Louisiana's bold bid to privatize schools

[cpwill]

Well, by "privatize" they still mean "state funded". Just the parents get to pick the provider. So, not a really accurate headline by Reuters but hey It's the policies that count.


States are our laboratories, it will be interesting to see how Education in Louisiana, Indiana, and Florida fare following conservative reforms in each.

Louisiana is embarking on the nation's boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.


Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.


The following year, students of any income will be eligible for mini-vouchers that they can use to pay a range of private-sector vendors for classes and apprenticeships not offered in traditional public schools. The money can go to industry trade groups, businesses, online schools and tutors, among others...

I also find it interesting they keep re-hitting the "it's gonna be business owners and preachers educating kids" bit, given that teachers will continue to educate children. The article itself is pretty clearly biased as hell, but hey :thumbs: again, it's the policies that matter. Louisiana saw great things post-Katrina with freeing up education, I guess they want to build on that success.

 

[CriticalThought]

It's Louisiana...one of the crappiest states in the union...they don't have anywhere to go but up at this point.

 

[roughdraft274]

It's Louisiana...one of the crappiest states in the union...they don't have anywhere to go but up at this point.

Sad to say it, but most people around here judge the quality of high school with the success of their football and baseball programs.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Well, by "privatize" they still mean "state funded". Just the parents get to pick the provider. So, not a really accurate headline by Reuters but hey It's the policies that count.


States are our laboratories, it will be interesting to see how Education in Louisiana, Indiana, and Florida fare following conservative reforms in each.




I also find it interesting they keep re-hitting the "it's gonna be business owners and preachers educating kids" bit, given that teachers will continue to educate children. The article itself is pretty clearly biased as hell, but hey :thumbs: again, it's the policies that matter. Louisiana saw great things post-Katrina with freeing up education, I guess they want to build on that success.

I have a problem with tax dollars helping fund tax-exempt entities -- with money flowing from poorer districts to private schools. Public dollars should favor a public curriculum. Private schools are perfectly appropriate, but they shouldn't receive tax dollars.

I don't have time to research this issue too much, but I have a few questions. Are private schools allowed to turn away students at will? Are they allowed to follow non-standard curricula? Are there impositions on the schools in exchange for tax dollars? Are funding transfers limited by region?

 

[CriticalThought]

I totally want to go to Louisiana and start the Islam School of Left Wing Education. I wonder how long Louisiana residents would stand by and let their tax dollars go toward educating children at my school.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sounds like a good idea but implemented in a very bad way. The good idea is allowing parents choice including "approved" private educational facilities, and adding state testing of ALL students at schools that receive ANY public funds. The first poor implementaltion decision is that it limits those choices based on being enrolled in existing substandard (poor performing yet still "approved"?) public school and based on the income level of the parents. In order to help attract talented and educated people to work and live in areas that currently have poor performing public schools, the income restrictions make no sense, since they say to these financially better off people that you are not welcome to enjoy the benefits of the taxes that you must pay, that is reserved for only the poor folks. The second bad implementation part is that anyone now attending what their parents deem to be a bad school, but the state says is "fine" because only 23% of students at that school are not being properly educated, is not included in the program at all.

Helping any kids get a shot at a better education is good, but helping all of them is far better. I assume that the rationale is that since there are NOW only a limitted number of private educaton slots available, it is best to help those most in need and least able to afford an alternative, but that is NOT equal protection under the law, nor is it fair to the private schools since they are likely to see very poorly educated students offered to them, UNLESS they get smart and only agree to accept, say K-2 students, that are not so far behind their other students yet.

Allowing all to apply but using a random lottery to choose those that get the state funding would be more fair, in two ways; it would help ensure a better balance in ability of the students chosen (not nearly so many extremely poorly educated students would be shifted to private facilities, making the results of the program seem worse) and by disclosing the number of applications submitted, and the locations that they came from, would help the private education market grow more rapidly where the demand is the highest. It seems that the primary intent is to close only the public schools in poor areas and replace those with private schools, while leaving the medium to rich areas to suffer public education until it reaches the bottom.

This income restriction may have been included to try to keep private schools from ignoring the poor areas, but since property costs and rents are lower, yet the state money offered is the same, that may not be necessary at all. I HOPE the law contains provisions to override any seniority provisions from allowing the GOV'T employee teachers displaced from failing public schools to simply bump out (probabaly better teachers) that now work in non-failing public schools; that would help a lot, as othewise the teachers from the substandard schools are simply reassigned until they retire, instead of getting the boot.

 

[Boo Radley]

It's Louisiana...one of the crappiest states in the union...they don't have anywhere to go but up at this point.

And let the leaving behind begin.

 

[cpwill]

Well that's the beauty of federalism. In three years I will be able to give you an opportunity to think of all the reasons why Louisiana's success in education isn't the result of market-based reforms. Or visa versa: and then we will know.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Very very very bad idea. I can think of so many things that will go wrong with this.

 

[Boo Radley]

Well that's the beauty of federalism. In three years I will be able to give you an opportunity to think of all the reasons why Louisiana's success in education isn't the result of market-based reforms. Or visa versa: and then we will know.

You mean like the success of NCLB? That didn't happen. Or the misrepresentation of pretend success of vouchers? That didn't pan out as well as advertised either, yet some still pretend that it does. You have FAITH CP, I give you that. But FAITH that doesn't question near enough isn't a virture.

 

[Hikertrash]

That list includes some of the most prestigious schools in the state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placement courses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The top schools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The Dunham School in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will accept just four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere, they will be picked in a lottery.

Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigious religious schools, including some that are just a few years old and others that have struggled to attract tuition-paying students.

The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

Sounds like a great idea, not. A train wreck waiting to happen.

 

[cpwill]

You mean like the success of NCLB?

You mean the NCLB that was co-authored by Ted Kennedy? You seem to have "republican" confused with "conservative" - greater centralized control (which is what NCLB represented) is the opposite direction of the reform under discussion here.

Empowering Bureaucrats v Empowering Parents. One of them works better than the other.

That didn't happen. Or the misrepresentation of pretend success of vouchers? That didn't pan out as well as advertised either, yet some still pretend that it does. You have FAITH CP, I give you that. But FAITH that doesn't question near enough isn't a virture.

I like how it's all misrepresentation and the success doesn't count. Tell me more about faith and living in a non-falsifiable world.

However, seriously, just like with Illinois Tax Test Case thread, here we have a piece of policy, and we'll be able to wait a few years and see if it succeeds or not. Given Louisiana's success in New Orleans and Governor Jindal's record thus far, I won't be betting against it.

 

[Boo Radley]

You mean the NCLB that was co-authored by Ted Kennedy? You seem to have "republican" confused with "conservative" - greater centralized control (which is what NCLB represented) is the opposite direction of the reform under discussion here.

Empowering Bureaucrats v Empowering Parents. One of them works better than the other.



I like how it's all misrepresentation and the success doesn't count. Tell me more about faith and living in a non-falsifiable world.

However, seriously, just like with Illinois Tax Test Case thread, here we have a piece of policy, and we'll be able to wait a few years and see if it succeeds or not. Given Louisiana's success in New Orleans and Governor Jindal's record thus far, I won't be betting against it.

That silly side step of responsibily is meaningless to me CP. Bush program was Bush'es no matter who co-Aurthored. The fact remains, conservatives supported a largely stupid idea.

The fact remains CP, NCLB made things worse. Charter schools are found to be no better, and vouchers don't solve any problems. Private schools do better overall because they are selective. if they had to deal with the general population they would be no better at all. After all, private schools do nothing different than the public schools in terms of methodology.

You could take John Stossel's recommendation and go socialist with schools. But that wouldn't be private.

 

[AdamT]

So far the experience in Florida is that kids don't do any better in charter schools than they do in public schools. Nor are they cheaper.

 

[Helix]

Indiana is so committed to education that it invested in the children by removing 300 million dollars. this was done to balance the budget. later, it was discovered that the powers that be had misplaced half a billion dollars, so the cut wasn't necessary. instead of restoring the education budget, the big plan is to send everybody in the state forty or fifty bucks.

there's still plenty of money to funnel to the pacers and colts, however. priorities, donchaknow.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You know, all the nay sayers here don't really have anything solid to go by.
If it bombs, then it bombs and you can make fun of them all you want.

We've yet to see what will happen.

 

[Boo Radley]

You know, all the nay sayers here don't really have anything solid to go by.
If it bombs, then it bombs and you can make fun of them all you want.

We've yet to see what will happen.

I wouldn't say nothing. Most of the problems in education are with things outside the control of education. You can change who runs it, but you can't change the students and the parents. Charter and private have changed the students. Both are selective. Private deals MOSTLY in a wealthier and more advantaged student. This helps them do well. Charter tried to eliminate the more problem students, but still couldn't do much better than public. Private offers nothing new. Colleges have privates as well, which include those just selling paper and not actual education.

 

[Gina]

Private schools do better overall because they are selective. if they had to deal with the general population they would be no better at all. After all, private schools do nothing different than the public schools in terms of methodology.

Exactly and private schools purge, through indifference, kids that don't mainstream. A friend of mine took both her kids out of the local Catholic school when they tried to attribute her daughter's problems to ADD. She and her husband, bot being teachers, knew this was not the issue and refused to medicate her. After months of frustration, she finally came to the decision, her daughter learned differently than others and the teachers were unwilling to adjust. So, out they came and into public schools. Both did very well. She didn't even have to obtain an IEP for her daughter and the girl graduated with B+ average and graduated college, to become a teacher herself.

They were in private school to begin with, because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I wouldn't say nothing. Most of the problems in education are with things outside the control of education. You can change who runs it, but you can't change the students and the parents. Charter and private have changed the students. Both are selective. Private deals MOSTLY in a wealthier and more advantaged student. This helps them do well. Charter tried to eliminate the more problem students, but still couldn't do much better than public. Private offers nothing new. Colleges have privates as well, which include those just selling paper and not actual education.

Most charter programs are relatively new, so insisting on instant results, is quite silly.

If some charters can develop programs and incentives to help with the outside problems, then they may improve things.
Your just selling it short, imo.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Exactly and private schools purge, through indifference, kids that don't mainstream. A friend of mine took both her kids out of the local Catholic school when they tried to attribute her daughter's problems to ADD. She and her husband, bot being teachers, knew this was not the issue and refused to medicate her. After months of frustration, she finally came to the decision, her daughter learned differently than others and the teachers were unwilling to adjust. So, out they came and into public schools. Both did very well. She didn't even have to obtain an IEP for her daughter and the girl graduated with B+ average and graduated college, to become a teacher herself.

They were in private school to begin with, because of their religious beliefs.

And some public schools, do this too.
Problem is, no two schools are alike, public or private.

 

[Boo Radley]

Most charter programs are relatively new, so insisting on instant results, is quite silly.

If some charters can develop programs and incentives to help with the outside problems, then they may improve things.
Your just selling it short, imo.

No, you can't go off on insisting on instant results. They offer next to nothing different in the methodology other than being selective with the students. So, expecting something different is really more the logical problem. The fact is, they've been around awhile and have not been different on the whole.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No, you can't go off on insisting on instant results. They offer next to nothing different in the methodology other than being selective with the students. So, expecting something different is really more the logical problem. The fact is, they've been around awhile and have not been different on the whole.

The same has been posited for public schools.
They've been around a lot longer, where's the improvement?

The fact is, that trying to change things, in hopes of improvement, is better than nothing at all.

 

[Boo Radley]

The same has been posited for public schools.
They've been around a lot longer, where's the improvement?

The fact is, that trying to change things, in hopes of improvement, is better than nothing at all.

To have imporvement, you ahve to understand the problem. If the problems could be fixed just by changing the schools, we wouldn't really have a problem. Most of the efforts miss the mark. NCLB mostly tried to target the teacher, as if there were no other factors. Vouchers try to move the student to another school as if the building or school itself were the problem. Charter schools tried to remove problem children. All of them offer nothing new methodology. nor do they confront the more difficult problems: Our society, parents, student involvement, safety.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

To have imporvement, you ahve to understand the problem. If the problems could be fixed just by changing the schools, we wouldn't really have a problem. Most of the efforts miss the mark. NCLB mostly tried to target the teacher, as if there were no other factors. Vouchers try to move the student to another school as if the building or school itself were the problem. Charter schools tried to remove problem children. All of them offer nothing new methodology. nor do they confront the more difficult problems: Our society, parents, student involvement, safety.

Your missing other things here.

If a district has poor students, with poor parents, who do not care for their child's education, then the good students should be allowed to move to another district where the parents are more involved and the children are less disruptive.
Keeping a kid in a poor environment, won't fix anything either.

Seems to me, that you want perfection or nothing at all.

 

[Boo Radley]

Your missing other things here.

If a district has poor students, with poor parents, who do not care for their child's education, then the good students should be allowed to move to another district where the parents are more involved and the children are less disruptive.
Keeping a kid in a poor environment, won't fix anything either.

Seems to me, that you want perfection or nothing at all.

Yes, you can move a few. But you do leave the majority behind, and with less resources or good examples. I don't want perfection, I want something that will do the most good. Good students, believe it or not, do well anywhere. The effort should be in making sure we have more good students. No anti-education types (often call themselves anti-intellectuals) pushing dumb is cool. No nutering teachers and administrators so they can't maintian a productive environment. And actual consequences for students who don't behave like students. And it shoudl be made clear to parents that this is school. We don't pander to unreasonablness (like the parent inititive I mentioned early that parents got passed).