Louisiana's bold bid to privatize schools

[Harry Guerrilla]

I suspect that charter schools are created by parents who have children that are either disruptive or underperforming in regular public schools. The parents blame the schools instead of the children, create a charter schools, and then tell the kids that they no longer can use the excuse of blaming the school for their poor performance, so the students have little choice than to toe the line. This may create an initial appearance of success of the charter school, at least until all of the original students graduate. When new students enroll in the charter, which is by then already firmly under the control of the original creators, the parents end up being just as frustrated as they have little power in the administration of the school.

Charter schools are basically for the misfit students of good parents. It's an interesting experiment.

A lot of charter schools are created by former pub school teachers.
I highly doubt they are made for the reasons you suggested.

 

[Phys251]

the same reason you don't want to jump off a cliff to see what happens. The results are predictable.

Has there ever been, anywhere in the world, a nation with both an educated population and an all private system of education?

Haiti's the closest thing I can think of.

Oh, wait a minute, you said educated POPULATION, not educated few.

Has there ever been, anywhere in the world, a nation that is both ignorant and free?

Oceania!

 

[Boo Radley]

A lot of charter schools are created by former pub school teachers.
I highly doubt they are made for the reasons you suggested.

The thing with charter schools is that they don't do anything different in terms of methodology, their overall results are no better, and that is dispite being more selective. What is the reasoning for pushing them?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The thing with charter schools is that they don't do anything different in terms of methodology, their overall results are no better, and that is dispite being more selective. What is the reasoning for pushing them?

Explain why 17% of charter schools are outperforming public schools.
When many of these schools are located in areas where the people are poor, minorities and in areas where their public schools are failing.

Sorry, some of them are doing something different, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing public schools away.
And don't tell me it's because they choose their students, because state laws mandate that if there are more applications than slots available, they must be chosen by random lottery.

And also, how do they do it, when the average funding is about 20% less than public schools?

 

[Boo Radley]

Explain why 17% of charter schools are outperforming public schools.
When many of these schools are located in areas where the people are poor, minorities and in areas where their public schools are failing.

Sorry, some of them are doing something different, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing public schools away.
And don't tell me it's because they choose their students, because state laws mandate that if there are more applications than slots available, they must be chosen by random lottery.

And also, how do they do it, when the average funding is about 20% less than public schools?

Only 17%? It's easy and damning to charter schools. They do weed out the worse students. So they have a better population to start with, and yet they do not out perform overall. You're actually arguing that after they go in and take the very best, and that 17% do better is something to brag about?

And nok, they are not blowing away public schools. On average, they do exactly the same, and with that advantage. They do nothing different at all in terms of methodology. If you want to really try something, remove the problem students from public school and see what happens. Try that.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

We wil find out before that. If those private schools students performance on standardized tests doesn't measure up....no money for them. Simple as that.
This is just pandering to the religious right and has no chance of a good outcome. The State can not subsidize religous indoctrination, even you know that.

 

[Misterveritis]

What is important is subjective.

Granted.

But they do not run the daily opperations of a school.

Governments do. But I agree that the Federal government does not run day-to-day operations in the local schools.

And yes, they determine the standards, though schools are free to dumb down (and many do), allow parents to decide things like how many points a student gets even when they don't do an assignment (52% here), and how they will accomplish meeting the standards set by the government. They are told how to do it.

To some degree you make my point. Why should the government be involved at all with local schools?

I again mention, as no one has addressed it, the schools ahead of us have centralized standards. Explain how they do that if being centralized is the problem.

Developing standards is not a bad thing. Meddling is. IEEE sets standards. Everyone understands the same thing when the standards are used and referenced. IEEE does not spend 70 billion dollars a year to meddle in how I do what I do. The education department does.

 

[Phys251]

Something that the pro-voucher crowd may want to consider: How exactly are these private schools going to deal with a potential influx of students that come from a vastly different culture than that of the school? This is not a minor issue. Well-established private schools have built up a culture that is essential to their tradition, and they will not easily take to having to make major accommodations for the new students. Usually, the response given is that the newcomers need to conform or leave.

In short, the honeymoon is going to be a very, very short one. And once it ends, a new chapter of conservative lunacy will open.

 

[iguanaman]

Something that the pro-voucher crowd may want to consider: How exactly are these private schools going to deal with a potential influx of students that come from a vastly different culture than that of the school? This is not a minor issue. Well-established private schools have built up a culture that is essential to their tradition, and they will not easily take to having to make major accommodations for the new students. Usually, the response given is that the newcomers need to conform or leave.

In short, the honeymoon is going to be a very, very short one. And once it ends, a new chapter of conservative lunacy will open.

You miss the real point of all of this. There are a bunch of religious wackos that don't want their kids taught that the bible is wrong...EVER. They want schools that have a curriculum that has humans riding dinosaurs and bible studies take up half the day. This should never be funded with state money it is against the Constitution. If they want stupid kids they can keep them home like they are doing now.

 

[Furiounova]

You miss the real point of all of this. There are a bunch of religious wackos that don't want their kids taught that the bible is wrong...EVER. They want schools that have a curriculum that has humans riding dinosaurs and bible studies take up half the day. This should never be funded with state money it is against the Constitution. If they want stupid kids they can keep them home like they are doing now.

FN likes this post.

 

[Phys251]

You miss the real point of all of this. There are a bunch of religious wackos that don't want their kids taught that the bible is wrong...EVER. They want schools that have a curriculum that has humans riding dinosaurs and bible studies take up half the day. This should never be funded with state money it is against the Constitution. If they want stupid kids they can keep them home like they are doing now.

I wouldn't say that our points are mutually exclusive. I would offer that we are both right, that these are two serious reasons, in no particular order of importance, why school vouchers are an inherently flawed design.

 

[Dittohead not!]

A voucher system would probably work if it were available to all students, if it could only be used in secular schools that have been accredited by the state, and if the schools could set standards for admission.

But, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to encourage parents to send their kids to schools where they can be indoctrinated in a particular religious faith.

And, that won't work. That is not a proper use of tax money.

 

[Furiounova]

A voucher system would probably work if it were available to all students, if it could only be used in secular schools that have been accredited by the state, and if the schools could set standards for admission.

But, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to encourage parents to send their kids to schools where they can be indoctrinated in a particular religious faith.

And, that won't work. That is not a proper use of tax money.

It is a pure coincidence the majority on the oversight committee are pastors, pastor's wives, elders, deacons, Someday School teachers, and Bible study leaders. Pure coincidence and their roles in their churches have absolutely no connection to how they approve the vouchers. Believe me. None.

 

[imagep]

What a crock. Spending on education as percentage of GDP? That is nonsense used to IMPLY that we spend less when, IN FACT, we spend far MORE on a PER STUDENT basis: K-12 Spending Per Student in the OECD | Mercatus

I thought that was "creative" also.

But how much a nation spends on spending isn't really a very good metric either. Like if teachers in some poor country are only paid $5,000 a year, then of course that country will likely spend less terms of dollars per student, but they might actually be spending more time and labor resources per student than we do. And that $5000 might actuallly be double the median income in that country, while teachers in the US may only make 30% more than the median income.

 

[imagep]

Explain why 17% of charter schools are outperforming public schools.
When many of these schools are located in areas where the people are poor, minorities and in areas where their public schools are failing.

Sorry, some of them are doing something different, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing public schools away.
And don't tell me it's because they choose their students, because state laws mandate that if there are more applications than slots available, they must be chosen by random lottery.

And also, how do they do it, when the average funding is about 20% less than public schools?

If only 17% of charter schools are outperforming the average public school, then I would think that charter schools are a terrible failure. That would mean that nearly 50% of public schools outperform 83% of charter schools. We should shut down 83% of charter schools immediately before they dumb up our young people any more.

 

[haymarket]

OK, compared to MOST industrialized nations or OCED nations, as in the top 30. It should be OBVIOUS, even to you, that third world nations are easy to beat. So yep, you sure got me there! WOW, my points are all invalid now, we beat lower Slobovia, and some 130 other insignificant third world nations. No need for any more educational reform here, no sir. We are heads above tiny nations with 100 teachers in the whole country. Lets celebrate that great victory and give all the teachers great big raises!

A good rule to follow is mean what you say and say what you mean. You did neither.

Glad to help shed some light on your post. Happy to help.

 

[Boo Radley]

To some degree you make my point. Why should the government be involved at all with local schools?

The same reason they are for all those countries that are doing better us. But, more specifically, there is a history that led to this, which was a wildly uneven educational system with winners and losers. Peopel fought to have more even tax distribution to help poorer schools keep up. Aswell as seeking more universial standards. This didn't spring up in thin air.

Developing standards is not a bad thing. Meddling is. IEEE sets standards. Everyone understands the same thing when the standards are used and referenced. IEEE does not spend 70 billion dollars a year to meddle in how I do what I do. The education department does.

Define meddling. Give examples.

 

[Boo Radley]

If only 17% of charter schools are outperforming the average public school, then I would think that charter schools are a terrible failure. That would mean that nearly 50% of public schools outperform 83% of charter schools. We should shut down 83% of charter schools immediately before they dumb up our young people any more.

I did think that was a terrible number to beat ones chest over. :shrug:

 

[iguanaman]

Not sure what's so scary about it. I'm not afraid of religions for some reason. Even when individuals in that religion try to blow me up

It's not about fear its about a childs education. Bible studies are for Sunday school not the classroom. That goes for "biblical science" too. Or any other religion for that matter, muslim jihadists or crackpot mormon sect it's all against the Constitution and unfair to childrens minds.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Only 17%? It's easy and damning to charter schools. They do weed out the worse students. So they have a better population to start with, and yet they do not out perform overall. You're actually arguing that after they go in and take the very best, and that 17% do better is something to brag about?

And nok, they are not blowing away public schools. On average, they do exactly the same, and with that advantage. They do nothing different at all in terms of methodology. If you want to really try something, remove the problem students from public school and see what happens. Try that.

17% is better than 0%.
In comparison to their local public schools, they're shining.
While doing it for less money.

The statistics run like this, 17% outperform, 44% perform the same, 39% perform worse.
So we can conclude that 61% do at least as good as public school, with 20% less money.

Public schools can remove troublesome students, it's called expulsion.
They even have public schools specifically for kids like this.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If only 17% of charter schools are outperforming the average public school, then I would think that charter schools are a terrible failure. That would mean that nearly 50% of public schools outperform 83% of charter schools. We should shut down 83% of charter schools immediately before they dumb up our young people any more.

No about 61% perform at level or better with public schools and they do it with 20% less money.
Seems like we should shut down the under performers, both public and charter, while disposing of the crappy staff.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Something that the pro-voucher crowd may want to consider: How exactly are these private schools going to deal with a potential influx of students that come from a vastly different culture than that of the school? This is not a minor issue. Well-established private schools have built up a culture that is essential to their tradition, and they will not easily take to having to make major accommodations for the new students. Usually, the response given is that the newcomers need to conform or leave.

In short, the honeymoon is going to be a very, very short one. And once it ends, a new chapter of conservative lunacy will open.

You miss the real point of all of this. There are a bunch of religious wackos that don't want their kids taught that the bible is wrong...EVER. They want schools that have a curriculum that has humans riding dinosaurs and bible studies take up half the day. This should never be funded with state money it is against the Constitution. If they want stupid kids they can keep them home like they are doing now.

I can't believe that either of these posts is considered serious discourse.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I did think that was a terrible number to beat ones chest over. :shrug:

You've yet to answer how they're outperforming.
You say they just kick students out, where's the beef?

You've yet to provide any alternative to the status quo.
It's time to progress past the archaic system of education we have now.

 

[imagep]

No about 61% perform at level or better with public schools and they do it with 20% less money.
Seems like we should shut down the under performers, both public and charter, while disposing of the crappy staff.

I would think about the same percent of public schools perform better than public schools, with 50% of public schools being in the top half, and another 10% being slighly below average but still within the middle 20% (thats a total of 60% of all public schools performing on par or better). Considering that the typical student in a charter school is either more motivated or has parents who are more motivated, thats still disapointing.

Should we dispose of the crappy students also?

 

[Layla_Z]

17% is better than 0%.
In comparison to their local public schools, they're shining.
While doing it for less money.

The statistics run like this, 17% outperform, 44% perform the same, 39% perform worse.
So we can conclude that 61% do at least as good as public school, with 20% less money.

Public schools can remove troublesome students, it's called expulsion.
They even have public schools specifically for kids like this.

61% is a D-. That's nothing to get excited about. Charter schools use less money because they have fewer students and often don't include sports. Nearly 40% perform worse than public schools. How is that something to be proud of. It takes effort and time on the part of the parent to send a kid to a charter school. Even with parental involvement more charter schools do worse than do better.
You think it's hard to fire a tenured teacher you should try to expel a kid. In nearly 20 years of teaching, I have never seen a kid expelled. Alternative schools for discipline problems are not everywhere. Where I teach if we want to send a kid to the area alternative school, the district has to pay the tuition. It also takes getting the parents permission to send the kid there. Too many parents can't be bothered.