Watch ABC's 20/20 About American Schools On Friday The 13th!

[libertarian_knight]

I live in the Kansas City metro. We have lived up here for about 6 years. We have a 5 year old child. For the first five years, we lived in midtown Kansas City. We have sent our son to Montessori school since he was one year old. However, because the Kansas City public school district is one of the worst in the nation, we decided last spring to buy a home just outside of Kansas City, Missouri in Johnson County, Kansas. Johnson County has some of the best public schools in the state of Kansas. Now, why are the schools so bad in Kansas City, yet so much better in the suburbs? It’s not because the Kansas City schools spend less. It’s not because the suburban schools have necessarily better teachers. It’s because the parents out here are more involved in their children’s education. We have teachers unions out here. Yet we have better schools. The problem and the solution lies almost solely with the parents. They tried the vouchers in Ohio and in other areas. In every scenario, few private schools would accept inner city students. Vouchers were used by the wealthy white students out in the suburbs to get a private education subsidized on the taxpayer’s dime.

This whole voucher crap is nothing but an invention of the religious right designed to get the taxpayer to pay for their kids to go to some evangelical school. We have plenty of good Public Schools in this country. Our good Public Schools are on par with any public school system in the world. Our problem is that we have some very, very, bad public schools as well. However, the only difference between those really bad public schools and the really good ones is the parents. What the government ought to do is just lay the problem at their feet, and then those parents in the underperforming school districts will have to take some responsibility for their child’s education instead of expecting society to fix it for them. If they want to send their children to a private school, then fine. I can’t say that I would blame them at all. If we stayed in Kansas City, you can bet that our son would have attended a private school. However, they need to send their kids to a private school on their dime. If they have to shell out the money for their kid’s education, you can bet they are going to have vested interest in their kid performing well. If the taxpayer picks up the tab for it, then they will have no more of a vested interest than they would if their kid just continued to attend a public school.

I take it you didn't watch the 20/20 episode or read the Pisa report huh?

There are many other countries, besides the US, that use voucher systems, and vastly out perform the US. It's not a religious thing, sure some people would use vouchers to fund religious education, many, if not most, won't. I have a fundamental opposition to all churchs, I tolerate them, but certainly don't approve. However, I see an education as far far more important to this country, than my concerns over relgion.

The reason my brother is attending a catholic school, is because he could not get a spot in a charter school. This catholic school is the only private school my parents can afford for my brother. If there were secular alternatives, I garuantee he would be in, if they had a way to pay for them. My Parents are exteremly lasped catholics, and the only reason my step-father goes to church at all, is because it's a requirement for enrollement. (I know it's just anecdote)

However, I know many others that feel the same, still more anecdote, but it wouldn't surprise me if MOST people in the country feel the same, maybe except some parts of the south. Most people want their kids to have a good education first.

Vouchers and Charter schools are the way to go. Competitition is very important, not only in education, but in every aspect of our economy, and in life in general. Competition let's the good prevail, and the bad be pruned.

We do have some very good public schools, I went to one. However, we also have some attrocious public schools, that are open year after year after year with no improvement, change or sucesses.

More money is not the answer, and demanding ignorant, under/uneducated, unskilled parents to take a larger role is also irrational. There, again, is a reason we pay trained specialists for these jobs.

What would it take for you to believe our current education system is not enough? Lesser Developed countries out performing us? Skilled labor going overseas? In the accelerating advance of globalization, old systems are not good enough anymore.

Parents, absolutely need to be involved to the extent that they can (there was no one locally in my family that could have helped me with the sophomore Chemistry homework and study, not to mention physics, biology, calculus, at that level, let alone the college level). There is only so much parents can do, and only so much defeat a person can take.

Parental disassociation from education, does in part, come from the failings of the system to which they should be associated with as well. What good is going to PTA meetings, Board meetings, and school functions if their ideas, contributions, and complaints fall on deaf ears? Sometimes, parents are ill equipped financially, emotionally, or intellectually to overcome the failings of a system either. I remember some of my teachers, on Parent's nights, HATED IT, because they were bothered by the parents. A waste of time which would lead to no real change. When all else fails, Money talks a lot. Take the money out of the hands of politicians and teachers, and let the schools earn their paychecks just like everyone else in the world.

Stossel noted that NYC school district pay $20,000,000 a year for Teachers NOT TO TEACH!!!!!!! Yet schools are lacking in textbooks? BAH.

 

[libertarian_knight]

SouthernDemocrat

Two more things.
First, the religious right, is not always wrong. And given in this instance they are right for the wrong reasons, their goals will not be met.

Second, if parental involvement in education was ALL that was necessary, why did you seek a different school?

 

[Inuyasha]

Comparing the European system or better said systems, to ours is difficult but I have seen both systems so here is what i have seen.

My children had their first years in the Spanish system, first under Franco then under the new democratic system. There was little change between the two except with the introduction of democracy one course was dropped. It was called "formacionòn nacional" which was the praising of the Franco regime.

Later we came to the US my kids were so far ahead that they all were advanced one year and still found the work easy. Why?
1. I saw that in the US system the kids were in school much less (5 hrs a day compared to 7 in Spain) for a time Spanish kids were also in school on Saturday mornings and the school year was longer by one month.
2. The concept of education on the part of the student:
A) education in Spain at that time, 70's and early 80's was not seen as a right but rather as a privilege.
B) School was seen as the students job and it was impressed on the student, the parents and the teachers that this was a very important obligation both for the student and the good of the nation.
3. Teachers occupied a higher position in the society than teachers in the US. They were in one of the highest paid professions in the society. They were afforded the tittle of "don" or "doña". A tittle not to be taken lightly. They were a force in the life of the children. It was an honor to live in the same building as a teacher. Because of all this a teacher took his/her job very, very seriously. Teachers were not the "friends" of their students, they were like an extra parent. These ideas are not foregin to the US education system as it was un til the late 40's.
4. Because of the size of the country standardization of the system was easier.
5. Discipline in the public schools of Spain was as strict as in Catholic schools.

These are just a few of the differences. However it must be noted that since the middle of the 1980's the Spanish system has deteriorated seriously and in a few years it will suffer many of the same problems as ours.

For a few years when I returned to the States I taught GED part time and I found that these students who had quite school and came back were very serious and very good students. They had learned by not having the benefit of education just how important it was.

As you can se the five points I mentioned have little or nothing to do with "throwing money" at the system.

 

[aquapub]

The difference is we have a unionized public system. In Cuba or the Soviet Union you either performed as a socialist teacher or you were out in the field digging potatoes or in prison. Her you work in a monopoly system with union protection. You keep saying it's the parents, well one reason parents aren't involved is because they are powerless versus the system and the teachers unions. Private schools do outperform public schools on average and what is more important educating the child or maintaining the teachers unions? I say the kids and we should try everything even vouchers to improve a broken system.

I think this is an important point because as schools have become increasingly governed by the state instead of the local government and parents, and then increasingly governed by the federal government instead of the state government, parents all but lose full control over their school districts.

Communities are best run by the people who live in them, democratically, and the more federalized education becomes, the more parents will become a part of the problem with education because they won't be consulted or involved at all, producing exactly the helpless, hopeless attitude that gets parents blamed.


On a side note...

Even the Supreme Court has egregiously abused its power (shocker) and taken upon itself the task of micro-managing local school decisions (in Missouri, for example, where the court's infallible edicts bankrupted the school district), leaving PARENTS and LOCAL officials with no recourse, as the Supreme Court is not elected or accountable for its decisions.

This goes back to a basic Republican tenant that fundamentally draws me to the party. The smaller and more local the governing body is that's deciding things, the more power individuals have over their own lives (i.e., an outraged community in Missouri can't impeach the federal secretary of education if he/she does something outrageous, but they can remove LOCAL officials with relative ease).

 

[libertarian_knight]

I think this is an important point because as schools have become increasingly governed by the state instead of the local government and parents, and then increasingly governed by the federal government instead of the state government, parents all but lose full control over their school districts.

Communities are best run by the people who live in them, democratically, and the more federalized education becomes, the more parents will become a part of the problem with education because they won't be consulted or involved at all, producing exactly the helpless, hopeless attitude that gets parents blamed.


On a side note...

Even the Supreme Court has egregiously abused its power (shocker) and taken upon itself the task of micro-managing local school decisions (in Missouri, for example, where the court's infallible edicts bankrupted the school district), leaving PARENTS and LOCAL officials with no recourse, as the Supreme Court is not elected or accountable for its decisions.

This goes back to a basic Republican tenant that fundamentally draws me to the party. The smaller and more local the governing body is that's deciding things, the more power individuals have over their own lives (i.e., an outraged community in Missouri can't impeach the federal secretary of education if he/she does something outrageous, but they can remove LOCAL officials with relative ease).

Hate to break it to ya, but the republicans are not longer for smaller federal government, less intrusive government, etc. They stopped that under Nixon.

 

[aquapub]

A Libertarian's wet dream can be found in Sandy Springs, Georgia. I just received an update on the story in the link below. This town has now officially privatized every single government function except for police and fire!


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/custom/blogs/sandysprings/entries/2005/06

 

[Stinger]

I think this is an important point because as schools have become increasingly governed by the state instead of the local government and parents, and then increasingly governed by the federal government instead of the state government, parents all but lose full control over their school districts.

We also have the problem, at least in my state, that the largest represented occuapation in the the state legislature are teachers. They control the body that governs them.

Communities are best run by the people who live in them, democratically, and the more federalized education becomes, the more parents will become a part of the problem with education because they won't be consulted or involved at all, producing exactly the helpless, hopeless attitude that gets parents blamed.

Yes that is true but then they are just governmental bodies who do not have to make a profit, do not have to run their school efficiently or effectively to keep their jobs. If things are going well just scream for more money threaten to shut down band, and football and blackmail the voters into spending more money.

 

[debate_junkie]

Where on earth do you get the idea that Catholic schools are better because they throw out problems kids as opposed to public school not doing the same?

As the author of the piece puts it, imagine if the government set up public grocery stores and you had to shop at the one you were assigned to. How fast do you think the quality of the food and service would drop. And no matter how much more you paid the employees and managers it would only get worse. It's the competition that drives improvement and even parental involvement.

Catholic schools do alot better, but not just because they throw the problem kids out. Catholic schools have ALWAYS had an implemented uniform system. Every kid, from day one, is on a level playing field. Religion is a big part of their education, as well as "free" thinking. The kids are challenged to exert themselves in the classroom, on the athletic fields, and in society. They bar no one from entering their classrooms, though they have a STRICT disciplinary code. The parents are traditionally involved extensively, in the school, in the church, and in the community. The classrooms are usually smaller, therefore giving the student's more of the teacher's time. The teacher's almost always can identify a student that is needing of extra help, and WILL be in constant contact with that student's parent in order to formulate a plan that WILL increase the student's potential to succeed.

The beaurocracy is left out of Catholic schools. Because they are self/church funded, they are not bound ALL of the things public schools are. They can implement a tougher grading system, therefore encouraging the students to work harder. Students cannot just "get by" like they can in public schools. C's, many times in the public schools, would equate to below average, or failing grades. Not to mention, you aren't dealing with all of the social ills that have made public schools havens for drugs, crime, and violence.

My cousins both attended Catholic school. It is the norm, rather than the exception for kids to graduate with a 3.0 GPA or higher. That sounds like success to me.

 

[Engimo]

Catholic schools do alot better, but not just because they throw the problem kids out. Catholic schools have ALWAYS had an implemented uniform system. Every kid, from day one, is on a level playing field. Religion is a big part of their education, as well as "free" thinking. The kids are challenged to exert themselves in the classroom, on the athletic fields, and in society. They bar no one from entering their classrooms, though they have a STRICT disciplinary code. The parents are traditionally involved extensively, in the school, in the church, and in the community. The classrooms are usually smaller, therefore giving the student's more of the teacher's time. The teacher's almost always can identify a student that is needing of extra help, and WILL be in constant contact with that student's parent in order to formulate a plan that WILL increase the student's potential to succeed.

Perhaps this is a topic for a different thread, but I feel that "scrict discipline" and "free thinking" are mutually exclusive. How can you encourage children to think for themselves while simultaneously impressing upon them the importance of obedience to arbitrary authority (and taking matters of religion on the word of religious leaders/texts)? The message seems contradictory to me; part of being a critical thinker and such is the challenging of authority, if you ask me.

 

[debate_junkie]

Perhaps this is a topic for a different thread, but I feel that "scrict discipline" and "free thinking" are mutually exclusive. How can you encourage children to think for themselves while simultaneously impressing upon them the importance of obedience to arbitrary authority (and taking matters of religion on the word of religious leaders/texts)? The message seems contradictory to me; part of being a critical thinker and such is the challenging of authority, if you ask me.

You're confusing challenging authority with breaking the law. I said a STRICT disciplinary code. Having drugs on campus, violation of said code. Challenging a school policy which you feel is segregationsist... being a free thinking student.

See the difference?

Also, religious classes routinely encourage discussions, in order for students to arbitrarily agree/disagree with the teachings. But here's the thing, if a student disagree's with the teacher, they then have an avenue.. go talk to mom and dad. Mom and dad (in most cases) are not going to have to tell a kid they HAVE to agree with a certain teaching/doctrine, but it also furthers more discussion, therefore still making the child a free thinker, yet not being indoctrinated by the authority(teacher/church)

 

[Engimo]

You're confusing challenging authority with breaking the law. I said a STRICT disciplinary code. Having drugs on campus, violation of said code. Challenging a school policy which you feel is segregationsist... being a free thinking student.

See the difference?

Ahh, I see what you mean. Yes, enforcing rules for the safety of students and faculty obviously acceptable and a requirement for having a functional school system.

I suppose what I was criticizing was more the general trend that I've seen of a promotion of memorization and blind adherence to authority at the expense of critical reasoning and logic.

 

[debate_junkie]

Ahh, I see what you mean. Yes, enforcing rules for the safety of students and faculty obviously acceptable and a requirement for having a functional school system.

I suppose what I was criticizing was more the general trend that I've seen of a promotion of memorization and blind adherence to authority at the expense of critical reasoning and logic.

Like I said in my original post, both of my cousins went/go to Catholic school. Often for religion classes, particularly in their junior years, they were to read a chapter of the Bible, and then the next day would be discussion. The oldest often told us stories of many of her classmates, herself included, disagreeing with the teacher, as the teacher was explaining what certain passages of that chapter meant. The teacher never once demanded the kids think as he did, but once discussions were under way, he could often sit back and listen as the kids discussed amongst themselves. At that point, he listened to their ideas, and often times, the students brought up things that he may have not been looking at. In his classroom, he fostered the notion that he was an educator, not a teacher. They didn't HAVE to accept what he said as being correct. They could challenge his explanations, and therefore brought about an envrioment of free thinking.