Indianapolis and several other Red State urban centers just took the prize for being at the bottom of the public education barrel with regards to high school graduation rates. The odd thing is that during the Reagan Administration, then Commissioner of Education Bennett was touting the "new" plan for accountability that was going to save public education. Indiana true to its Republican core bought the proto-type of No Child Left Behind hook line and sinker.
At the time, it was questioned why we were going to spend so much money on extra standardized testing when all of the school systems were already using various testing programs to measure student performance. We were told that the testing was going to show us where the problems were. Well, duh, we already knew where the problems were, namely large consolidated school systems and the inner cities. So Indiana pushed forward with the ISTEP program, plus the A+ program that lengthened the school year. And what did we find out? Uh, well there was a problem in the large consolidated school systems and the inner cities.
So the solution, well of course -- we had to shed all of the extraneous extra-curricular and arts programs and get serious about math and English. And...well... dumb down the test so so many systems wouldn't flunk the test.
And of course, the pressure was on to teach the test and since the test kept being dumbed down...well you get the picture. So what did the Nation do? Well of course the nation adopted the failed prototype which Indiana put in place. So we concentrated strongly on math, science and English, we cut economic programs for the poor and...now Indiana has a city, not any city--its capitol, which has one of the highest drop-out rates in the country.
Go Red States you really know how to fix things!!!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
What has an extremely high rate for improving student learning? The arts, of course. Study after study shows this to be the salvation of our education system when used correctly. There are so many benefits it would be too long to list here, but the studies are there; anyone can read them--except for politicians and decision makers, perhaps.
Teaching the test is stupid if they are supposed to tell anything about what the child is learning in school.
Wasn't there a time in our history that families got up in the morning, had breakfast, packed a sandwich into a little brown bag, kissed our children and watched them walk down the sidewalk or board a yellow bus destined to be educated? What the hell happened?
Every time we turn around we're being dinged with another tax hike that will "improve" our schools. California adopted the Lottery ~ what a joke. California tacked a 50 cent PER PACK onto cigarettes for the schools ~ gimme a break. Does that mean that if we quit smoking and quit gambling the school system will completely diminish? What the hell are they doing with my money? And more importantly, what the hell are they doing with my kids?!!!
Prior to that the concern with the possibility that Russia was winning the space race despite the fact that we had snuck a variety of Nazi war criminals who were also scientists out of occupied Germany, had triggered the notion that we should consolidate schools into bigger and bigger districts in order to facilitate the hyper education of a few gifted children in becoming scientists also played a role. By the time we had consolidated so many schools and realized that was not a good thing, it was too late -- its very difficult to unconsolidate a school system once it has been consolidated.
I would suggest that these two movements resulted in the enormous spike in costs and increased the difficulty in providing a good education to the average kid. However, the pseudo-fiscal conservatives have played their part. Since there is overwhelming public support for public education in America, it was necessary to accentuate the costs by making the funding sources as painful and stark as possible, namely real estate property taxes. In some states this was justified as insuring local control, that is false -- the states which fund their educational programs via income or other non-real estate taxes do not have any less local control of public education. Actually, there is precious little local control regardless of the funding mechanism -- but this allows the pseudo-fiscal conservatives to beat the teachers over the head and lay all of the blame on the teachers.
As to sin taxes, you are right when every you tax sin whether in the form of tobacco, gambling or alcohol taxes the State winds up promoting the sin. Oddly, our Republican Governor out here sought to cover any revenue shortfalls with augmenting the lottery and pushing for para-mutual betting. So much for the Republican high moral ground. Those who have more need to be taxed to help pay for the education of those who have less -- in otherwords, education should be financed via a progressive tax like income tax. Period...end of story.
Its too bad that so few politicians have the wisdom to know what needs to be done; and even fewer have the courage to do it: abolish the public school system.
Its really not such a complicated concept: We have parents who want their children educated by professionals; we have professionals who want to educate children for a living. Where is there any room or reason for government to stick its guns in it?
I know the standard Gasp in Horror response: "But what would poor people do?"
For starters; one could just easily make that argument for anything. Surely food, clothing, and shelter are all at least as important as education; does it follow that we should nationalize those industries as well, and provide them at taxpayer expense?
Then there's also the fact that poor people are already paying for the public school system; coercively, through taxation. The differences are: 1) Right now, lower income families, with few or no children, actually subsidize the public school education of higher income families with many kids; 2) if the schools were privatized, the entire tax burden for the public school system -- which poor familes shoulder as much as wealthier ones -- would disappear, leaving every family with that much more money to pay for their childrens' private education (which may very well be at less expense to many families) ; 3) since all schools would be privately-funded, competitive dynamics would drive down costs (right now, the presence of taxpayer-funded public schools preclude the establishment of any low-cost competition in the private-school industry -- that would change under a 100% private-schooling regime); 4) fully-privatized schooling would facilitate a wealth of specialized options for parents (religious parents could send their kids to religious schools, ditto for secular families, there would be more vocational schools, etc.), and franchises would arise to specialize in low-cost schooling for lower-income families; and finally -- but perhaps most importantly -- education providers would be accountable to parents, as opposed to bureaucrats who have an economic incentive to ensure that there's always problems left unsolved (their budgets depend on it).
And the advantages of continuing on with government schooling are....?
I've spent several years in Maine working with children who have a mental illness. Some struggled in school, others were considered averaged, and some exceled. It truly provided me with the opportunity to see way more than I wanted.
Schools adjust, they do what they feel is in their best interest. As with the majority of businesses. Standard test, what good are those when the teachers choose who should take them? Our school will look better if "Little Bobby doesn't take the test." Therefore all the Little Bobby's of the school, are provided with something else to do, verses taking the test. How wrong is that?
Then there is the issue of simply allowing. So Little Bobby has a hard time writing. Should this honestly mean that he no longer has to write? Does this mean that he should be able to tape record all of his answers, until graduation? I disagree, and make no mistake that I am all for special education. Needed special education that is.
I am not in favor of selecting students who may require a little more work, being added to a schools special ed department, simply to receive more funding. Work with them, encourage them, believe in them, and yes expect from them. Don't slap them in special ed and fall back on the fact they are a special ed student.
Which is why I laugh at "No child left behind". Why not add, because we'll twist it to our benefit. Anyway, as I previous mentioned; I could write a bit on the subject. And my time is getting short. So in closing I would like to add that I do realize that there are many teachers out there that do have the best interest of their students at heart. I mean no disrespect there. I respect and appreciate the ones who do. I just wish the ones that adhere to this "skate by" education, would move on. And be replaced with teachers who are willing to speak up and work towards, seriously improving the quality of education throughout our country.
Now I really have to go.
The poor already don't get educated. In fact, hardly anyone gets *educated* in public schools today. Lots of kids get trained, in reading, writing, math, and sanitized history; and surely our kids are getting indoctrinated; but very, very few get educated in K-12.
The reason is because the curricula is designed and enforced by bureaucrats, agents of the state, and the state does not want an educated mass of engaged citizens. They want apathetic, obedient subjects; they want docile hosts for the state parasite.
There is no logical reason to assume that poor families wouldn't have a better shot at an actual real education for their kids, if schools were private enterprises subject to market forces, than they do now under the compulsory government schooling system.
To assume that poor people wouldn't be able to afford schooling if it were privatized is baseless. There would be a market for lower-income schooling just as there are markets for the lower-income communities in every other basic necessity.
And you are disregarding the fact that poor people already pay for schooling; whether they have kids in school or not. In fact, if government would limit itself to its proper scope -- equal justice, defense of individual rights -- then the tax burden relieved from poor households would be sufficient to provide for education and then some. Especially if schools were subject to market dynamics; they would have to provide quality service, pleasing consumers (parents), and establish a market-clearing price.
Again; there would be no taxpayer-financed "free" public schools to drive out low-cost market competition in private schools. Plus, the entire market would be private schooling; increased competition + increased supply + allowance of low-cost competition = lowest possible market-clearing prices across the entire market.
Of course, there would be higher-priced, top of the line education for those who can afford it. But just like any other market service, there would be lower-cost schools for lower-income families and communities.
And its a virtual guarantee that even the low-cost schools in the inner-cities would be far better than the public schools in inner-cities now. How could they possibly be any worse?
I think local school districts should be able to set the cirriculum and the standards for advancement without outside interference from the feds. Any guidelines should be dictated at the state level and no higher. This, to me, is another example of the populace surrendering more of their power to the federal government because there's money in doing so. It's amazing how people will roll over for a few bucks.
Exactly. Is it just me; or are about 95% of all federal government interventions made under the pretense of "fixing" the mess made by their own previous interventions?
I know in our region we pay vast amounts of money for both special education and disability. Just as an example one child needs 24x7 care which someone deemed was the regional schools responsibility. This one individual costs the region several hundred thousand a year in expenses. Naturally the arts takes a hit as a result.
The other thing is the cost. Unless it is a parochial school the lowest tuition I can find is 17,700 for a day school. Often they are well in excess of 20k. I know my property taxes are not anywhere close to 17k.
The median tuition according to National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) for 2005-2006 was 14k. That is still significantly more than my property taxes.
Our region has one of the states lowest per pupil yearly cost. $5,200 Yet we rank very high, wrt the state, in graduation rates, SAT scores and college placement. On the other hand we rank very very low wrt teacher pay. I don't know why teachers don't go somewhere else for employment. However, all of the teachers I speak with are very proud of the educational system they have put together.
I am just not convinced that the costs would be significantly less than what we pay now. On the other hand the mechanism to fund public education is with out a doubt broken.
We also have to factor in the impact of the double job household. As the middle-class started to fall apart, in order for most to maintain their standard of living both spouses got jobs. We have grossly underestimated the impact of middle-class parents both being employed outside the home and the impact of the loss of a well paid blue collar class where though poor, the mother could still stay home with the kids and have the family survive economically. Since the blue collar class has been basically decimated with respect to income, that is no longer an option for such tradesmen. The poor have always had both parents employed at low paying jobs.
In case you get back to this thread, just curious where YOU were educated? In my life I've met damn few people who were not educated in public schools.
Street bailouts