(06-10-2017, 03:15 PM)Vicbow Rules Wrote: [ -> ]I have been avoiding posting in the politics forum, but as a teacher I feel like I need to pop in on this thread. Let me preface this by saying I have been teaching for over a decade and am classified as a high performing teacher (and I have been for all but my first few years teaching, during which I was "satisfactory.") I have taught in the inner city and in the suburbs.
There are a lot of misconceptions about competition in schools. The first being that somehow it creates better schools. Let me point out some ways the treating schools like business and having them compete is going to leave people disappointed.
The existence of charter schools (the main driver behind the competition argument) were originally pushed as a way to provide choice for failing schools in neighborhoods where there was a history of failing schools. When I worked in the inner city we saw the first wave of inner city charter schools come out. There are more than a few issues that exist with charter schools (at least here in FL)
a. Charter schools that opened near failing schools had poor results. As a matter of fact, charter schools across Jax and FL generally have lower scores than their neighborhood schools. There are a few exceptions (River City Science is consistently scoring well.) As a result of this, charter schools stopped opening near low performing schools and started to move out to the suburbs where the public schools were doing just fine. Which is the opposite of what the schools were supposed to be for.
b. Schools should NOT be in competition with each other. As a public school teacher with a near perfect pass rate on my End of Course exams each of the last few years, I SHOULD share my information and teaching strategies with other teachers. If I am in competition with them, it does not benefit me to share my info and strategies because it could help the "competition." The only losers in this situation are the kids who do not get access to better classroom ideas. For the record, I share all of my info with whoever wants it. However, If I was in competition with my co-workers, I do not know if I would be so willing to share, especially if it meant keeping my job or not.
c. New Orleans is all charter school (they have no public school system since Katrina.) They are having a tremendous amount of trouble following the law in regards to access to mental health professionals, English as second language learners laws as well as staying on top of the extremely cumbersome process of accommodations for students with learning disabilities. NPR had a very interesting story about how public schools share funds to hire the necessary mental health professionals and other professionals needed to meet all of the requirements to help children with learning disabilities/mental health issues, but that the charter schools in New Orleans did not want to work together because they want their competition to fail so they can get more students. Remember, students = $$$.
d. Charter schools were meant to be a way to allow innovative teaching. Let me say that this one is REALLY frustrating as a teacher. We are told that we are not innovative which is why we need charters, BUT, I am not allowed to be innovative. The state micromanages everything I teach down to the amount of days I am supposed to teach it. I, as mentioned above, have an extremely high pass rate, but I have still had people from the district get on my case for following a different pace than I am supposed to. I kind of get away with it (yearly ending up in a meeting with my boss and a district person explaining why I am doing it the way I am) because I have a good record, but new teachers do not have that privilege. Remember that we are not allowed to get creative. We are not even supposed to show documentaries or in some cases video clips. This is all pushed down on us by a legislature that, being a super majority of Republicans, you would think would want LESS interference and micromanaging.
e. Charter schools do not have to have certified teachers. When I heard this I thought that this was just some bull, I did however look into it and it is true. They do not have to have the same level of certification that we in the public schools do.
f. Remember that charter schools can kick kids out. Public schools cannot. Every year, after funding counts are made and money is distributed from the state, we, the public school, get a bunch of kids that have been kicked out of the charters (usually around the start of 2nd quarter.) This of course means we don't have the funding attached to them yet still have to teach them, and are dealing with the kids the charters do not want.
g. There is no transparency with charters. My sister-in-law was teaching at one here in Jax. She made 9,000 less than me and got no benefits. The question I have is, where did the rest of the $$$ go? It wasn't to facilities (the school was a dump) and she didn't have smaller classes. No one knows what happens to the $$$ at these schools. Shouldn't my tax dollars that are being given to the business that runs the school be traceable? A few years ago a local charter school (military academy one) closed it doors in March because it ran out of money. They literally had a sign on the door that said we are no longer operating. It was on the local news. DCPS said we would take the kids, but their parents were freaking out because seniors who were scheduled to graduate in May, were being placed in 10th and 11th grade because they could not pass the tests that are required in public schools. How did the school fail to finihs the year? We will never know since they do not have to divulge their accounting at charter schools.
h. And perhaps the kicker. The state provides funds for charter schools to build and operate. If they fail the business keeps the building that our tax dollars paid for. Again, this was so ridiculous that when I heard it I thought it was a complete lie, but it is not.
Now, I know that public schools are not perfect, but it is hard for them to compete when the playing field is not level. If charter schools were held to the same standards as public schools than it would be a different story, but as of now, they are not and it is frustrating to always hear how bad of a job my colleagues and I do, when we are following the guidelines of what the legislature wants, other than to work for free 
There is more I could write and I would be more than happy to talk about this with everyone in an adult way (which is to say, NOT like the majority of threads in the politics sections!) but I am taking my kids to go see Captain Underpants, so I can't add more right now!
