<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for School vouchers won’t solve educational or environmental problems]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Emily Cunningham http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/ Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:31:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/1 Four stars, Todd

* * * *

And again, let me direct Gristmill readers to this excellent piece over at In These Times about the ugliness that ensues when choice is implented:

All for One, None for All
School choice policies sacrifice universal education in favor of personal freedom

]]> Four stars, Todd

* * * *

And again, let me direct Gristmill readers to this excellent piece over at In These Times about the ugliness that ensues when choice is implented:

All for One, None for All
School choice policies sacrifice universal education in favor of personal freedom

]]> Comment #2 by cvanempel http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/ Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:54:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/2 School Choice

There are many interesting points being made, but I must pull back my focus and ask a more fundamental question:  What do you mean by "bad schools"?

This shorthand term doesn't convey adequate information to formulate any possible solutions to the problem.  Does it mean that children do not perform well on standardized tests?  Does it mean that there are old or an inadequate number of textbooks?  Or that the facility is out of date? Or that there have been three shootings there in the past week?  Or that the teachers are inadequately prepared or bottom-of-the-barrel?  "Bad schools" doesn't get me there.  Clearly, each of these situations demands a different response.

I am not so quick to lay the blame at the door of the school when I see how many parents treat education--often by not requiring children attend or not ensuring their homework is complete or not ensuring their children are getting additional help if they need it.  Ultimately, it is the parents' responsibility to ensure their children are educated.  A child who is performing poorly at a "bad school" may or may not improve at a "good school."

Some other thoughts:  Home schooling isn't an option for most of the country, given the cost of living.  Bully for those who can stay home with their children, it might have been my choice, as well.

Distance to the school of choice forces more driving and might result in a parent moving, depending upon the distance.  Two-income families often choose one of the two jobs based upon the real or perceived need to ferry children to and from school.  The commute triangle (home, school, office) must be small, since schools don't always offer after-school activities.

In California, school districts are independent entities that make locational decisions primarily based upon cost of land.  Read "rural".  Establishing a school outside of a city creates tremendous demand amongst developers to annex that land to the city and develop it with houses.  Ummmm, I think that's a central tenet of sprawl.

Leveling the funding field is important and helps reduce or eliminate that particular variable as a determinant of "bad schools".  If there is still a problem with performance, at least that issue is partially off the table (although it doesn't take into account wealthier parents donating money to their children's schools to ensure there are computers, textbooks, paper, and so on).

This is a complex issue that doesn't have a single answer, as implied by the author.

C. van Empel

]]> School Choice

There are many interesting points being made, but I must pull back my focus and ask a more fundamental question:  What do you mean by "bad schools"?

This shorthand term doesn't convey adequate information to formulate any possible solutions to the problem.  Does it mean that children do not perform well on standardized tests?  Does it mean that there are old or an inadequate number of textbooks?  Or that the facility is out of date? Or that there have been three shootings there in the past week?  Or that the teachers are inadequately prepared or bottom-of-the-barrel?  "Bad schools" doesn't get me there.  Clearly, each of these situations demands a different response.

I am not so quick to lay the blame at the door of the school when I see how many parents treat education--often by not requiring children attend or not ensuring their homework is complete or not ensuring their children are getting additional help if they need it.  Ultimately, it is the parents' responsibility to ensure their children are educated.  A child who is performing poorly at a "bad school" may or may not improve at a "good school."

Some other thoughts:  Home schooling isn't an option for most of the country, given the cost of living.  Bully for those who can stay home with their children, it might have been my choice, as well.

Distance to the school of choice forces more driving and might result in a parent moving, depending upon the distance.  Two-income families often choose one of the two jobs based upon the real or perceived need to ferry children to and from school.  The commute triangle (home, school, office) must be small, since schools don't always offer after-school activities.

In California, school districts are independent entities that make locational decisions primarily based upon cost of land.  Read "rural".  Establishing a school outside of a city creates tremendous demand amongst developers to annex that land to the city and develop it with houses.  Ummmm, I think that's a central tenet of sprawl.

Leveling the funding field is important and helps reduce or eliminate that particular variable as a determinant of "bad schools".  If there is still a problem with performance, at least that issue is partially off the table (although it doesn't take into account wealthier parents donating money to their children's schools to ensure there are computers, textbooks, paper, and so on).

This is a complex issue that doesn't have a single answer, as implied by the author.

C. van Empel

]]> Comment #3 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/ Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:26:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/3 Walk To School?

I walked to both grade and high school, and can't imagine having to commute (I never liked school - too much like prison - and might have run away from home).  I think all kids should go to schools in their neighborhoods that they can walk to, not only for their sake but for that of the environment.

Re improving schools: 1) eliminate private schools, so that those privilged parents will have to concentrate on improving public schools, and 2) make all public schools within a district share tax revenues.

]]> Walk To School?

I walked to both grade and high school, and can't imagine having to commute (I never liked school - too much like prison - and might have run away from home).  I think all kids should go to schools in their neighborhoods that they can walk to, not only for their sake but for that of the environment.

Re improving schools: 1) eliminate private schools, so that those privilged parents will have to concentrate on improving public schools, and 2) make all public schools within a district share tax revenues.

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/ Sat, 08 Oct 2005 07:57:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/4 The bottom line is this:

Few parents will martyr their own children by leaving them in a really bad school (whatever that means) just to show support for public schools. If they could afford private school or to move to where schools are better, or find any other way to get their kid in a better school, that is just what most parents will do--it is genetic programming, human nature at work. Leaving your kid in a bad public school is not a very efficient way to fix public schools. I went to a really bad inner city public school as a child so I know what they can be like, most of you out there have no idea.

We have gone through this as parents. The elementary public education here in Seattle was  sub-optimal. We ended up in one of the best but all the same, I could go on and on about how my daughter was given the same science kit three years in a row, the math teacher who new less math than some of the kids. The teachers are stifled by bureacracy, underpaid, undervalued and forced to teach to the WASL. My daughter was overyly anxious about the WASL test and I refused to let her take it. The poor teachers were ready to pull their hair out. Her score had to be reported as a zero. The test is a measure of how the teachers are performing, not the child. I felt bad for them, because that zero really screwed up the score but they understood. My child's score would have helped but her well being came first.

As an aside, the food in the cafeterias, although meeting  health requirements, was as bad as it could get, often consisting of items like inedible (literally) unripe pears and American cheese on white bread.

I have seen both extremes because my children are now in private school and I cannot begin to describe the difference. It is an order of magnitude, absolutely stunning. Parents and their children are treated like valued customers, which is what they are. Private schools are just what you would expect a free market to produce. It was our decision to invest in our children instead of our home or retirement, and we will always happily pay our taxes to support public schools.

I honestly have no idea how to fix the problem of wealth stratification. However, using better schools to attract well-off people back into the cities does sound like a good idea, not that vouchers are necessarily the way to do that.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> The bottom line is this:

Few parents will martyr their own children by leaving them in a really bad school (whatever that means) just to show support for public schools. If they could afford private school or to move to where schools are better, or find any other way to get their kid in a better school, that is just what most parents will do--it is genetic programming, human nature at work. Leaving your kid in a bad public school is not a very efficient way to fix public schools. I went to a really bad inner city public school as a child so I know what they can be like, most of you out there have no idea.

We have gone through this as parents. The elementary public education here in Seattle was  sub-optimal. We ended up in one of the best but all the same, I could go on and on about how my daughter was given the same science kit three years in a row, the math teacher who new less math than some of the kids. The teachers are stifled by bureacracy, underpaid, undervalued and forced to teach to the WASL. My daughter was overyly anxious about the WASL test and I refused to let her take it. The poor teachers were ready to pull their hair out. Her score had to be reported as a zero. The test is a measure of how the teachers are performing, not the child. I felt bad for them, because that zero really screwed up the score but they understood. My child's score would have helped but her well being came first.

As an aside, the food in the cafeterias, although meeting  health requirements, was as bad as it could get, often consisting of items like inedible (literally) unripe pears and American cheese on white bread.

I have seen both extremes because my children are now in private school and I cannot begin to describe the difference. It is an order of magnitude, absolutely stunning. Parents and their children are treated like valued customers, which is what they are. Private schools are just what you would expect a free market to produce. It was our decision to invest in our children instead of our home or retirement, and we will always happily pay our taxes to support public schools.

I honestly have no idea how to fix the problem of wealth stratification. However, using better schools to attract well-off people back into the cities does sound like a good idea, not that vouchers are necessarily the way to do that.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #5 by Payton Chung http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/ Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:31:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/voucher-schmoucher/5 Southern strategy

I would be curious to see how a voucher policy would play out in the South -- home of the nation's worst sprawl but also of many consolidated, desegregated city-suburban school districts, and relatively few private schools. (Catholic schools are particularly scarce, although many evangelical schools have opened recently.)

In addition, having a neighborhood school within walking/biking distance seems like a good, sprawl-busting idea to me. I attended (by choice) a magnet school five miles from home, with students from all over the city, and as a result had neither school nor classmates within walking/biking distance of home.
.pc

(Entirely my own views, not my employer's)


]]> Southern strategy

I would be curious to see how a voucher policy would play out in the South -- home of the nation's worst sprawl but also of many consolidated, desegregated city-suburban school districts, and relatively few private schools. (Catholic schools are particularly scarce, although many evangelical schools have opened recently.)

In addition, having a neighborhood school within walking/biking distance seems like a good, sprawl-busting idea to me. I attended (by choice) a magnet school five miles from home, with students from all over the city, and as a result had neither school nor classmates within walking/biking distance of home.
.pc

(Entirely my own views, not my employer's)


]]>