The Seattle Times columnist seems genuinely puzzled.
But the Seattle School District doesn't measure up to all that success [in Seattle]. Once again we're looking for a new superintendent, the graduation rate is unacceptable, and the School Board? Disarray.
The dirty little secret is that our lack of confidence in the school district adds to Seattle's cost of living. Many people, myself included, have chosen private schools — adding thousands a month on top of their mortgage payments.
"People who are from out of state are very surprised at the state of the schools," said Susan Phillips, a real-estate agent in South Seattle. "They want to know, 'How did this happen? Seattle seems like a progressive, well-educated city. Why can't you get it together?'"
Because Seattle is a "progressive" city, perhaps? All these cities are "progressive": Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D. C. All of them have poor schools, and some of them have terrible schools. (All of them also have high housing costs.) And you can easily add a great many examples to that brief list. One can find university towns that are "progressive" and have reasonably good schools, but on the whole, in cities where "progressives" run things, the schools decline.
And this is true of states, as well. For years, New Hampshire has been, on the whole, a conservative state, and Vermont a "progressive" state. Test scores show that New Hampshire kids learn more than Vermont kids. Test scores also show that Texas, which is not at all "progressive", does better than California, which is.
None of this is any secret. A careful reader of the New York Times would know these facts, maybe even a careful reader of the Seattle Times. But somehow this combination of "progressives" and poor schools, which is found all over the country, puzzles Nicole Brodeur. So, let's help her out. Suppose that she asked you to explain this connection, what would you tell her? How would you gently explain to her that you can have "progressive" big city governments or good schools, but not both?
(Bonus question: Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that she agreed that you could not have both. Which do you think she would choose? I have my own answer to that, which I will give on Friday.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 22, 2006 01:09 PM | Email This"Hey, if you choose not to learn, that's your problem. Someone's got to flip the burgers at McDonald's"
- Dr. Dennis Elwell
And that's the truth. Not everyone gets to pass. If you don't want to learn, you don't want your kids to learn, then guess what - they don't. The Seattle School District should let them leave, and take those jobs that "Americans won't do"...
Education is a priviledge, maybe a right. But you have to exercise it, and your rights stop where mine begin. Student being disruptive to the class? That student is out - their rights do not trump those of the rest of the students in the class.
A Proud 1986 Grad of O'Dea High School, where we averaged 26+ in a class...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 22, 2006 01:33 PMWhat's interesting is that Seattle School district is actually implementing ideas of choice and competition in its programs--ideas that the right is so enamored of. And yet the district has never had a plan for improving or closing schools that parents have neglected to choose.
The Seattle School district is basically offering a two-tier education system: those neighborhoods where parents can afford it are boosting schools with huge PTSA donations, and if those parents don't get into the public schools where this happens, they opt for private school. Meanwhile, kids in the south end are left with poorly funded, substandard schools.
Nothing progressive about that. And I'm sure you all have a solution: just hand those kids a voucher for $322.26 which I'm sure would go a long way toward tuition at O'Dea.
Education is "maybe a right?" News flash: it's one of the first duties of a government and the foundation of the American dream.
Proud 1986 graduate of Olympic High School (public).
Posted by: androo on November 22, 2006 01:58 PMMaybe Nicole has become one of the inner-circle attending Nickel$ private jazz nights.
For some reason I have a vision of Nickel$, his family and bodyguards, Norm Rice and his groupies, 63 W.E.A. officers, and 103 "inner-city youth" hopping on a plane and traveling to Tahiti,
Dubai, Kyoto, Moscow, Caracas, and Havana for a fact finding mission on education**.
Don't scoff! It's for the kids!!
** Endorsed by W.E.A., Norm "Looking For A Job" Rice, Firefighters, Nurses, Single Moms, and the Seattle Police Department Executive Protection Unit.
That's it, you know. You poor, dumb slobs in SayWA just don't understand that you are undertaxed. Tax rates must go up to throw more money at underperforming schools. Can't be anything wrong with the teachers or the students or, for God's sake, the teachers unions. It must be the simple fact that you greedy taxpayers in SayWA just aren't paying enough.
