"Failing schools" and vouchers

[funjumper101 15]

I work for a public school district. I have for almost nine years. Before that I spent a long time in SiliValley. Working at a school district has been a real eye opener. Now that I know a lot more about how public schools really operate, I have to say that their is a lot of room for improvement. However...

Can some of you fervent supporters of school vouchers and using government funds for private schools answer a simple question? It is a really easy question.

How does reducing the resources available to a "failing school" improve the situation?

In other words, if a school is "failing", how does reducing the amount of money and training available for the staff improve things?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I work for a public school district. I have for almost nine years. Before that I spent a long time in SiliValley. Working at a school district has been a real eye opener. Now that I know a lot more about how public schools really operate, I have to say that their is a lot of room for improvement. However...

Can some of you fervent supporters of school vouchers and using government funds for private schools answer a simple question? It is a really easy question.

How does reducing the resources available to a "failing school" improve the situation?

In other words, if a school is "failing", how does reducing the amount of money and training available for the staff improve things?

I can not answer you question directly but I can add these obervations

1) The US throws more money at students than most other countries in the world. It has not helped.

2) Private schools teachers are acountable to the parents of the students. If they are bad teachers then they are fired. They are not protected by what ever union or tenure bs they enjoy in the public sector.

3) Poorer students would have a better chance ot going to a non-failing school if they could get the money. Vouchhers would give them a better chance at a choice.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jm951 0]

Simple solution to a bad school, abolish the NEA union. Bad teachers could be fired. Past that, the only choice for many is to change schools. That's very cost prohibitive for most parents in the troubled systems. Vouchers would be the only way to allow them to get their kids to a good education. One note on the voucher thing, parents who avail themselves of it for their kids are paying attention to what's going on at the school and are determined to make sure the kids get a good education.

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

I work for a public school district. I have for almost nine years. Before that I spent a long time in SiliValley. Working at a school district has been a real eye opener. Now that I know a lot more about how public schools really operate, I have to say that their is a lot of room for improvement. However...

Can some of you fervent supporters of school vouchers and using government funds for private schools answer a simple question? It is a really easy question.

How does reducing the resources available to a "failing school" improve the situation?

In other words, if a school is "failing", how does reducing the amount of money and training available for the staff improve things?

I have to agree with Rushmc. Having just come out of years of Public School in Florida I can recognize that there are plenty of shitty and horrible teachers out there that for some reason are allowed to still teach. And I was at an "A" school in all of middle and high school.

At my "A" school I would guess that maybe half of the teachers were competent enough to teach at the high school level, this was at a high school with 5000+ students and hundreds of faculty.

I cant imagine being at a failing school. The education must be deplorable. After years and years of giving money and grants to failing schools only to have it squandered on hiring shitty teachers hasn't helped then maybe it is time for the government to recognize the failures of the public education system and allow students at failing schools to get vouchers so they can attend private schools where the teachers are at least held accountable for their teaching.

I dont think Vouchers are a long term answer to America's education problem. However, for the short term, they do allow students in failing schools at least a shot at some form of satisfactory higher education. Clearly just throwing money at failing schools has yet to work. An overhaul of the education system is what we really need.

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[funjumper101 15]

It is difficult, but not impossible to fire an incompetent/bad teacher.

What is required is proper documentation of the errors and failings, and the proper documentation of failure to correct same.

The administrators are usually too lazy/incompetent to manage professionally, so the bad teachers stay until retirement. There is a funny saying that is painfully true- Those that can, do, Those that can't, teach, those that can't teach, become administrators.

Every day I see teachers that, for whatever reason, are on the bad side of their principals. What happens is that the administrators assign the worst students to the teachers they don't like. This means that the worst students end up together in the same class, with long term bad results.

Think about this - in the private sector, the board of directors for an organization is usually composed of people who have experience in running successful businesses. They have expertise in many areas like HR, budgeting, resource allocation, etc.
In a public school district, the qualification to be a School Board member is that you can win a local election, aka, popularity contest.
In my experience this has far more to do with the success or failure of the schools than the teachers or administrators. Involved parents are the other part of the equation.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How does reducing the resources available to a "failing school" improve the situation?

I think the closing of 'failed (not failing) schools' (as determined the parents of students by being allowed to walk away from it), and the use and growth of "succeeding schools" and the adoption of methods used by "succeeding schools" (again as determined by the PARENTS). Will improve the situation. AND it will put good teachers in HIGHER demand and salaries - as they would then deserve.

I consider the "situation" to be the successful teaching of children, not keeping a particular school alive at all costs even to the detriment of the kiddies.

I don't understand why being allowed to choose your school should only be an option for the rich.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How does reducing the resources available to a "failing school" improve the situation?

Well, in a microcosm, it does not improve the situation for that failing school. The school loses money, has less resources, and fails.

But, in terms of the overall system, it improves the situation. In its simplest form, vouchers merely transfer money. It takes the money from the poorly performing schools and moves it to the better performing schools.

Here's the kicker - not only does the voucher take the money away from the poorly performing school, it takes the KID bearing the voucher away from a poorly performing school to a better performing school! The voucher and the kid are tied together.

The issue comes down to values as to what people find to be important. Do they value schools over education or is education more important than where it is provided?

---

A brief intro to the ridiculousness of school funding in Cali for the rest of you:

Having worked for school districts, you'd know how funding of schools operates in California. For reference, the State of California is funding $45.121 billion for education for the 2007 fiscal year. These revenues come from County assessors collecting property taxes and these taxes being forwarded and pooled in Sacramento. This isn't the only source of revenues - there are hundreds of sources.

Then Sacramento disburses it to school districts via "revenue limits" - the limit of general revenue that a district can get. The "revenue limits" in California are based upon the property taxes and aid from the state general budget. The state calculates revenue limits by ten variables. Add to that the categorical funds, and the system becomes bogged.

Now, the way that revenue limits are calculated is based a lot on historical data, etc., which means that high-growth areas wil not receive the same funding as established places. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of base fundings, which results in little rationality in per pupil funding.

The problem with the funding then moves to issues of where the money goes - about half of it is toward administration instead of educational achievement. LA Unified spends more per student on Supervisor (district - not school level, so principals aren't included) salaries than on textbooks!

This is because the money goes to the districts and not the principals. The school districts do not allocate money to schools - only personnel. The school districts, to avoid any accusations of unfair treatment, assign the personnel based upon district averages. Thus, the school in the barrio would have the same resources as the school in the white suburb, even though their needs are completely different.

This is worst with LA Unified - it's so huge that you cannot administer a system that gives similar treatments to Universal City and Huntington Park. But, the district itself controls asset allocation - not the principals. While the principal may identify the need for another bilingual math teacher to raise math scores, he has no authority to hire one because he has no discretionary budget for personnel - he get swhat the average characteristics give.

---

So, back to the question about vouchers. With vouchers, the money is not designated by a district (I maintain that the worst way to spend money is to spend someone else's money on somebody else) to schools, but instead the money is directed toward the schools that perform the best.

For this to work, the principals MUST be given greater budgetary authority. We cannot have the school districts redistributing the money - it's what messed this up to begin with!

Now, any voucher system that has been proposed has problems. They take years to kick in - 2-5 years of bad reviews. Criteria for failure is not that high, meaning no real good. For example, the states only require improvement to keep them from being failures, which means that if a school only gets a 550 average on the Stanford 9 test (instead of the goal of 800), the present standards would require a 12.5 percent annual increase in scores - something that would take 20 years to reach the standards. I see no reason why vouchers wouldn't fall under this system.

Also, they ARE punitive in nature - unintended conequences would mean that good schools may be graded as failures because the schools would be graded on curves. If the school system is uniformly great, the lowest 1/3 would still be punished.

My solution? Open enrollment with greater budgetary control by the principals. with funding on a weighted student formula that accounts for the individual and local characteristics of the student.

In effect, it will be a voucher, but slightly different. It's simply an issue of educational choie for the parents and the students rather than arbitrary zoning where the kids get what the district gives them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

The administrators are usually too lazy/incompetent to manage professionally, so the bad teachers stay until retirement. There is a funny saying that is painfully true- Those that can, do, Those that can't, teach, those that can't teach, become administrators.

Another factor to how bad teachers get hired and why they stay is the good 'ole boy system. Where I live, the principal and a few of the teachers have their jobs because they're related to the schoolboard members.

There was even a story about how this was a problem with various school districts in the area on the TV news and in the paper. Not a damn thing changed.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Andy9o8 2]

As a big supporter of public schools, I can reconcile myself to parents in really god-awful school districts (like in many inner cities, etc.) wanting vouchers so that they can have some real Choice. That's because the only other choice is to send their kids to The School From Hell, which of course is no real choice at all.

But then there are the parents who live in decent enough school districts, but choose to send their kids to religiously-based parochial schools, not due to educational considerations, but due principally to either their own religious beliefs or because of ingrained family and "ethnic community" pressure to send their kids to parochial schools. Now that's their prerogative, of course. When those parents lobby for vouchers, they're looking to have their religious option subsidized by tax dollars. I strongly oppose my tax dollars being used to subsidize that choice.

[ExAFO 0]

Freed from the wasteful bureaucracy, the money can be better utilized by private interests, who have to be efficient, lest they die.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The voucher and the kid are tied together.

exactly - as opposed to the money being tied to the school district

We aren't educating the district, we are educating the kids.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But then there are the parents who choose to send their kids to (other) schools, not (in a way that I personally approve)......I strongly oppose my tax dollars being used to subsidize that choice.

seems to me that money is for the kid and each kid's parents should be able to choose where and how they are taught. Even if it doesn't fit any one of a hundred different sets of biases (PC or not) of any random tax payer

I'd suggest that instead of worrying if the school is located in a church, that instead some portion of that money has to be dedicated to ensuring each child's education meets some minimum standard

(and that goes for home schooling too - the family gets the money, minus some amount used to administrate that the family is meeting requirments)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

> using government funds for private schools

First of all the government doesn't have any funds other than those it takes from me and you. I currently pay 3,700 a year in school taxes which would be about half of what it would cost to place one of my girls in a good private school here in Houston.

That money would do a better job for my girls educaton and the public school system because public schools would then be required to compete for those dollars and begin providing a better education or be forced to close their doors.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Freed from the wasteful bureaucracy, the money can be better utilized by private interests, who have to be efficient, lest they die.

They have to be profitable, not efficient. Those two concepts are not the same.

[steve1 5]

I work in a school that has failing scores nearly every time they test. I really get sick and tired of hearing this is all the damn teacher's fault. I work in an Indian Reservation School. Many many of the students here are traumatized in a dysfunctional family over and over again and then they start school. This dysfunction is still going on at home each night, when they return home. The government just doesn't seem to understand that many of these kids are of course doing poorly in school. Surely it is those damn teachers!

A very large number of our students have a large portion of their brain missing because their Mother chose to drink and use drugs before their child was born. But the government believes no child shall be left behind, and by some miracle if only our teachers were good enough, that even an FAS child can perform at a high level, just like everyone else.

The fact is that nearly every school on every Indian Reservation in our state is failing. But according to the government, this really doesn't matter and the fault lies with the school staff.

We recently had some big shots from the Office of Public Instruction tour our school to find out what the problem was. Most of these people are retired administrators from white schools in nice neighborhoods. My question is what the hell do they know!

More later....I have to catch my ride home!.....Steve1

[steve1 5]

I'll get up on my soap box again, and then I'll shut up.....Whose fault is it that kids are failing in many public schools? I think it's time we take a harsher look at the damn parents who are abusive and neglectful to their children.

I was a teacher in a tough public school for 17 years, and I now work as a counselor. All I can say is that "damn", I'm glad I'm no longer a teacher. More and more pressure is being put on teachers to do the impossible and perform at a level that is simply impossible. What a damn stressful job. I have a ton of respect for most teachers. I doubt if I could still do that job.

I rode home last night with a teacher who was having chest pains and both of his arms were feeling wierd, (because he is totally stressed out). He is putting his kids first rather than himself. All the stress is probably going to kill him in the next few years. Yes, he has been hospitalized for this in the past, but rather than easing up he just keeps charging on.

This morning he wasn't able to car- pool because he came to school an hour early. I said to hell with that. You see the "good ole" Office of Public Instruction is coming in to evaluate all the teachers again next week and to make sure they are doing their reading program "just right". As if teachers don't have enough to worry about many are really worried over this. And the fact is having all this scrutiny from big brother really isn't changing anything. Finally the government is beginning to realize maybe the parents do have a bigger impact on kids than we thought.....Well Daaaaah!

I honestly think that most educators really do care about kids, and that is why they got into the profession. Sure their are some bad apples that should be forced out, but the vast majority are really trying hard to help their students.

I really wonder why anyone would choose to be a teacher these days. There is very little respect from anyone. And then add up all the pressure that goes with the job, for a minimal amount of money, and you just have to ask why.

My daughter was valedictorian of her senior class. She really wanted to be a teacher. She is very sensitive and I know she would be eaten up by this profession. I did my best to convince her to choose something else. This year she is graduating from graduate school. She is going into counseling. I just hope that profession isn't too hard on her. It's hard to go home each night and forget all the horror stories you hear of abuse and neglect....Steve1

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

I work in a school that has failing scores nearly every time they test. I really get sick and tired of hearing this is all the damn teacher's fault. I work in an Indian Reservation School. Many many of the students here are traumatized in a dysfunctional family over and over again and then they start school. This dysfunction is still going on at home each night, when they return home. The government just doesn't seem to understand that many of these kids are of course doing poorly in school. Surely it is those damn teachers!

A very large number of our students have a large portion of their brain missing because their Mother chose to drink and use drugs before their child was born. But the government believes no child shall be left behind, and by some miracle if only our teachers were good enough, that even an FAS child can perform at a high level, just like everyone else.

The fact is that nearly every school on every Indian Reservation in our state is failing. But according to the government, this really doesn't matter and the fault lies with the school staff.

We recently had some big shots from the Office of Public Instruction tour our school to find out what the problem was. Most of these people are retired administrators from white schools in nice neighborhoods. My question is what the hell do they know!

More later....I have to catch my ride home!.....Steve1

Nice to someone who knows the real situation post some facts. Contray to popular opinion, teachers are minimally responsible for student success or failure. It is more about the student and the parents.

In case you didn't know it, special needs kids get tested like everyone else. Their scores count just like a regular student. Skews the numbers quite a bit, at some schools.

[TheAnvil 0]

I assume you're speaking of the model where schools are funded by their respective student populations. Those models assume the need for those dollars is proportional to the student population, therefore the reduced population reduces the $ going to the school. Reduced student population = reduced funding. Your problem is not with the vouchers if that's your counterargument to them, rather with the funding model.

If funding itself would solve the problem (it won't) then the status quo would see improvement in failing schools following that line of thought. We've already seen that throwing $ at the problem hasn't solved anything.

Vouchers offer parents and students that choose to use them a way out of a failing system. They're a 'now' solution for a few vice a long term solution for many. Quite a bit better than no solution at all.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[funjumper101 15]

A voucher system will make bad schools much worse by removing those students who have parents that actually care about the education their child receives.

The conservatives always seem to see things in black and white. No shades of gray, just black and white. A school has bad test scores = the teachers and the administrators are at fault.

Removing funding and motivated students will improve the schools.... how? By making the education for those remaining worse. Eventually it will be so bad that the school will be closed.
Just exactly how do you close a public school?
What replaces it and how?
Who pays?

People who are in the system have provided valubale insight. Re-read what has been posted and thnk hard about what the reality as, as opposed to the popular perception.

The general public tends to think of skydivers as crazy lunatics who are totally irresponsible. It is what "everybody knows is true". We have a death wish and so on and so forth. Those of us who jump know a lot more about skydiving and view the sport much differently. A prime example of perception and reality.

[TheAnvil 0]

If you don't want the funding removed, then lobby your local representatives to changing the funding paradigm in conjunction with a vouchers program. Keeping a motivated student in a failing school against his will to help out unmotivated ones is stupid. Removal of the student improves the student:teacher ratio - something the NEA always touts.

I've thought hard about reality - voucher programs are a great thing. They are a 'now' solution for motivated parents and students. The long term solution for the rest should be addressed as well, but is not really germane to the vouchers issue.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

I think that getting rid of teacher tenure would go a long way toward solving the problem, and I'm speaking as a former teacher myself.

Tenure makes no sense in primary and secondary education. These teachers generally don't do anything controversial that would require their protection from administration. They show up, they teach, they go home, grade papers, and plan lessons.

Teacher tenure has largely become a way (and an excuse) to keep poor teachers in the classroom.

Another problem is special ed funding. The schools are using 30-40% of their pupil budget to educate 10% of students. I'm not saying that special ed is a bad thing (quite the opposite), but funding it from districts' general pupil fund isn't the way to do it, because funding it in this manner removes funding from non-special ed students who need it. IDEA may require that student A gets $10,000 worth of special assistance, and there are groups that will sue on student A's behalf if that assistance isn't received, but sometimes, giving student A that assistance will mean that the school can't afford to get a science textbook for student B, and because student B is a normal kid, there aren't many people who will speak up for him.

There are many reasons that schools "fail" and honestly, most of them have nothing at all to do with the school. Many of these are caused by poverty, such as both parents working, leaving nobody at home to supervise homework or attend parent teacher conferences, language barriers preventing parents from communicating with teachers or assisting with homework, or sometimes, just a general lack of value placed on education.

There is a ton of stuff beyond the control of the school. However, there is stuff that the schools can control, such as resources and teacher quality, and they need to do it.

As an aside, I wouldn't object to a voucher program, provided the vouchers could be used at private schools, but not religious schools (I believe this would violate the first amendment), and those schools were held to the same standards as the public schools (teachers must have credentials, etc).

[steve1 5]

Quote

I think that getting rid of teacher tenure would go a long way toward solving the problem, and I'm speaking as a former teacher myself.
reply]

I disagree. Just because you have tenure doesn't mean you can't be fired. What it means is that there has to be a reason, and there are steps administrators must take to fire you. About the only way you can make decent money as a teacher is to stay at one school for a while and get a higher rate of pay. There are steps and lanes for each year of teaching and more money for extra years of schooling.

I know of many schools who lay people off at the end of their third year so noone can get tenure. That way they can save a ton of money by continually hiring new teachers for a cheap price. The kids also suffer on this deal because most of these newly hired teachers have little experience.

If it wasn't for tenure there would be little job security. You would continually be fired and starting out at the bottom of a new schools pay schedule. They may pay for a few years service, depending on the school, but it would probably be a measley salary.

I've met a ton of administrators who are truly idiots.
I've also met a hell of a lot of school board members who are nothing but trouble makers. I mean where else do you hire people off the street, to run a corporation. I'm just glad they have to go through a process and have a good reason to get rid of a teacher. Otherwise most teachers would be continually fired on a whim.

Sure there are bad teachers. If an administrator is doing his job, they can get rid of them.

Oregon got rid of tenure in their state. I read of one administrator who didn't like his schools test scores so he fired everyone in it. It must be nice playing God!

And what do test scores mean anyway. Sometimes not a whole hell of a lot. When I was teaching I had years when my scores were high. I also had several years when they were low. That might have had something to do with the fact that I was a male teacher who could handle the rough necks better than a woman. Or maybe they figured they needed a male role model. At any rate, many years I was given a class from hell, and their test scores reflected this.

Then there was Mrs. Nice who was spoon fed all the nicer girls from good families. Man did she have great test scores.

Then, there is something called cheating. I think some administrators even enourage this. I could tell some really good stories of how some have done just that, but this is getting too windy all ready.

And then, think of all the stress that looking good on the big test creates. That stress goes from the administrators, to the teachers, and then to the kids.
Many days teachers are telling kids that we aren't going to do anything fun today because all their time is going to be spent preparing for the test. Some schools are even extending the school day, so they can again spend more time preparing for the damn test. Is this really what you would want for your kids?

And then again, it isn't just one standardized test any more, it's three or four of these tests a year, (with talk of getting even more tests). I mean how many damn tests do they need?

Well, I hope I didn't depress anyone too much with all this testing nonsense. But this is reality in the schools today. I'm just really really glad that I'm not teaching anymore!

Right now the fad is testing. The pendelum will probably swing to something different, sometime in the near future. Hopefully it will be in the direction of something that makes more sense....Steve1

• Quote

[steve1 5]

I do agree though it is difficult to get rid of a tenured teacher. Maybe some steps should be made to make it easier to get rid of some that are obviously not doing their job. I really don't think it would be good to get rid of tenure entirely, though.

A teacher is in a school, on a probationary period, for a full three years, and then the school board and administration vote to rehire them or let them go. If anyone is to blame it is the school board and administration for rehiring a failing teacher. Not the tenure system. I don't think many teachers start out as Wonderful educators, and then go bad.

Someone mentioned that the NEA may be getting too strong. I somewhat agree with this. I worked construction for a lot of years. On some jobs it was almost impossible to fire someone. The unions were that strong. This may now be the case with the NEA. I've heard they are the strongest union in the nation.

I do like the security of knowing that I can call the union for legal advice if our school tries to pull something illegal, which they often have in the past. They do offer a lot of liability insurance if I'm sued...I quit the union a while back, but am considering rejoining for these reasons alone....Steve1

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The conservatives always seem to see things in black and white.

How does allowing individual families choice in the application of education funding for their children have anything to do with "liberal vs conservative"?

Quote

Removing funding and motivated students will improve the schools.... how?

How does FORCING motivated students to be in a school they don't want to be in help the motivated students? Why help unmotivated students at the expense of the motivated ones?

Why shouldn't a good teacher have more opportunities to work at a good school with motivated students whose families CHOSE him as their child's teacher?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Another problem is special ed funding. The schools are using 30-40% of their pupil budget to educate 10% of students.

Because the "spec ed" category gets so much targetted funding, schools are categorizing just about everything as special ed today. Anything that's unique or not mainstream can be justified for those dollars, not just for kids with learning disabilities. Heck, Special Ed is also applied to very high performers today. It's not what it used to be, now it's just another way to creatively collect dollars for funding. Eventually, every single kid will be exploited as a 'need' candidate for the extra funding. Then it won't be special at all.

Quote

but not religious schools (I believe this would violate the first amendment),

Nuts, for 'general education' as long as certain learning objectives are met and audited (as per your comments on 'standards' in the same sentence practically), we shouldn't care what building the education occurs in, nor what 'elective' courses are offered. It would violate the 1st if religious schools were singled out to NOT also have the same ability to accept vouchers as you stated. Don't you think the vouchers should be used for home schooling too? I would, provided required learning objectives are met and auditable.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants