Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Tokenconservative]

I posted all these in the past and you dismissed them. This is all from multiple sources.

Essentially, the voucher schools refused to provide any data on students test scores, graduation rates and college acceptance. In many cases, they didn't take state mandated tests either. (even if state mandated tests are not the best, a voucher school should have taken them to prove superiority) The voucher schools had no accountability to the state authorities. There were successes and failures, but about 30-40% of the schools had no accredidation and some of the accredidations were hand waiving from religious groups. As a result of the accredidation issues, some students had troubles getting into their preferred colleges. There were horrible abuses as well.

I think the biggest issue was the fact that the voucher schools refused to publish test scores (such as SATs or avanced placement exams) or even take the state tests is deplorable. If one is going to claim better teaching, then proving it should be a non-issue.

When I was teaching, I had an open door policy...I would tell parents they could walk in on my class whenever they wanted. Many of the voucher schools wouldn't even allow anyone to audit their classes.

Wisconsin has about 20 years of experience...if they can't prove efficacy after a generation, then I would call that failure.

glenn

LOL!

So...because Wisonsin either accidentally or (more likely) purposefully set this up to fail as miserably as it did there, that means that vouchers set up to work would also be a failure?

Am I following your reasoning here? Next time, you'd do better (knowing I won't access links) to be less...honest.

It's pretty clear (by the way, you failed to mention the limitations of WI vouchers: they go only to "the poor" don't they?) this system was set up to fail or set up by utter incompetents. Now, if "educators" were heavily involved in this, and yes, you can shriek "CT!!! CT!!!" all you want, but from your description (non-accredidation, no testing required, willy-nilly testing where it's given...) it had either to be utter incompetents or those setting it up to fail.

Which is it?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Beats me. I'm not an economist and so I'm not at all invested in whether my tentative opinion turns out to be correct. I'm just guessing. Well, that and I was trying to work out a plausible-sounding argument that included the phrase, "oppress the masses," in hopes of baiting you into calling me a Commie.

Congratulations for not falling victim to my evil leftist plot!

Why would I call you a commie...anymore than I would note that milk is white or that it's dark at night?

I am not a federal employee working int the Department of Redundancy Dept.

The reality is, that if given the impetus, as with any other product/service, the market rises to meet demand. There was 0 demand for gas stations, for example, in 1890. By 1920 there were thousands across the nation ... sigh, no...no link. You may have to rely on a little thing I call "common sense" occasionally...or not, up to you.

How did that happen? A massive government program to put a gas station every 5 miles?

Um...no, prolly not (sigh...again, that ol' common sense thing).

So why would private schools not work the same way? They do now...there are far more today, as Americans lose confidence in the publica while gaining income to support sending kids to private schools, and there are far more private schools around today than there were in say, 1960...again, no...sorry, no link--LIINNNNKKKK!

See: common sense.

So why does this work with everything else in our economy, including private schools, but would suddenly stop working this way if more money were available to be spent on private schooling.

I really want to know. It's utterly counterintuitive and counter to any MODERN (leaving aside Keynesian) economics, but you seem to believe this would happen, so I'd like to know how.

Tokie

 

[Hindmost]

LOL!

So...because Wisonsin either accidentally or (more likely) purposefully set this up to fail as miserably as it did there, that means that vouchers set up to work would also be a failure?

Am I following your reasoning here? Next time, you'd do better (knowing I won't access links) to be less...honest.

It's pretty clear (by the way, you failed to mention the limitations of WI vouchers: they go only to "the poor" don't they?) this system was set up to fail or set up by utter incompetents. Now, if "educators" were heavily involved in this, and yes, you can shriek "CT!!! CT!!!" all you want, but from your description (non-accredidation, no testing required, willy-nilly testing where it's given...) it had either to be utter incompetents or those setting it up to fail.

Which is it?

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

...So why does this work with everything else in our economy, including private schools, but would suddenly stop working this way if more money were available to be spent on private schooling....

Spoken like a true Tax-and-Spend Leftist! So that's the real reason you didn't call me a commie--you're one of us!

But seriously, it's not that I think it can't work. I have been strongly attracted to the idea of privatizing education for a long time, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I think it could work, but it would be a lot more difficult than you seem to think; the real problem is that I think it's highly unlikely to achieve the level of political will necessary to ensure that it works.

One particularly thorny issue is that of compulsory education. We can't abandon this principle without serious social harm. But if private schools in a given area really do outperform public schools, and lot's of parents use vouchers to take their kids out of the public schools, then at some point it will become necessary to close the public schools (otherwise keep them operating and an even more ridiculously wasteful cost ratio than they are now), and then the private schools would have to be forced to accept any students who's parents want them to enroll, thereby eliminating one of their primary advantages to the public schools--that they don't have to deal with nearly as many underperforming, special needs, or "problem" students.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Spoken like a true Tax-and-Spend Leftist! So that's the real reason you didn't call me a commie--you're one of us!

But seriously, it's not that I think it can't work. I have been strongly attracted to the idea of privatizing education for a long time, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I think it could work, but it would be a lot more difficult than you seem to think; the real problem is that I think it's highly unlikely to achieve the level of political will necessary to ensure that it works.

One particularly thorny issue is that of compulsory education. We can't abandon this principle without serious social harm. But if private schools in a given area really do outperform public schools, and lot's of parents use vouchers to take their kids out of the public schools, then at some point it will become necessary to close the public schools (otherwise keep them operating and an even more ridiculously wasteful cost ratio than they are now), and then the private schools would have to be forced to accept any students who's parents want them to enroll, thereby eliminating one of their primary advantages to the public schools--that they don't have to deal with nearly as many underperforming, special needs, or "problem" students.

I always find libbie conflation, obfuscation, deliberate misrepresentation, hyperbole, hysteria, projection and outright lying to be the very strongest parts of their otherwise alogical assertions!

I assumed you had the analytic and comprehension skills to understand my meaning to ben "if parents were permitted to use at least a portion of the exorbitant $$ used to "edcuate" their kids in a public screwel..."

Oh, well...you know what happens when you assume!

But then, you must know that from your non-evidentiary assumption that I think it would be "easy." Of course not, crushing the most powerful union in the history of the US would hardly be easy and that of course would be required in order to move forward in education in this country no matter what else we do. As for using vouchers, that too would have its growing period. Of course, we can rely on places where "it was tried and din't work!!" thanks to union interference, the tying of hands, etc., or we could look at it as it WOULD work if applied across the boards and with the unions out of the way.

But we don't WANT to do that. We'd rather have our cake and eat it, too. Paramount in any such discussion is the position of the teachers. Now, if one naively accepts that the schools are for educating our kids and are not what they are, a jobs program for union employees, we can come up with all sorts of pie-in-the-sky idears.

If one is more rational and more...adult about it, one recognizes that of course vouchers will not work when you have the teachers fighting them tooth and nail.

The problems you present are at best, wholly surmountable. The reality is, that many parents are not going to take the time and effort required to send their kids to a private, even if a portion of their public screwel dollars are made available to them to do so. Others are doctrinaire liberals who'll send their kids into a minefield so long as it proves to the world what Good Liberals they are. Others may actually LIKE the public schools (perhaps we should have some sort of intelligence testing done?).

So, the public schools would still get plenty of business. On top of that (and this is where the math gets tricky) since no voucher program I've ever seen demands that ALL of the per-head $$ that goes to the publics will be withdrawn, they will in fact end (likely) end up with a surplus.

I've tried this math in here before and it seems to befuddle some, but let's give it another shot, shall we (based on HS costs where I live)?

Per head cost: $7,500

Voucher: $3,500

$$ remaining at the public though the child who it is supposed to be educating is elsewhere: $4,000

Now the really tricky part of this math (the story problem part): If I have $7500 to spend on a child's "education" in a public school and I take $3500 of that and send it with the child to a public school that leave $4000 that still goes to the public school to educate and empty chair. So, how much money does it cost to educate an empty chair?

If you can do this math, you'll know that the answer is $0.00. Therefore, the school has a SURPLUS of $4000 per child who does not attend.

How a school's swimming in surplus funds will bankrupt the school is, apparently, economics at a level of sophistication I simply don't understand.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

About the sort of thoughtful, rational, well-considered riposte I'd anticipate.

Thanks for living up to my expectations!

Tokie

 

[Hindmost]

About the sort of thoughtful, rational, well-considered riposte I'd anticipate.

Thanks for living up to my expectations!

Tokie

Do some research yourself...I gave you all the links previously.

glenn

 

[Prometheus]

I always find libbie conflation, obfuscation, deliberate misrepresentation, hyperbole, hysteria, projection and outright lying to be the very strongest parts of their otherwise alogical assertions!

I thought you'd like that part.

I assumed you had the analytic and comprehension skills to understand my meaning to ben "if parents were permitted to use at least a portion of the exorbitant $$ used to "edcuate" their kids in a public screwel..."

I understood you perfectly. It's just that I've discovered it's so much more fun to take a page out of your book, and pretend that I'm an idiot just to bait my opponents.

As to the math, it is important to note that although the average cost of schooling kids may work out to $7500 per head, removing a child from a public school does not actually diminish that school's operating cost by $7500. Most of the money is going into maintenance, salaries, infrastructure and administrative costs that stay the same even absent a few kids. So your imagined surplus just isn't there.

 

[Alt+F4]

...crushing the most powerful union in the history of the US would hardly be easy...

I know, those Teamsters can be tough...

 

[Alt+F4]

Per head cost: $7,500

Guess there are no children with autism where you live, $60,000 a year to educate them. Lucky you.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Do some research yourself...I gave you all the links previously.

glenn

I've done all I need to do, and from sources that are not leftist-shills.

Thanks anyway!

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I thought you'd like that part.



I understood you perfectly. It's just that I've discovered it's so much more fun to take a page out of your book, and pretend that I'm an idiot just to bait my opponents.

As to the math, it is important to note that although the average cost of schooling kids may work out to $7500 per head, removing a child from a public school does not actually diminish that school's operating cost by $7500. Most of the money is going into maintenance, salaries, infrastructure and administrative costs that stay the same even absent a few kids. So your imagined surplus just isn't there.

Ah, the ol' "It still costs a lot 'cuz they gots t' have heat in the school, don't they!? Huh, don't they!?"

Right. The biggest cost is personnel. That means teachers and administrators (yes, yes...janitors to...sigh). So, let's say you empty a school by 1/3. Now, under the union, that means you have to increase the number of teachers there (and under the district, that means an increase in admin).

It's not that it's "fun" it's that you are wholly driven by your blinkered ideology...you are not PERMITTED to understand these sorts of economic realities.

This is why vouchers of course will not work (as intended) with the union still running the show. Sans the union, the school would naturally have to cut back to a level of employment that meets the school population's needs, not the unions demands.

It's really pretty simple economics, that you cannot admit to because of ideological requirements--as a socialist, you MUST adhere to this sort of thinking.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Guess there are no children with autism where you live, $60,000 a year to educate them. Lucky you.

What are you talking about?

I have a hard time not applying to those who make posts of this sort, epithets that would be appropriate.

I've discovered in this forum that when I do that, these same types immediately run to complain about me, however, desiring to silence the heretic among them.

What does this have to do with anything?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I know, those Teamsters can be tough...

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The Teasmsters have nowhere near the political clout the Teachers do.

Try and keep up...it's tough for a doctrinaire socialist, but do try.

Tokie

 

[Hindmost]

I've done all I need to do, and from sources that are not leftist-shills.

Thanks anyway!

Tokie

I would actually like to see some of this...what research has shown any school voucher system in the US to be effective?

glenn

 

[Alt+F4]

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The Teasmsters have nowhere near the political clout the Teachers do.

Try and keep up...it's tough for a doctrinaire socialist, but do try.

Tokie

I'm a teacher in the largest school district in the United States, I and my union have no clout at all. You must be discussing a nation other than the United States.

 

[Alt+F4]

What does this have to do with anything?

Tokie

If you understand the difference between a charter school and a voucher program you would know that voucher programs don't work.

 

[Radrook]

Want an example of what our schools usually turn out-look at the show I love New York.

 

[Prometheus]

Ah, the ol' "It still costs a lot 'cuz they gots t' have heat in the school, don't they!? Huh, don't they!?"

Right. The biggest cost is personnel. That means teachers and administrators (yes, yes...janitors to...sigh).

Well, you managed to stay within the confines of reality this far, anyway. Of course, at this point you're still just agreeing with me, anyway (I did include salaries and administration in my list of costs)

So, let's say you empty a school by 1/3. Now, under the union, that means you have to increase the number of teachers there (and under the district, that means an increase in admin).

This is just plain wrong. For all but the largest big city schools, removing 1/3 of the students would allow you to lay off some part-time teachers. Even if you only bleed the school's budget by the $3500/student figure you suggested, with an average class size of you'll end up with a huge deficit. For example, if a school of, say 621 kids and an average class size of 21, were to lose 1/3 its enrollment to vouchers, you could get rid of 9 part-time teachers who were earning an average of around $36k. You'd save $324k in salaries, but lose $724k in vouchers. The school has already fired it's janitors, and is now cleaned by an outside company using illegal aliens, due to last year's budget cuts. The administrative staff is already just 3 full time admins and 2 part-time secretaries, so no savings there. The textbooks are all used and recycled, so no savings there. The building costs just as much to maintain, so no savings there.

It's not that it's "fun" it's that you are wholly driven by your blinkered ideology...you are not PERMITTED to understand these sorts of economic realities.

If there's some sort of HIDDEN POWER not permitting me to slip into the same fantasy world in which you torture yourself, then I feel nothing but gratitude for whoever it might be.

This is why vouchers of course will not work (as intended) with the union still running the show.

Oh yes, I forgot about the ALL-POWERFUL UNION--so powerful, in fact, that they were actually able to get my colleagues and I a whopping $0.26 an hour raise, once in the last 8 years. And they only had to agree to a 5% cut in the number of full-time positions, and a 100% increase in the size of our out-of-pocket health insurance costs to do it. Gosh! With power like that we should all bow down before them and weep tears of joy that they have deigned not to smite us from the Earth!

Sans the union, the school would naturally have to cut back to a level of employment that meets the school population's needs, not the unions demands.

Most schools are already operating with far less staff than would truly meet their population needs.

It's really pretty simple economics,...

Which makes it all the more sad that you just don't get it.

... --as a socialist, you MUST adhere to this sort of thinking.

Doh! So close! Come on, you can say it: "commie" You know you want to....

 

[Dancing David]

I would actually like to see some of this...what research has shown any school voucher system in the US to be effective?

glenn

Oh noes not the LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!