Get ready, I'm telling you, you've handed the keys for the henhouse to the fox by electing 'Rats in the last election. One thing 'Rats do is raise taxes. Well, you voted for them, you got them...'Rats.
Posted by: Interested Observer on November 22, 2006 02:16 PMStupid liberals!
Posted by: huckleberry on November 22, 2006 02:18 PMTution at O'Dea is below $7,000 per year. Tuition at Holy Names is below $9,00 per year. Both are excellent schools, scholastically.
Right now the state spends more than $10,000 per student.
So, I'd say let the money follow the kids. Kid goes to O'Dea, Lakeside, Prep, etc. so does the money.
Competition is what's needed. Tenured positions - like we have in the schools - should be eliminated. You're a bad teacher? You're gone. Period.
If you can't turn out good students with more funding in more modern buildings than the private schools, the solution isn't funding. It's to emulate what works - the private school model.
If the kid acts up in class, and his parents won't take care of the situation, then the kid doesn't get to go to class. Period. Perhaps when he's 29, flipping burgers for $10 an hour, and his childhood friends who paid attention and worked drive through his restaurant in their BMWs he'll get a clue...
And for the record, I am the product of a single parent household (dad walked out when I was 6), I worked to pay half my tuition at O'Dea, we had a black and white TV until I bought a color 19" unit for my family in 1989 (my junior year in school), and we did without a lot of the "stuff" considered mandatory even in those days.
Priorities. You can tell people what their priorities should be all you want, but until they see - and experience - the tangible benefits of those priorities they simply will ignore it.
It's why immigrants to this country do better - as a whole - than the "permanent underclass" of America. They know what poverty is. They know what opportunities are available. And they take advantage of them as much as possible.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 22, 2006 02:19 PMIf the public schools limited themselves to teaching readin', writin', and 'rithmatic, with a good dose of "Yay for our side" civics on the side, I would still consider public education is a good idea. But we live in a time of growing Orwellian practices that make me conclude having the government in charge of developing "right thinking citizens" is just plain wrong!
Can you see that at all?
Posted by: huckleberry on November 22, 2006 02:25 PMSpot on.
WEA's "Take The Lead" ads on TV are the precursor of the massive taxes the nabobs in Seattle and Olympia have in mind.
Editor's note. "Precursor" might be too politically correct. Perhaps K-Y® Jelly is a better term.
Because of this, most middle-class parents rationally take themselves and their families out of the city. And that, in turn, means there are fewer students and less demand, city-wide, for high-quality schools. Why would a childless couple living on Queen Anne, a wealthy Madrona family whose kids go to Lakeside, or the single young people who crowd into Capitol Hill or Belltown give a rats-ass about the Seattle schools?
The dirty little secret, Nicole, is that as long as the people of Seattle continue to over-tax themselves, artificially inflate the cost of property with punitive land use regulations, promote high-density housing instead of family homes, maintain a too-small police force, and discourage the use of family cars, families will continue to leave the city and--no matter how much money you give to the schools--there will be no real demand for good services. And government will continue to respond accordingly.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 02:41 PMFor what it's worth.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 02:54 PMWhat happened, you quit reading after his second sentence?
Posted by: ajopalm on November 22, 2006 04:08 PMOne would hope that they would see that educating the next generation of citizens is a worthwhile and necessary project.
True, there has been some middle-class flight from Seattle, but don't forget that there's much more to Seattle than Queen Anne and Madrona--there are plenty of middle-class and minority families scattered throughout and in the south and central areas. And they don't have the luxury of opting out of the public school system.
I've been watching Seattle public schools for some time and the teachers and principals are doing an amazing job considering how spare their resources are. There are some great schools in the system, and a student with involved parents and self-motivation can get a great education at Garfield, Roosevelt, or other high schools in the system. Definitely, the district has a leadership vacuum right now, and they've done a poor job selling what works about Seattle schools to the public. They've had to make tough closure choices (both because of declining enrollment and Tim Eyman's tax cuts) but now the district is actually in the black.
And actually, DJ, families aren't leaving the city, it's just that a bigger percentage that can afford it are sending their kids to private schools.
Why are housing prices high in Seattle? It has nothing to do with taxes but with supply and demand--Seattle is still a very desirable place to live for a lot of people. I happen to know a heck of a lot of middle class families in Seattle, and we like the idea of a city that gets people into transit, that encourages people to walk and bike to their schools rather than hopping in a Hummer.
Listen, we need accountability with teachers and principals, for sure. But we also need to fund our schools properly if we expect to get results. You don't see the military reduced to bake sales--how do you build a strong military? By hiring good people, running an efficient organization and yes, paying good money for it. Can't get somethin for nuthin.
And for what it's worth, Huckleberry, you sound like a real asshole!
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 04:12 PMLook, if I could get the US Census site to work, I'd send you the link showing that the number of children in Seattle, as a percentage of the population, is going down. And, I'm sorry, but affordable family homes in the city are scarce: people have to look in places like White Center and the Ranier Valley. Which, you may have heard, aren't exactly the safest neighborhoods.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 04:23 PMYes, statistically, the city doesn't have as many families with children as it used to, but you'll find that demographic trend in many urban areas. Still, there are plenty of middle class families in Seattle, including the CD, Columbia City, Seward Park and West Seattle. And these families and families throughout Washington need good public schools. And yet Washington ranks 47th in the nation in terms of class size.
Posted by: androo on November 22, 2006 04:41 PMHere's that census data I was thinking of:
Seattle's population grew by 9 percent between 1990 and 2000, but the number of children under 5 years of age fell by 10 percent. The number of children ages 5 to 9 rose 2.6 percent during the decade; those 10 to 14 increased by 17 percent; and teens 15 to 19 expanded by 16 percent. Overall, children and teens comprised about one (0.7) percent less of Seattle's population in 2000 than they did in 1990.
Sounds like most people with babies find Seattle about as hospitable as I do. Androo and his friends can gush on and on about how wonderful Burke-Gilman is and how awful--AWFUL--those Hummers are. I hope they're not as shocked as Nicole is when they look around in 15 years and finally notice that Seattle is for grown-ups.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 04:43 PMI agree that it's not in the US constitution, and I still count as Reagan's primary failing the continued existence of the Department of Education. Doesn't belong at the Federal level.
Posted by: mark on November 22, 2006 04:50 PMThere is a one word fix for this problem:
Vouchers.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 22, 2006 05:42 PMI as a grade schooler I questioned why a percentage of these proceeds were not invested in a trust that would yield untold millions in the future.
When "progressives" devistated the timber industry this source of money slowed considerably and since not even five percent of the take per year had been invested they then turned to other sources of revenue.
These people are pathetic miserable marxist failures who have no concept of responsible stewardship of public monies or the fact that money invested in a market economy has value.
Is it any wonder they are also incompetent when it comes to educating childeren?
When in college I tutored many graduates of Washington's "education system" who could not pass Math 101 to get an AA degree. I used techniques that were in vogue back in the "dark ages" (pre 1960's) to get results where others failed. Repetition and rote.
All I have to say is when you employ as teachers people that predominantly come from a culture that worships failure (the left) you are bound to experience results like this.
Posted by: JDH on November 22, 2006 06:45 PMSeems the progressive Seattle MSM may be emerging from their fugue state.
Posted by: Organization Man on November 22, 2006 07:31 PMActually that's sort of true. The deliberately limited supply of housing created by the sacred (to 'progressives') and antidemocratic Growth Management Act has forced prices in-city through the roof. How? Home buyers preferred (and still do, if you ask them) a suburban single-family home for raising children instead of an urban apartment, and when land could freely be subdivided for building purposes such homes were affordable by the buyers own standards, even counting commuting costs.
Enter GMA, pride of the 'progressives'. In one stroke it abolished the free market in housing, ended the buyers' freedom of choice of a reasonably priced suburban home (for 'progressives', freedom of choice is limited to what gender you marry, and of course when you can choose abortions). The artificially imposed scarcity, an an area with a steady inflow of immigrants domestic and foreign, caused all housing prices to skyrocket - resulting in a bonanza for local governments, whose property tax revenues did likewise since they didn't change the levy rates. Said local governments remain shameless on two counts.
One: despite that bonanza, they snivel for more taxes. That's why it's sort of true that 'it has nothing to do with taxes' - gummint is rolling in them already.
Two: GMA announces that there 'shall be affordable housing' - and makes no provision for providing it, physically. It's left to those local governments to extort money from builders in the permitting process, as a token. Nobody really meant 'affordable' to all the low-income (let alone the average) families - that was just a neat Orwellian touch by the Legislature to make it sound good.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on November 22, 2006 09:03 PMAs for all the kids stuck in the "poor" south end schools, Rainier Beach has one of the highest per pupil costs in the district and one of the worst academic performances. Plus, check out any north end school and you will see that busing is alive and well. I suffered with the system for 9 miserable years. I wouldn't recommend the Seattle schools to anyone who truly cares about their child's education.
Ms. Brodeur suffers from the usual moonbat disease on not being able to see that their "progressive" ideas are responsible for the crappy school system. She will spend the rest of her days convinced that these ideas will work if only there was a bit more money, smaller class sizes, more teachers, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, she chooses to send her kids to schools that aren't quite so progressive. Typical limo liberal hypocrite.
Posted by: Burdabee on November 22, 2006 09:04 PMGranted, declining enrollment also plays a role, but not so much as past malfeasance by public employees. And Tim Eyman is not a public employee.
And although I may not follow every action taken by the SSD Board, it is my understanding they they chickened out on taking real action - making the tough choices. Probably because they want to get re-elected?
I am also a grad of a private school (Blanchet 1984), and my family is not, and was not, rich by any measure of that word. My father, an immigrant from Spain, died before I went to high school, so my mom had to pay for both me and my brother. She was able to do this by sacrificing her needs on our behalf. There was no way she was going to let us go to public schools because she knew that our education would suffer.
Many private schools offer tuition assistance to people who would not regularly be able to afford to send their kids there. If this were publicized a bit more, I do not think you would see many people claiming that they cannot opt out of the public school system. But it still requires sacrifice, which many adults are not willing to do for their kids. Yes, I am saying that it is THEIR CHOICE!
Also, did you ever serve in the military? I did during the late 1980's and I can tell you that $400 a month was not good pay then. Although I believe that a lower enlisted makes more than that these days, I wouldn't exactly call it "good money." Many people join out of a sense of duty, not because they are going to make a great paycheck.
Posted by: Michael H on November 22, 2006 09:06 PMI have mine ordered and it shipped two days ago, wish it had got here before the holiday!!
Posted by: JDH on November 22, 2006 09:26 PMA few years ago, an old college pal who is now a superintendant told me an interesting fact about his district. The school age kids of a beginning teacher (2 kids and wife) get federally subsidized hot lunches @ school. Welfare, in other words. The wages are so crappy that we give welfare to teacher families. Then we blather about teaching. Geniuses we are not.
I have the teaching certificate and the 5th-year and would be a FOOL to go back there. I make signicantly more than is POSSIBLE in public K-12 education and the extra special added bonus is that I don't have to deal with stoopud parents.
This alone is worth about 10 grand, by the way.
Not to mention our tax structure. If one honestly looks at the tax burden, we are about 28th. Total tax with respect to total income puts us 28th, making us a LOW TAX state.
I fully realize that this violates an article of faith for some of you goofuses, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Posted by: Jim on November 22, 2006 10:13 PMI assume that most of the posters here are at least 18, probably older. Sometimes, one wouldn't know it, but they have graduated or got a GED.
The people who deserve competition in the education system are the children.
My doctorate is in education and I am not railing about taxes. What I question is whether the public is getting value for the dollars currently spent. The question is whether different school options can produce a better education for the same dollars.
If education is to be considered a profession, there are certain attributes of a profession such as autonomy of work, ability to set professional fees, and a body of knowledge related to the profession. What you are discussing is a salary schedule. Suppose a charter school, for example, is allowed to hire and fire all its personnel and set the salary level. Some teachers could make considerably more than a set salary currently mandated, particularly if they produce measurable education results in their students. It appears that your comments are directed at the status quo.
Competition would likely produce different school models and force schools to compete for students on the basis of education results.
You believed the schools need adequate funding.
What's your take on why the Kansas City, MO, 1986-2001 experiment failed?
(hint: It wasn't for lack of money.)
Posted by: Sandy P on November 22, 2006 10:51 PMThey can't actually see the rational disconnect from what they believe as political religious faith and how it results in real-world application. I suppose somewhere in the writings of Chomsky, Keynes, Marx, Steinhem, Hillary Clinton or Stalin they will search to find out what they did "wrong" in the application of their loser faith.
Posted by: H Moul on November 23, 2006 07:30 AMthe school mascot for Seattle System is an ostrich with head in sand. across its arse is (graffitti--excuse me--art) "for the children"
and Edmonds Dan thru post 8 has is nailed--my classes were about 30. no problems. all learned. private school run on a shoestring. no bureaucrats, ESL, diversity or "para-anythings" clogging the process or living off us like remoras on sharks.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 23, 2006 08:31 AMIf you can't flunk out, then why burden yourself with actually learning this 'stuff'? An attitude which then carries over into 'adult' life.
Posted by: Peter on November 23, 2006 10:00 AMNo, actually it's the performance of the school district that has fueled the lack of confidence in the school district.
At least she acknowledges there's a problem. That's some kind of progress.
I think this shows a lack of commitment on Nicole's part to progressive principles...or is there perhaps an ugly underside to "progressive principles?"
Nicole's position, which she holds in common with many progressives (and teachers), is that the quality of schooling she demands for her own children is much higher than the standard she's willing to sentence poorer families to.
That may be "Progressive," but it surely isn't progressive. This is just one of the many internal inconsistencies in "progressive" thought.
Posted by: South County on November 23, 2006 11:01 AMBe that as it may, my sister works for a Christian school and for high school students, they charge $8400 per student tuition. Grade school and elementary is less per. She says that their costs are higher than others because they have many teachers that have been there a long time so they are at the highest pay scale. 2/3 of the cost of teaching a student at her school is teacher's pay. They do not have strikes and no teachers leave to teach at a public school.
Contrary to what the teacher's union flaks say, they also accept kids with learning disabilities. The mother of the latest learning disabled kid says her son has never loved going to school so much as now and is doing better, learning wise, than he ever has.
Public schools are broken and no amount of new programs are going to help. As students flee to private schools it will only get worse. By the time a new program to improve learning is initiated, run its course and evaluated another generation goes untaught and unable to make change at the local McDonalds. When will this madness end?
Posted by: jimg on November 22, 2006 02:04 PM
And the solution is obviously staying WITH government monopoly of public education. Lets stick with what DOESN'T work and hope for something to miraculously change... that's your solution?
Never ceases to amaze me when people are resistant to change when things can't possibly get worse and there is no hope in sight. What are you afraid of? It can't get any worse... and even if it did..you can always go back to the old not working system anyway. Trying something and failing in a different way is better than trying nothing and assuring failure.
Posted by: Troll on November 25, 2006 09:13 AMEstablish a few regional schools around the city for motivated students. Students are enrolled in the school on a self-selected basis. You can enroll your child in the program by choice - no tests required, no student rejected, no charges of elitism or racism possible. English Language Learners, special education students, homeless students, students working several grade levels behind, students of all stripes are welcome without prior restraint.
The students sign a pledge to complete their assignments in a timely manner and to adhere to a code of conduct, essentially agreeing to do their work without being disruptive. The families sign a pledge as well, agreeing to a minimum level of involvement and support for their child (checking homework, getting them to school, attending conferences with the teacher, responding to school communications). Students or families that don't meet their commitment are dropped from the program with a minimum of process.
