In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 196
Online now 149 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Make it illegal to discriminate based on race or economic status. Test scores would be ok, and behavior factors.
Now the poor kids who come from families who don't care all that much would still get a shitty education, but for poor kids who come from families who make their childs education a priority, they would absofuckinglutely benefit from a voucher program.
IMO many poor students would be better off in small groups with a teacher/older student/babysitter and just use Kahn academy to learn. If all you do is decrease the distractions you are winning half the battle right there.
This post was edited by MJRuffalo 2 years ago
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
The single best predictor of test scores is socio-economic status of a kid's parents. The way to get better overall education is to break cycles of poverty by dealing with adult illiteracy, more economic security for working class families, attacking poverty. Messing around the structures does little to raise standards.
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
That is somewhat of a chicken and egg argument though. I just believe that poor students would learn more given a very small group (3-5) students, one person to help keep them on task, and using Kahn academy. Certainly much better than trying to learn while in a gang and crime infested school.
As my Russian immigrant Geometry teacher told us my Soph year in high school, don't let schooling interfere with your education.
Peer effects is a statistically significant variable in terms of student test scores too. Class sizes can be too high and also too low. Actually the first thinker on this was the Jewish philosopher Maimonides.
Small class sizes also cost a bunch in terms of extra teachers, more class rooms etc.
true, but under a voucher system, if each kid gets say 7k a year. You will have more stay at home moms with college degrees able to teach their children + 2-3 of the neighbor's children. With the amount of free online resources it really does not take much to lead a class.
You get a voucher and an opportunity to choose which prison where you'd like to be abused. Selection criteria includes the rancidness of the food, customer service from the guards, and most importantly, cellmate mentality. You get a choice between b*tch or bubba.
Um, I take it you're not aware that a number of school voucher programs use a lottery system to select incoming students - Including Washington DC.
It appears that you Libs are of the mindset that if you can't save the entire world, none of the world is worth saving.
While Obama ups the subsidy on the Chevy volt to $10,000 per car, he cuts funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (Voucher program)... In spite of stating he wouldn't send his own children to a DC public school,
"According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had an 82 percent graduation rate."
Factoid to chew on for a while: "82 percent of students offered scholarships received a high school diploma, compared to 70 percent of those who applied but were not offered scholarships. This graduation rate improvement also held for the subgroup of OSP students who came from "schools in need of improvement."
A U.S. Education Department study released yesterday found that District students who were given vouchers to attend private schools outperformed public school peers on reading tests, findings likely to reignite debate over the fate of the controversial program. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, was created by a Republican-led Congress in 2004 to help students from low-income families. Congress has cut off federal funding after the 2009-10 school year unless lawmakers vote to reauthorize it.
Overall, the study found that students who used the vouchers received reading scores that placed them nearly four months ahead of peers who remained in public school. However, as a group, students who had been in the lowest-performing public schools did not show those gains. There was no difference in math performance between the groups. ...
A report finds that children receiving vouchers to attend D.C. private schools have made modest gains in reading but no progress on math scores.
Evaluation of the Impact of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report
Did you even read the article? It started off busting Obama for his customary doubletalk about not teaching to the test, but rewarding the teachers who do best and removing the ones who aren't helping the kids to learn.
And how is one to determine those teachers who are to be rewarded? Of course, by the high test scores their students produce. Do you think the all powerful teachers union is going to allow low achieving teachers to be fired?
Using Finland as a model that should be emulated and implemented in the United States is misguided. While the article laments poverty as being the primary contributor to low achieving students, do you think Finland faces that same problem on a widespread basis?
The author presents nothing more than academic psychobabble that's not rooted in reality. After all, how many college students do you know that would be willing to earn a master's degree for the right to earn $30,000 upon completion in order to teach?
"But no matter how admired the teaching profession becomes, our society must do much more to reduce poverty and to improve the lives of children and families."
When Lyndon Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate was at 19%. Since then,The US has spent nearly $15 Trillion fighting poverty, and the poverty rate is still at 15%.
How much more do you expect the government should be expected do to reduce poverty that it already hasn't done?
And I think it would. At the very least it would give parents a choice in where they send their kids. That is a luxury wealthy folks have right now that poor folks do not. I don't see how giving parents choice and forcing schools to compete is a bad thing. At the very least, I'm certain it couldn't be worse.
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager
MJRuff, you're demonstrating far too much logic and common sense here. You cannot work for the government.
Why would they not. I see a very wide variety of businesses opening up private schools, many with innovative and classic ways to help poor students just as much as rich kids excel, and as they do, they will get people wanting to send their kids to that school. You make the assumption that private schools only care about making maximum money, when in reality, many great private schools out there are doing it on relative shoe-string budgets for the passion of what they do. Our kids' private school is the cheapest private school in our area, and yet every teacher has her masters and are phenomenal teachers, and our kids greatly exceed the test scores of all public schools, and I believe all but one other private school. The school also has big fund raisers to help with scholarships for other kids who can't afford the tuition. Should vouchers come about, you can be sure they would not turn away poor kids. The school does require parent involvement, which is a great thing, and every poor parent could absolutely find ways to participate with their time.
Absolutely. You will also see a lot of very efficient situations where people use even a single space in a strip mall or possibly industrial flex buildings to teach very small "schools", in such cases, you don't need any administration, janitorial, etc.
But c'mon folks...if these kids went to a private school, where would they get their early childhood indoctrination?
You have to have absoultely no real world perspective to deny that the above is the rule. I don't even have kids and I know this as fact. I also know that the public schools in my neighborhood are very good and they can compete with any private school.
Your point about the public schools in your neighborhood are great is a good one, and one that deserves more discussion. I believe the overwhelming majority of teachers in both public and private schools are great. When given a chance, many public schools truly excel, and can be truly competitive with private schools. Some of the issues that hold them back relate to areas where sociologically, parent involvement is limited, over-crowded schools, and poor school policy and administration. Some of the biggest problems arise from elevated costs, many of which are created by unions, which may limit the number of schools operated (leading to over-crowding), as well as poor policy.
We would have sent our kids to our public school, but found that there were 5 1st grade classes, each with 28-30 kids, many with English as a second language, which is an absurd situation to have. We have sacrificed greatly to send our kids to a private school, but know it has been the right call, given the development of our children.
greg, it blows my mind that peopel would be against parents having choice and schools having to compete. I don't even have kids but my money is being used and I want parents to take responsibility for their children and make choices about their education. The idea that government bureacrats boggles my mind. How this has become a partisan thing too is mind blowing. I thought us cons hated poor people but here we are trying to provide more options for the poor and it's the libs who are blocking it. I guess pandering to unions is more important than education children
Fact of the matter, teachers don't generally go into teaching for the money, and therefore, there are many ways for great innovation and cost savings to go along with 1st rate education. I'm not a big fan of home schooling, as I believe the socializing of the kids is very important, very notably that kids need to start dealing with kids that are not like them, and kids they may not even like, and the same goes for dealing with differing teachers, rather than just your parent. There is more to education then math, english, history, and science, and having to deal with adverse situations is one great example of something learned in more conventional school settings.
But I believe small classes are very important, and I believe a voucher system would result in incredible diversity and opportunities for all kids. I believe there are a great number of people who would love to teach, even at what public school teachers believe to be unacceptable wages. We already see it with existing private schools. When you see the combination of quality people and low wages that private school teachers get, it is pretty inescapable truth. Now, with a voucher system, you would actually see the most deserving get more money, though, and you might actually start attracting some that would be good for children that do not go into teaching because of the money. Personally, I would like to see more men teaching (certainly does not have to be any where near a majority, but just to have more), but right now, it is not a common situation because the overall wages of teachers are too low (my kids' school has no men teaching, and I don't like that). I believe in a voucher system, you would possibly see some more men teaching, as there would be the opportunity for the best to make more money, and I believe many men have that belief they will be the "best".
Once these conversations get started, it often seems to me that conservatives really don't like voucher programs as much as they claim to.....especially when we're talking about how those vouchers would be used by the kids that need them most.
What in the Wide Wide World of Sports are you talking about? I LOVE the idea of moving over to a voucher system. I much prefer it to Charter schools, too.
I don't see the problem of vouchers personally. Poor kids can go to private schools, even better.
There's a real slur that can't be substantiated.
Par for the course.
The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.
the thing is I want all kids to have choices, not just poor or rich or middle class. Vouchers for everybody is what is the most fair. You seem to be acknowledging vouchers are good (hence the phrase kids who need them), so wouldn't you want everybody to have them?
but wouldn't more private schools pop up for the demand?
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I still tend to believe that parents and kids both want schools in their neighborhood, and that said desire will be a bigger factor in determining whether Oaks Christian -- to name one -- takes voucher students from the Crenshaw area.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim, evidence that takes into account these other variables?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports