Yesterday's Seattle Times editorial: "Funding is key to education reform" Funding, as in "more will be required to get the job done". How much more? And what does it mean for the job to be "done"? The editorial doesn't say.
Meanwhile, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is being "urged to take some control of schools".
The other day a local Republican leader told me that the GOP's plan for winning back Eastside voters would include a proposal for adding pre-kindergarten to the government schools.
Does the government education monopoly really need more money, more centralized control and more responsibilities? Please. As a parent of school-aged children who reluctantly opted for private schools, it's obvious that the most urgently needed education reform is introduction of competition and parental choice. Without that, we're wasting our time, our money and our children's futures.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 20, 2006 10:34 AM | Email This"In response to the numerous concerns voiced regarding definitions posted on the Equity & Race website, we have decided to revise our website in a way that will hopefully provide more context to readers around the work that Seattle Public Schools is doing to address institutional racism. The intended purpose of our work in the area of race and social justice is to bring communities together through open dialogue and honest reflection around what is meant by racism and the impact is has on our society and more specifically, our students. Our intention is not to put up additional barriers or develop an "us against them" mindset, nor is it to continue to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality. It is our hope that we can explore the work of leading scholars in the areas of race and social justice issues to help us understand the dynamics and realities of how racism permeate throughout our society and use their knowledge to help us create meaningful change. This difficult work is vital to the success of our students and families. Thank you for sharing your concerns."
Warm regards,
Caprice D. Hollins, Psy.D.
Director of Equity & Race Relations
Seattle Public Schools
Data does, however, support the importance of preschool. At least some cities have had great results with the mayor taking responsibility for the schools. And I'm guessing that your kids' private schools spend money on many things that our public schools can't; presumably you think they're spending your tuition wisely.
If you took off your ideological blinders and looked at what actually works, you might change your opinion of what's "obvious".
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 12:03 PMFor all the moonbats reading this who think the vouchers will bankrupt the district, most parents are not going to bother to move their kid. But for the few who do value education, it will be a way to get better instruction. The solutions aren't hard or even that expensive, but they aren't politically correct and once these programs have been implemented it will become very apparent that certain neighborhoods don't give a rip about education. This is why Bill Cosby will not be invited to share his thoughts with the Seattle School Board.
Posted by: Burdabee on November 20, 2006 12:10 PMSo given that, why should the taxes I pay for educating my child not go to a school of my (remember me, I'm the PARENT of the child!) choice - no code name, VOUCHERS! That satisfies the requirement, but not the unions.
What is beyond me is why are so many liberals/unions against choice - why aren't they pro-choice?
And if you look at DC, you will find the emperical evidence you are looking for.
http://www.nysun.com/article/22972
KIPP would like to work in Washington state, but it can't. Unlike 40 other states in the country, Washington does not allow charter schools -- so the government can't give KIPP permission to run its model here.
-Bill Gates
Posted by: Palouse on November 20, 2006 01:05 PMIt's all about the money, too bad it's not all about the education. Washington needs major education reforms before it dumps more money into a seriously broken system. Last time I checked (over 10 years ago), this state spent over $10,000 per child per year on education (before levies). About $3,500 of which actually gets to the building with your student, the rest goes...where? No idea how much higher the numbers are now.
Oh, my formula for numbers? State education annual budget divided by number of Washington school children. Both numbers readily available from Olympia. This is not the PC method for figuring education costs, but hey, it's more honest than the official numbers.
A few reasons I believe the WA education system is broken (tip of the iceberg). Virtually all school districts will not negotiate with the teachers until all administrative and central office staff have already negotiated their raises for the year. Your teachers, classroom and school staff are VERY LAST...they receive the crumbs left on the table, if any. Everyone else gets paid first, from Terry Bergstrom down to district cental office administration & staff. YOUR CHILDREN ARE LAST PLACE IN LINE FOR EDUCATION DOLLARS. And that is why teachers sometimes feel the need to go on strike. AND...even if taxpayers or congress votes them a pay raise, they are still forced to negotiate with their district for the raise...with no guarantee of receiving the raise everyone thought they automatically received. AND...district negotiaters are well paid and don't care how long negotiations drag on, while staff negotiaters are often volunteers kinda coached by a shared traveling professional provided by their union. And...Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now, but this stuff really gripes me because it sucks all the money and energy away from our childrens education.
Private schools often provide better education for less money. And...school rules can be enforced...and, teachers are allowed to do their job (for significantly less pay than public schools) without social engineering requirements sucking up valuable class time.
Disillusioned parent who is not now, nor has ever been a teacher or school employee.
Posted by: dl on November 20, 2006 02:30 PMLike all monopolies, the govt. schools are inefficient and often corrupt. They are designed to benefit not students or parents but teachers union members (who, ironically, send their kids to private school at a higher rate than the general population). They spend more per student on average ($9,500) than does a private school in Seattle, and do an inferior job.
Why does the cost of a first class stamp go up and up every few years while the cost of most private transportation and communication sevices keeps dropping (FedEx, WiFi, long distance phone service).
Hint - just like the government schools, first class mail delivery is a government monopoly (it's in the Constitution).
Certain things should properly be government monopolies - those involving the use of force such as police and armed forces. Educating our kids does not fall into that category.
Universal education is a positive good and should be mandatory and paid for with broad taxation. But the service should not be delivered by the government exclusively.
Take this oath - vote for no more government school taxes until parents can choose, if they wish, to use the public funds to send their kids to private schools (just like you can use Medicare to go to a private doctor, or spend your social security check at a private supermarket.
If you could buy groceries only from the government store when you retired, what do you think the quality of the food and service would be?
Does anyone but me think that this is too much money per classroom? Does anyone but me think that maybe we've got a problem in the way schools account for their money?
I remember during a recent eastside teachers strike. They interviewed a 1st grade teacher who said this.
"I have a Phd and if I were to go into private industry, I could earn twice as much."
It got me to thinking - do we really NEED to employ people with Phds to teach kids their ABC's?
Maybe the problem is that we're paying for some of these teachers to get way, way too qualified and the money might better be spent on hiring additional managers to oversee less experienced teachers.
This is the kind of thing that businesses do all the time, and businesses do a great job of meeting goals while operating on a real budget.
Posted by: Johnny on November 20, 2006 02:49 PMJohnny...maybe it's not the schools that have a problem accounting for their money, maybe it's all the administrators (state and district) that never see the inside of a classroom that need to account for the taxpayer dollars they are sucking up. Have you ever seen an accounting for their budgets? Maybe those school administrators should get out of the way and let teachers do their job. Do you have any idea how much these managers earn? Almost 2/3 of the WA education budget never sees the inside of a classroom. Maybe there's already too many chiefs and not enough indians.
Try this, please...check your local school district. How many superintentdent and assistant superintendents does your district employ, and how much are their annual salaries? Then check and see how much that Eastside elementary school teacher earns. Then consider which one is sitting in the classroom (often with inadequate classroom materials) teaching your child to read, and which one is working at central office with no classrooms and no children.
Climbing off my soapbox again...hope I didn't sound cranky Johnny. I encourage all taxpayers and parents to become more educated in the operation of schools on a local and state level. Our children deserve quality educations, unfortunately they are not receiving our money's worth.
Posted by: dl on November 20, 2006 03:36 PMNope.
Likewise many, many polls of teachers over the years have shown that one of their primary goals for entering the profession and/or staying with it is the perk of "free time" as in a nine month or less work year. Should a person who chooses to work less than a full year expect a full-year's salary? Oh, I forgot IT'S FOR THE KIDS!**
** Which will probably be Nickel$ new mantra as he spends sleepless nights attempting to fatten and bloat his "legacy."
I don't know what a good ratio is. In Iraq we probably have a lot more people doing management, support, logistics, etc. than actual fighting. My general impression is that public schools underspend on support relative to the private sector. I'm sure there are recommended ratios, although that would depend on factors like whether employees or outside services are doing things like maintenance.
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 08:37 PMHint - Totally Wrong. The price of a stamp has risen by much less than the overall cost of living over the past few decades. I don't have FedEx data, but I think it has risen considerably in recent years. WiFi and long distance phone service are technology services that don't involve moving anything physical; also long distance was allowed to stop subsidizing local phone service.
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 08:45 PMYou've hit on one of the problems with vouchers: they improve the education of relatively few kids. It's great to help any kids, but shouldn't we be more concerned about the majority who would remain in the public schools? And meanwhile, in addition to paying for vouchers for those few kids who move, the taxpayers would have to pay for vouchers for the many kids who are already in private schools. Where will that money come from?
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 08:51 PMFred, if you favor vouchers, fine. There are some good arguments in their favor.
But if you really don't understand the arguments against vouchers, you either haven't been paying attention to the debate or you have a very closed mind. Many people, myself included, have expounded on them, on this board and elsewhere.
An intelligent student understands all sides of an argument.
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 08:55 PMDing Ding they will try again in February!
If the Queen and her court don't ram a massive income tax down our throats before then.
1. Why is this proposal coming out during the holidays, when many are distracted?
2. Why are some in the legislature so willing to
change laws for this proposal when they probably wouldn't consider charter schools or neighborhood schools with local control?
3. If there is some form of mayorial control, does this mean that kids are the pawns in an election and what are the spoils to be paid to interest groups in terms of control of the public school curriculum?
4. I don't know what is going on in Boston or Chicago public schools, but what does success mean? Does this mean that only 25% of the school population is dropping out instead of 50%? Does this mean that kids are actually being educated?
5. Class in America is a tricky topic. I certainly do not criticize any parent that wants the best for their child and decides on other options. Who is left in the public schools in these cities? Do the public schools improve the life chances of their students or are they simply holding pens until the kids are out? If public schools lose their diversity of class and income that portends a very bad trend for this country.
We of course, will hear about the stellar person who made in through the public school system, but what about the other 999, who don't?
I think that this proposal is like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic and there should be competition in public school choices, not centralized political control.
This proposal will probably result in more children leaving the public school system.
Also, vouchers would result in more of a marketplace approach. And competition in the marketplace almost always raises the quality and lowers the cost of the product.
IMO Washington schools are over-regulated by too many chiefs. All that is really required is quality teachers, quality texts, and a safe learning environment...Washington public schools have none of the above, and that is not due to a lack of money.
Posted by: dl on November 20, 2006 10:43 PMYou complain that the Seattle Times's editorial doesn't say what should be done or how much it will cost. But it does generally support the proposals of the Washington Learns committee, several of which it describes. And its main point is that the state needs to determine the cost, and the revenue source.
Here is what lies in the future for our schools and our children if we enact even a portion of the panel's ideas:
• State funding for all-day kindergarten, thus eliminating tuition-based classes and the piecemeal offerings that vary from school to school.
• Expanded professional development and a pay scale based on merit.
• More-rigorous high-school course requirements targeting the gaping weaknesses in math and science curricula....
And those very things are what our schools and children won't receive if a long-term, stable source of funding isn't developed
Is there anyone reading this that thinks merit pay is a real possibility? Without merit pay where are the science and tech teachers coming from? They can get paid more for their skills eleswhere. Retired science people, you say. They often lack state certification. It is my understanding that a school district in the southend is preparing a lawsuit regarding the inequality in state reimbursed administrative costs. Is the question really how money is allocated? Shouldn't there be local control of neighborhood schools?
I renew my question, why is this coming out now when many are distracted?
Posted by: WVH on November 21, 2006 12:28 AMThe analogy to the postal service is actually a fairly good empirical example of how it works. While the USPS was essentially the sole source provider of mail service, costs were high, efficiency was low and nobody could dream of having a package cross the country in three days for three bucks.
The introduction of competition, even when few utilized those options, stimulated great change in the postal service. Next thing you knew, the USPS itself changed and sought regulatory change necessary to serve citizens rather than the bureaucracy and employee groups.
Everyone doesn’t have to switch to FedEx or UPS for this to happen, only a few comparison shoppers can stimulate organizational behavior change. While loss of market share might have cost some jobs at the USPS, the service to the public has undeniably improved…even for those who never use anything but the USPS.
If we really believe that the local professionals know best how to get the job done, then nothing is lacking but to motivate them. If good teachers and building administrators know that bad teachers, wasted time or low expectations actually affect whether the doors of the school stay open, then guess who will suddenly shift from a “circle the wagons” mentality to a “lets build a winning team” mentality.
And maybe they will identify for us all what policy changes will be needed to build a winning team—and winning means children are propelled to success.
Yea, cheesily idealistic, but no less than the dreams of ideologues in the cause of dewey's social engineering, progressive values indoctrination, or even the governor's "Washington Learns"
Posted by: knowsabit on November 21, 2006 08:34 AMThe WASL math exam is subject to no outside review
by any mathematician, scientist, or engineer.
Go to the website of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI) and read their notions of what
mathematics is. You will be amazed.