I don't think such a program would have any trouble recruiting teachers, in fact it would probably have its pick from a large pool of applicants.
I would imagine that these schools would be able to offer an advanced curriculum similar to what is now found in the Spectrum program, if not APP. Because the schools are delivering strong academic results, they could compete with the private schools for students.
I would imagine that the families at these schools would strongly support the school with volunteer hours, financial contributions, and advocacy. They will probably want to take a significant role in the school's leadership and decisionmaking.
Since no student is turned away, I have no trouble imagining this program becoming very popular and growing and spreading to additional buildings, thereby improving access to the program for students all around the District.
Yes, some families won't choose to enroll their children in this program for a number of reasons. They may prefer a different model. They may not think that their child is ready and able to succeed with the rigorous curriculum. They may not think that either they or their child could comply with the agreement. Whatever. The program would not be for everyone. There will continue to be regular school programs and alternative school programs for those other students. Yes, a lot of students will be dropped from this program - but they would be free to re-enter it at the start of the year after spending a full school year outside the program.
Imagine all of this happening within the public school system in Seattle. It shouldn't be hard. The model really isn't that different from TOPS. Students from TOPS arrive at Washington or Garfield ready to do the same work as Spectrum or APP students. The TOPS curriculum isn't really all that "alternative". What if the District had responded to the long wait list for TOPS by duplicating it in additional locations around the city?
It wouldn't be hard to imagine that the regular program would have a significantly higher concentration of the disruptive students, the poorly supported students, and the unmotivated students. In fact, one could imagine this program creating a clear gap between students who get the best that the public schools can provide and students who are managed more than educated. That might seem inequitable, but each person gets to choose which of those groups they want to be in.
This would undoubtedly be a successful model. It would also be pretty inexpensive to provide. Well-behaved students can be taught effectively in larger classes. That would free up funding to provide small classes for the students in the regular program.
I put this to the readers of this blog, then I will share the idea with a blog that is the political polar opposite of this one and see what they say.
Posted by: Charlie Mas on November 27, 2006 11:52 PMFirst of all, public schools are required, by law, to serve a great number of students that private schools either would not accept or would not retain. The severely physically handicapped cost a dear fortune to keep in school, as do the behaviorally challenged, registered level 3 sex offenders, and others. The cost of educating these students skews the average like crazy.
The amount allocated to a Seattle school for a full time student in grades 6-12 is about $3,000.
Private school tuition often does not include books, transportation, various fees, expected donations, assessments, capital campaigns, or other little nickel and dime stuff that adds up.
If you must make these comparisons, please include ALL comparable expenses on the private education side and deduct from the public education side all of the expenses related to students that the private schools would either not accept or not retain.
If you do, I think you will find that public education is a great bargain.
Posted by: Charlie Mas on November 28, 2006 12:04 AMThe regional school proposal you have described sounds like a great idea, and in fact, has been created in many different school districts around the country, and even in the Puget Sound region. They all have the same life cycle...
1) Motivated parents demand a productive school
2) School board says, fine, you do it yourself
3) Parents and teachers create model school
4) Model school outperforms other schools
5) Charges of elitism arise
6) District administrators realize that not all students are receiving equal outcomes
7) District administrators disrupt model school
8) Model school collapses
The disaffected will always find a way to destroy systems that work, as long as they have progressive advocates working on their behalf. What you propose will work great, until it rises above the radar of The Equalizers, who will then destroy it.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 10:01 AM0.75 * $3000 + 0.25 * A = $10,000
This yields,
A = $31,000
If this model is at all accurate, you are spending ten times the amount of "typical" students to educate the "problem" students. Is that fair? Is that wise? You must remember that no matter how much you wish it did not, school priorities do come down to a question of dollars.
Also, if you have kids in government schools, you will no that there are many fees associated with the program that are not covered by the "free tuition". It is true that many of those fees are optional or subsidized, but I disagree that you should tally them for private schools, and ignore them for government schools. Also, you need to take a look at the amount of money raised and spent by the "Friends of The School" organizations and PTA's.