. The voucher debate is about parents targeting their spending at specific schools, not about who get's to pay less tax (if anyone).

Second...cost is affected by school budgets and management, not by taxation. So, are you asking me about cost cutting? I wouldn't enforce anything regarding school budgets. I'd leave it up to the schools and customers (me) will simply choose which one we want. Maybe you mean voucher amount? I'd force efficiency by doing vouchers at something less than our average spend now since it's way too high because, like all monopoly driven endeavors, it's over-priced. Government spending needs to be cut almost everywhere. Schools and VA included. Any market replacement of monopoly or government garbage now should be budgeted lower to force spending decreases.
Click to expand...
If you as parents get to choose where your tax dollars go specifically then non parents should be able to choose not to have their tax dollars supplement your kid's education. Voucher'ed or public.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to paraphrase from one of my favorite TV shows, but public schools should be cathedrals, teachers should be paid as much as doctors, and the budget for public education should rival that of defense.

 
teachercd said:
JJHusker1 said:
The basic problem with either model is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Meaning; there are still and always will be students who are not going to perform well. Typically due to the lack of engagement to the education process by their parents. Anybody can look at some statistics and tell you which school is better than another. But that still does little good for the latch key parenting family that does not help their student or treat education as a priority. The worst parent could still send their kiddo to the best school and the result would still be a failing student. I've been involved in the public school system for 18 continuous years and I've seen a lot. I've seen numerous poor kids way outperform their circumstance and I've seen numerous rich kids underperform. What it comes down to in almost all cases is their parent's commitment to the process. Sure it's tougher for the disadvantaged family because they may be working shift work to make ends meet so they aren't around to make sure little Johnny does his homework. Or they may be poor or lazy or have drug problems and treat the schools as a sort of daycare that takes the responsibility off their hands for most of the day or in some cases virtually forever. The amount of kids that show up for school unprepared to learn is appalling. No breakfast, improper clothing, lack of sleep...I could go on and on. The best school in the world is not going to put a dent in many of these types of situations. But a good school and good teachers will also get through to many of these kids who have been dealt a bad situation. Too many people blame the schools, and I'm sure that is warranted in some situations. But my experience shows me that, by and large, the kid's home situation is the toughest egg to crack. I do think vouchers would help eliminate the situations where the school is not doing their job. And that just leaves the bad parent homes that no amount of tax money is going to overcome anyway.

Not too continue my rant too much further but, I also believe this is why schools need to focus more on trades and vocations and concentrate on preparing some of these kids, who are never going further anyway, for going directly into the workforce and providing for themselves for the rest of their lives. I believe there is too much focus on trying to get all kids college bound when it is clear many are never going to succeed on that path. Schools waste a ton of money trying to get the lowest performers up to some certain level and they tend to ignore the top performers who really have a chance at making an impact in this world. This seems to be the educational philosophy in this country. Luckily we have opted into a public high school that I feel does a very good job of maintain a challenging environment for high performers and also tries to do the best they can for low performers. My daughter is taking numerous AP classes and will soon be taking some college classes while still in high school. Yet there are gang bangers and other various problems failing the simplest remedial classes in the same school.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph nails it. I agree 100%. Trade schools should start much sooner than after high school.

A kid that feels like "school sucks" and is "dumb" might not feel that way if their "school" was an apprenticeship as a welder, learning a trade and making 15-20 dollars an hour as a 15 year old with a pretty clear path. Mix that in with basic math, consumer math, reading and writing, how to purchase a home, small business ownership/start-ups, computer skills, stocks/bonds/banking information and BAM...things are really good.
Click to expand...
As an Industrial Tech teacher, I've been reading this thread waiting for something to "jump out" at me. JJ and Teach have quite the vertical! I could not agree more!

I have around 12-18 kids in my classes. These are usually kids that have behavior problems in traditional classes, aren't high achievers, whatever. Every follow-up discussion I have after an administrator observation includes the question, "how in the hell do you get him to work?". Well, I let him use his hands to work on something he's actually interested in. He behaves well and he gets good grades. Go figure! A lot of kids aren't built for a 4 year college, some aren't even built for 2 year schools. These kids want skills and we need to give them to them. At the very least, shop classes like welding, automotive, construction need to be an option. If not, a kid will get frustrated and probably drop out, doomed to a life of minimum wage fast food type jobs. Or worse....

Diesel mechanics in the Omaha area make $50000+ (really good ones who work a lot can make 6 figures). A student, who would fit the above description, told his dad it might be something he would want to pursue. The kid came to me dejected this morning because his dad wants him to go to college because he "feels he's better than 'just' a mechanic". That isn't a message these kids need to hear.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with a lot of the talk of teaching useful things instead of telling everyone to go to get a 4-year degree. Look into Dewey. That was his philosophy. Although back then it was sewing for the wimmin folk
default_wink.png


On that topic, everyone should take a short cooking and sewing class to learn the basics. 4 weeks of each, or something.

And damn I wish I'd had a class in high school teaching me basic car maintenance.

I also wish my PE weight class teacher had taught the girls how to deadlift and squat instead of ignoring us while he taught the boys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
teachercd said:
JJHusker1 said:
The basic problem with either model is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Meaning; there are still and always will be students who are not going to perform well. Typically due to the lack of engagement to the education process by their parents. Anybody can look at some statistics and tell you which school is better than another. But that still does little good for the latch key parenting family that does not help their student or treat education as a priority. The worst parent could still send their kiddo to the best school and the result would still be a failing student. I've been involved in the public school system for 18 continuous years and I've seen a lot. I've seen numerous poor kids way outperform their circumstance and I've seen numerous rich kids underperform. What it comes down to in almost all cases is their parent's commitment to the process. Sure it's tougher for the disadvantaged family because they may be working shift work to make ends meet so they aren't around to make sure little Johnny does his homework. Or they may be poor or lazy or have drug problems and treat the schools as a sort of daycare that takes the responsibility off their hands for most of the day or in some cases virtually forever. The amount of kids that show up for school unprepared to learn is appalling. No breakfast, improper clothing, lack of sleep...I could go on and on. The best school in the world is not going to put a dent in many of these types of situations. But a good school and good teachers will also get through to many of these kids who have been dealt a bad situation. Too many people blame the schools, and I'm sure that is warranted in some situations. But my experience shows me that, by and large, the kid's home situation is the toughest egg to crack. I do think vouchers would help eliminate the situations where the school is not doing their job. And that just leaves the bad parent homes that no amount of tax money is going to overcome anyway.

Not too continue my rant too much further but, I also believe this is why schools need to focus more on trades and vocations and concentrate on preparing some of these kids, who are never going further anyway, for going directly into the workforce and providing for themselves for the rest of their lives. I believe there is too much focus on trying to get all kids college bound when it is clear many are never going to succeed on that path. Schools waste a ton of money trying to get the lowest performers up to some certain level and they tend to ignore the top performers who really have a chance at making an impact in this world. This seems to be the educational philosophy in this country. Luckily we have opted into a public high school that I feel does a very good job of maintain a challenging environment for high performers and also tries to do the best they can for low performers. My daughter is taking numerous AP classes and will soon be taking some college classes while still in high school. Yet there are gang bangers and other various problems failing the simplest remedial classes in the same school.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph nails it. I agree 100%. Trade schools should start much sooner than after high school.

A kid that feels like "school sucks" and is "dumb" might not feel that way if their "school" was an apprenticeship as a welder, learning a trade and making 15-20 dollars an hour as a 15 year old with a pretty clear path. Mix that in with basic math, consumer math, reading and writing, how to purchase a home, small business ownership/start-ups, computer skills, stocks/bonds/banking information and BAM...things are really good.
Click to expand...
As an Industrial Tech teacher, I've been reading this thread waiting for something to "jump out" at me. JJ and Teach have quite the vertical! I could not agree more!

I have around 12-18 kids in my classes. These are usually kids that have behavior problems in traditional classes, aren't high achievers, whatever. Every follow-up discussion I have after an administrator observation includes the question, "how in the hell do you get him to work?". Well, I let him use his hands to work on something he's actually interested in. He behaves well and he gets good grades. Go figure! A lot of kids aren't built for a 4 year college, some aren't even built for 2 year schools. These kids want skills and we need to give them to them. At the very least, shop classes like welding, automotive, construction need to be an option. If not, a kid will get frustrated and probably drop out, doomed to a life of minimum wage fast food type jobs. Or worse....

Diesel mechanics in the Omaha area make $50000+ (really good ones who work a lot can make 6 figures). A student, who would fit the above description, told his dad it might be something he would want to pursue. The kid came to me dejected this morning because his dad wants him to go to college because he "feels he's better than 'just' a mechanic". That isn't a message these kids need to hear.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

And, you are 100% right.

 
Saw Teach's status on the homepage about Omaha's open enrollment policy and stockpiling athletes. Would school choice turn into an arms race in "recruiting"? For example, there is not a glaring difference in education between Omaha North and Omaha South, would parent's "choose" to send their children to a more athletically successful school? I know schools aren't making a ton of money (or any at all) on athletics so it wouldn't be smart to spend a lot on facilities, but it would cause the gap between well-funded and poorly funded schools to widen even more. If so, wouldn't that undermine the purpose of improving education when money is spent on new uniforms, buses, weightrooms, etc. instead of the classroom?

I thought it would be an interesting dynamic to think about in this topic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top