Today's P-I editorial says "Trust the voters"
we're left wondering: Whatever became of the idea that representative democracy is the essential starting point for public education, not an inconvenience to be pushed aside?Whatever became of the idea? It failed. Representative democracy might be the least bad way to, say, make city zoning and national security decisions, but it's a fundamentally silly way to run a service business. As a parent, I don't "trust the voters" to tell my kids' teachers how to do their jobs. Some people might enjoy delegating decisions about their children's schools to total strangers, while others might simply be satisfied with their neighborhood school. But if roughly the wealthiest 25% of Seattle's withered cohort of schoolkids are not in "trust the voters" schools, that is one clue that "trust the voters" is not the best strategy for producing educational excellence. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 01, 2006 12:14 AM | Email This
1) You write: Whatever became of the idea? It failed. But the P-I editorial asked that question rhetorically and then provided evidence that the idea didn't fail. You ignore their evidence.
2) You write: Some people might enjoy delegating decisions about their children's schools to total strangers. No, they're not total strangers. They're the people we elected to represent us.
3) You write: If roughly the wealthiest 25% of Seattle's withered cohort of schoolkids are not in "trust the voters" schools, that is one clue that "trust the voters" is not the best strategy for producing educational excellence. More likely, it's a sign that those voters believe that spending more money per student (especially for students who are less expensive to educate) will pay off. And, of course, some of those parents also want a religion-centered education.
Posted by: Bruce on December 1, 2006 01:03 AMWe seem to be following each other. I just responded to your last comment. How do you know parents are spending more? A couple of posters have indicated they are spending about $6,000 for an education which they are satisfied with. I'm sure that some go to Bush and Lakeside, but not all.
How do you define representative? Is representative a board member or would representative be considered to be local, like the governing board of a neighborhood school where a parent might have actual input. Is there value to neighborhood schools and decision-making being placed there?
I guess I am asking what evidence do you have that spending more money will provide higher achievement in basic education for a majority of students enrolled in the current public school system? Evidence?
You skipped right over Stefan's Big Lie: that public education is a "service business."
Public education is, has been, and will be, a legitimate function of government and an entitlement for every child in this state, should their parents choose to avail themselves of it.
Either way, they will pay. Despite all the "cacophony of kaka" you read on this blog, that isn't going to change in this state.
That fact should sink in eventually, even to Stefan and to the members of his ever-dwindling little cult. They'll be back to al-Qaeda under their beds soon.
Posted by: ivan on December 1, 2006 06:55 AMWould you give your opinion on the following two questions?
1. Regarding vouchers to religious schools or a charter sponsored by a religious school. If a parochial school, the Catholic schools for example or Zion Prep does an excellent job of educating a poor child who has come from a failing school, do you object simply because the child is going to a religious school?
2. So, what is it with you - is a successful charter that educates all its children prohibited because it may choose not to have a union? Is union membership mandatory in all education situations other than a totally privately funded school?
Your opinion is appreciated.
Posted by WVH at November 30, 2006 10:42 AM
1. What is an excellent job, and who is to decide? What is a failing school, and who is to decide?
There is a difference between what parents decide the situation is for their children, and what the taxpayers of this state decide public policy should be.
The taxpayers in WA have made it pretty darned clear that untill this question is answered at the policy level by the State Legislature, that there will be no vouchers for private or religious education, period. Certainly that is my position. It is the position of the vast majority of WA taxpayers, and it is not likely to change.
2. Whether a charter school has a teachers union or not is up to the teachers, and not up to the administrators or any "charter district." There aren't going to be publicly funded charter schools or "charter districts" in this state anyway, so it is a moot point.
Posted by: ivan on December 1, 2006 08:17 AMA failing school is defined in the "No Child Left Behind" Legislation. Charters sure scare the heck of you. This other definition should appeal to you as a secular progressive. You know the definiton about porn, the court says it knows it when it sees it. Another definition of a failing school is a parent knows it when they see it. Too bad you care more about your ideology and not in giving poor children a chance at a decent education.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2006 08:33 AMThis is the crux of the issue, but a poorly understood one.
It is in the public interest to assure that all citizens have a fundemental grasp of literacy, numeracy and codes of social conduct.
This is the justification for jailing young people who fail to attend schools.
But does it justify spending money on anything someone can describe as "education"? Swimming lessons? pottery classes? Balloon rides? Law degrees?
And does it justify one particular method of delivery? If the point is to assure core skills, then perhaps we should have compulsory education for anyone who doesn't speak the language and release youngsters who can demonstrate all necessary competencies.
but instead, we focus on the monolithic institutions and allow them to describe what education needs. If we can correctly identify what the POINT of public education is, figuring out what is excess to be funded some other way and what should be flush with funds should be much easier.
Oh, and Ivan, the voters have also made it clear that even a "one percent" (sic) tax increase for education is unacceptable.
Posted by: knowsabit on December 1, 2006 08:48 AMIt is no different to a parent giving money to a church and the government not taxing that money. That is also not an endorsement of that church.
Posted by: Right said Fred on December 1, 2006 08:50 AM1. I do not accept the guidelines of Bush's NCLB.
2. I oppose charters but I do not do so out of fear.
3. I am not a "progressive."
Got that?
Now. I agree that parents are the best judges of whether schools are delivering for their children. It is a long, long leap from that notion to the notion that therefore there should be public funding of private or religious education. Just because you think it is cut and dried does not make it so.
Posted by: ivan on December 1, 2006 08:57 AMAnd as I said in #14, the religious school argument is a red herring.
Posted by: Right said Fred on December 1, 2006 09:08 AMBut our choices are either going to be a government-crafted set of expectations or empowering parents to shop around.
Any government expectation is going to be tainted with ideology or catering to concentrated benefactors like employee groups.
Even if you don't like Bush's NCLB expectation (make gains every year for poor minority students as well as rich white kids), the Gregoire-loaded State Board of Education will soon adopt a paralell set of expectations. These will doubtless also have flaws.
Empowering parents means trusting that their choices really will reward those meeting the public interest and penalize those who do not. Its that last part that makes this option unacceptable to the education monolith which chooses to believe that all cogs in the machine are doing equally excellent work.
Posted by: knowsabit on December 1, 2006 09:13 AMThe PI's editorialists are trumpeting the virtues of representative democracy. Yet two days ago they were waxing enthusiastic over everything the political appointees on Sound Transit's board do. Why the incongruity? Sound Transit paid the JOA partners close to a million bucks in the past two years. Plus, with the ST2 vote coming up, the PI wants ST to know that lots more $$$ will be needed to keep the good ink flowing . . ..
I am only mildly interested in what the wealthiest 25% do about their children's education. What I find fascinating is the signifiant percentage (over 35% if memory serves) of teachers who do not put their children in "trust the voter schools."
As for evaluating the results...just ask any employer.
That is the biggest advantage of non-public schools, they can kick out problem students, they can restrict freedom of speech, they can clamp down a heck of a lot more than public schools are allowed to do. Seize control of the legislature and change some laws to allow our school administration to do what they need to do.
The best use of a charter school would be to use it as a place to send the problem students. That would give them a needed route to a better public education and would be a good start to improve the education of the rest of the children at the public schools.
Posted by: Doug on December 1, 2006 11:08 AMI wouldn't exactly say that public schools don't restrict freedom of speech. Kids not allowed to talk about God...
Posted by: Right said Fred on December 1, 2006 11:19 AMWe need to get beyound this and look at what delivery options are best for our kids, not the adults. All the data indicates that a giant, bureaucratic, unionized model is not the best option.
Posted by: BornRight on December 1, 2006 11:55 AMIf you look at some of the surveys around you will likely find that the general population would value smaller class sizes the highest, followed by teacher quality, when determining whether or not to have their kids in a private school or whether to go back to a public school if those things are corrected.
It seems to me that the legislature has complete power to address the main issues that would bring back students from those parents who didn't send their kids to private schools based on moral or religious reasoning.
The smaller class size reasoning is of course grounded in the unions hammering the general public on how much better it is to have small class sizes, as well as the part of quality teachers dealing with teacher training.
I don't remember when it was done or the exact facts but I remember one survey done by a Rhode Island college that showed that smaller class sizes, better teachers and a safer environment would make most of the parents move their kids back to public schools. That is except for those parents who no matter what the schools do won't let their kids in a public school for religious or moral reasons.
Posted by: Doug on December 1, 2006 12:24 PMSpecifically, what don't you accept about the definition of a failing school? Cite specific examples?
What is your specific definition of a successful school? What elements are you looking at specifically?
What is your definition of a failing school? Define the elements specifically?
2. I oppose charters but I do not do so out of fear.
Why, specifically do you oppose charters?
Would you oppose a charter school district where every school is allocated a per pupil amount and how they use it to achieve basic education in their population of students as defined by the RCW is up to them? If so, specifically, why?
3. I am not a "progressive."
We finally found something that we both can agree upon.
I await your response.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2006 02:25 PMAnd should we trust voters that have pushed this state into almost total single party control? By the rhetoric we heard from the left regarding Republicans at the National Level, apparently not.
The message? Single party control is OK, as long as it comes from the left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 1, 2006 04:56 PMDid you really answer Anita's question? You selected the most expensive schools. Is that a fair comparison? I don't know all the available private secular schools, but wouldn't a fairer comparison be an average of the cost for all available choices?
Also, do you have a response to #33, the questions I asked Ivan?
Class is a very tricky issue in America, especially when it is added to racial issues. Hip Hop culture, unless you are P. Diddy and JayZ is a ticket to nowhere, possibly even death. Doug and Organization Man are stating that they want their progeny to learn the values and skills which will make them successful in this economic system, not some socialism utopia, and the culture of achievement. You probably wouldn't be surprised that many upwardly mobile parents of color feel the same way. In my opinion, the current school insitution system is not going to mainstream these kids into the cultural understanding they need to be successful in this society. All Doug and Organization Man have stated is what the Clintons and Gore understood when they moved Chelsea and the Gore kids into private schools in DC. After all, they lived in very big houses in the district. One thing a charter school might do is to allow mentor and volunteers from the neighborhood pass on life skills to kids who need them. People seem to take more ownership in a neighborhood school.
Thanks for the response. I agree with WVH's comments about the schools you listed. An average of all private schools would be interesting. Also I'm wondering about the basis of your comment "non-religious private schools I've heard of around here spend much more per student than public schools." Is this based upon tuition costs or do you have knowledge of the private schools' actual operating costs?
And just what are those private schools spending "much more" on? Looking at the curriculums and programs of some of the schools you listed there are quite a few things one might deem "luxury" which are included in the tuitions, or perhaps "much more" expenditures.
Private schools are required to provide the same basic curriculum as public schools to meet state standards. How a private school strives to "enrich" its program and how parents of those private school students desire to pay for that "enrichment" may not be a prudent comparison of public vs. private school expenditures per student.
Posted by: Anita on December 2, 2006 09:12 AM