Wow Thanks for the load of insider information. As someone apart of that community I take what you say with great value.
But let me clarify when I say make them compete im not referring to charter schools as they are structured today. What you outlined the current charter school system is a perfect example of the state attempting to take free market principles and restrict them with legislative principles.
As you outlined the primary problem is charter schools which are state funded and still not held accountable. I advocate a system where parents are allowed to chose their child's educational institute through vouchers. In an idle scenario we wouldn't have public funded education but that ship has long sailed. So if we're going to have public funded education we need a system where excellent teachers as yourself and institutions that foster those teachers are rewarded.
You said the administrative part of education dictates even the smallest parts of your class room, I advocate giving the teacher the power. If I as a parent don't like how your teaching them I can request my child a new teacher either at that institution or use my voucher to seek a different institution.
I also think we waste lists of time and resources on non educational programs. I love the sports as much as the next guy but wouldn't those resources be better served teaching math science language arts and skill sets.
I read a lenghty article once by this educational professional that outlines a system where students where done with traditional high school at 16. The last two years where either spent at vocational institutions teaching welding, automotive, carpentery, industrial machine work, ect or applied towards an associate's degree. Imagine 18 year olds with either a 2 year apprentice skill set or an AA degree!? Made sense to me when I read it.
The first step as I see it is with vouchers. The bad schools and bad teachers will close naturally and that's what we need a culling of the old guard that's not being innovative
(06-12-2017, 03:02 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2017, 05:42 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]School choice, make them compete like the private sector the good ones thrive the bad ones close down.
So where do the kids from the west side of I-95 in NE Florida go to school when their's shut down? Do all the kids currently living west of I-95 now have to cross over to go to the east side of I-95 for their education?
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/jac...le/schools
If all the schools west of I-95 performed so badly it's safe to say someone has a great market to tap into. That's how the free market works. Where there is demand someone creates supply.
(06-12-2017, 03:11 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2017, 05:42 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]School choice, make them compete like the private sector the good ones thrive the bad ones close down.
This is exceedingly ignorant for so many reasons. School choice is a measure that would actually exacerbate the issues in the school system. There are multiple solutions that would be far better.
You cannot introduce free enterprise into a closed and nearly communistic system.
(06-10-2017, 10:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Education begins at home. We've destroyed the American home and now we reap the results. No school can overcome the smoldering ruins of the homes in their surrounding neighborhoods.
This this this this this THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.
Show me any enterprise that was exasperated by free market competition. Education is not a vacuum it's subject to the same laws of supply and demand as the rest of the world.
No, we require that public education serve all people. It is not based on S and D, it's based on universal provision.
anything that the government is in charge of, or sticks it's fingers in gets so messed up it becomes too expensive, too bogged down in red tape and regulations, becomes ineffective and totally useless
(06-12-2017, 10:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, we require that public education serve all people. It is not based on S and D, it's based on universal provision.
Universal provision doesn't cancel out the natural laws of supply and demand. We require everyone to have healthcare now yet its painfully obvious healthcare is still subject to the same supply and demand laws as before.
(06-13-2017, 05:17 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2017, 10:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, we require that public education serve all people. It is not based on S and D, it's based on universal provision.
Universal provision doesn't cancel out the natural laws of supply and demand. We require everyone to have healthcare now yet its painfully obvious healthcare is still subject to the same supply and demand laws as before.
Actually, the healthcare mess and public education are not the same at all. Public education does not require the individual consumer to purchase anything, merely to participate through attendance. Something that everyone is given regardless of ability to pay does not require any type of individual demand, therefore S and D does not apply at that level. Healthcare would be the same if we had universal coverage, but we don't, so it's not. And we don't require everyone to have insurance, we merely fine them if they don't. The individual mandate doesn't exist.
@ Eric
Remind me once again what market you are going to tap into that convinces low (or no) income parents that didn't care about their kids education in a public school to now pay for their kids schooling? My point is that you just can't shut down public schools just because they have below average or failing performance. Kids have a right to a free education so if you shut down schools like Raines and Ribault you must provide another free option to those that were impacted; as such, I used a hypothetical consequence in my prior email that those impacted kids would now be bused off to other public schools. So, what is this great market that you want to tap into that will provide free education?
(06-13-2017, 09:23 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]@ Eric
Remind me once again what market you are going to tap into that convinces low (or no) income parents that didn't care about their kids education in a public school to now pay for their kids schooling? My point is that you just can't shut down public schools just because they have below average or failing performance. Kids have a right to a free education so if you shut down schools like Raines and Ribault you must provide another free option to those that were impacted; as such, I used a hypothetical consequence in my prior email that those impacted kids would now be bused off to other public schools. So, what is this great market that you want to tap into that will provide free education?
The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
(06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 09:23 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]@ Eric
Remind me once again what market you are going to tap into that convinces low (or no) income parents that didn't care about their kids education in a public school to now pay for their kids schooling? My point is that you just can't shut down public schools just because they have below average or failing performance. Kids have a right to a free education so if you shut down schools like Raines and Ribault you must provide another free option to those that were impacted; as such, I used a hypothetical consequence in my prior email that those impacted kids would now be bused off to other public schools. So, what is this great market that you want to tap into that will provide free education?
The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high. Getting into high school shouldn't be like getting into college, but every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost.
(06-13-2017, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high. Getting into high school shouldn't be like getting into college, but every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost.
I think we're already there.
A voucher system provides parents with options in the event the school closest to them geographically is not capable of providing a quality education.
Getting into public magnate schools in DCPS is very much like getting into college already, right down to the fairs the system runs to provide parents with as much information as possible about their options. So, the culture already exists for parents who want to explore magnate options.
I agree that every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost. The reality is very different. You've got teachers who are protected from losing their jobs because of unions even if they're under-performing. You've got parents who honestly don't care about the education their children are receiving, so they don't press the kids or hold the schools accountable. As a result, you've got students who have adopted a similar attitude to their parents, and a school that has become apathetic because there's only so much they can do to discipline kids.
The public school system in the traditional sense is broken. There are still very good public schools, and there are some really bad ones. Allowing the system to flush out the bad ones will improve the overall quality of the education children receive. Giving parents options beyond the school they're geographically tied to has proven to be an effective tool in improving the educational outcome.
(06-13-2017, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high.
I was explaining the concept of individual choice in education. It's not a perfect solution, but any good parent would not send their child to a diploma mill. If there are waiting lists to get into good schools then that creates a demand that would spawn new good schools. As I said, there's still a problem with bad parenting, but that's true now.
According to the panel, schools in 1983 were well below the quality of schools in the 1960s. They have come down even further. What has changed is ever increasing federal government meddling, not just in education but in a welfare system that encourages the creation of single parent families.
(06-11-2017, 12:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's not the public schools that are at fault. It's the students and their parents that bear most of the blame for failure. I'd bet that if you sent those same students to private schools, they'd fail there, too.
I think there's a lot of blame for parents, but our school system is a joke. And the evidence is in our continual decline.
I did poorly with math (like a lot of people). None of my teachers were interested in teaching me one-on-one or ensuring that I actually knew what I was supposed to know. I know there are a lot of great teachers, but it took until college that I met one that cared if I actually learned the subject matter, and I learned every thing I was supposed to know but in one semester.
I wasn't a bad student. I tried to study and take notes. I didn't skip class or cause problems. Most of my teachers just weren't interested in teaching the average student but instead the students in high-performing classes.
(06-13-2017, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high. Getting into high school shouldn't be like getting into college, but every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost.
That's definitely a risk if it isn't governed properly.
I think, if it's a government-run school, they wouldn't be able to deny students or have entry exams. I'm not a fan of standardized testing, but maybe there could be something that's given to the students to assess their progress, and the specific school wouldn't have control over the results or which questions were asked.
I don't know. I don't pretend to have the answers, but we need a lot of help.
(06-13-2017, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high. Getting into high school shouldn't be like getting into college, but every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost.
That's definitely a risk if it isn't governed properly.
I think, if it's a government-run school, they wouldn't be able to deny students or have entry exams. I'm not a fan of standardized testing, but maybe there could be something that's given to the students to assess their progress, and the specific school wouldn't have control over the results or which questions were asked.
I don't know. I don't pretend to have the answers, but we need a lot of help.
Low performing schools languishing and closing down is NOT a good thing.
For instance, I teach in Texas in a low performing school. Among middle schools in my city, we were second to last in standardized test results. Personally, most of my students passed the tests with flying colors, but I'm still part of what would be termed a failing school.
My colleague teaches only the lowest performing students because she's great at it. Last year (in 7th grade) only 30% of her students passed testing. This year, 56% of her students passed. Clearly, she did some good work. Even most of her students who were unable to pass showed growth in their individual scores.
Both of us consistently recieve very impressive evaluations. But according to the definition most outsiders have, we're part of the problem because our school performs poorly.
We're also the largest middle school in town, situated firmly in the ghetto. Let me explain what happens when we shut down.
1) Approximately 100 school professionals lose jobs, and there aren't enough places for us all to work. Our education becomes useless. And nobody in their right mind would hire us, because hey, we were part of a low performing school.
2) Close to a thousand kids are split up into multiple different schools, with most of the other schools lacking space in which to handle more students. Student teacher ratios decrease, discipline problems increase, and these other schools slowly become low performing because we are required to provide education to everyone.
3) Schools that were doing okay slowly lapse into performing poorly. Over time, the quality of education decreases for everyone. The low performing and poor kids are not able to receive the intervention they need, and the kids who were probably already going to be successful due to affluence and parental involvement succeed anyway.
What we end up with is an even deeper divide between the rich and poor.
Schools closing is never a good thing, and the fact that anyone could think so is proof that the people who make educational decisions should be people who have actually worked in education.
(06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 09:23 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]@ Eric
Remind me once again what market you are going to tap into that convinces low (or no) income parents that didn't care about their kids education in a public school to now pay for their kids schooling? My point is that you just can't shut down public schools just because they have below average or failing performance. Kids have a right to a free education so if you shut down schools like Raines and Ribault you must provide another free option to those that were impacted; as such, I used a hypothetical consequence in my prior email that those impacted kids would now be bused off to other public schools. So, what is this great market that you want to tap into that will provide free education?
The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
So, instead of the Gov investing in their public school system, they are going to increase their budget by 20x to pay for each child (~$8k per year) to go to a private school. BRILLIANT !!! That equates to $384,000 to put a family with 4 kids through 12 grades of schooling at $8k per year. Let's assume there are 600 kids combined total per grade at Raines & Ribault. 600 kids x 8,000 per year each x 12 grades = $57,600,000 cost per year to the Gov to send the Raines & Ribault kids to the new private school now being subsidized by the Gov.
(06-13-2017, 01:19 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.
Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.
So, instead of the Gov investing in their public school system, they are going to increase their budget by 20x to pay for each child (~$8k per year) to go to a private school. BRILLIANT !!! That equates to $384,000 to put a family with 4 kids through 12 grades of schooling at $8k per year. Let's assume there are 600 kids combined total per grade at Raines & Ribault. 600 kids x 8,000 per year each x 12 grades = $57,600,000 cost per year to the Gov to send the Raines & Ribault kids to the new private school now being subsidized by the Gov.
The government is already spending more than $8K per student.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/educat...-data.html
(06-13-2017, 12:53 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]Both of us consistently recieve very impressive evaluations. But according to the definition most outsiders have, we're part of the problem because our school performs poorly.
No, you both are victims of a government-run education system. That won't be fixed by keeping the status quo.
(06-13-2017, 06:35 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2017, 01:19 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]So, instead of the Gov investing in their public school system, they are going to increase their budget by 20x to pay for each child (~$8k per year) to go to a private school. BRILLIANT !!! That equates to $384,000 to put a family with 4 kids through 12 grades of schooling at $8k per year. Let's assume there are 600 kids combined total per grade at Raines & Ribault. 600 kids x 8,000 per year each x 12 grades = $57,600,000 cost per year to the Gov to send the Raines & Ribault kids to the new private school now being subsidized by the Gov.
The government is already spending more than $8K per student.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/educat...-data.html
Bingo!
The United States spends more per capita by a wide margin than any other country on the planet on public education. It's gotten us this:
- 41st in math as of 2015
- 24th in reading
- 25th in science
That's our rankings against the rest of the world in education, and we're throwing more money at it than any other country.
At some point, people are going to realize that a lack of funding isn't the issue. The bureaucratic bloat that exists in our school systems today is unbelievable. In many instances, private schools actually operate more affordably because they're far more efficient, while providing equal to or better education in most cases.
The bulk of the money isn't going toward educating children. It's going to feed the beast, including the bloated bureaucracy, keeping the labor unions happy, and financing a department whose responsibilities SHOULD be handled by the individual states.
Real education reform needs to happen, and the best way to force that to occur is to give people a choice. It's far more expensive to support uneducated, unskilled individuals than it is to fund a robust and comprehensive education that teaches them the skills to succeed in life, and not so much about the silly peripherals that have become a staple in government indoctrination centers. Kids aren't learning the core tools of reading, writing, or math, and they are being prevented from learning civics or true world history. Yet we're spending more per child annually than some colleges charge for tuition.
If you take unmotivated kids with unmotivated parents and give them school choice, or even a private school, they will still fail, because they are UNMOTIVATED.
The problem isn't the schools, it's the CULTURE of these kids. They have no desire to learn. If they did, they would learn, no matter what school they were in.
(06-14-2017, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you take unmotivated kids with unmotivated parents and give them school choice, or even a private school, they will still fail, because they are UNMOTIVATED.
The problem isn't the schools, it's the CULTURE of these kids. They have no desire to learn. If they did, they would learn, no matter what school they were in.
Bingo!
Private, Charter, Public, The Oasis..... It doesn't matter where they go to school if the parents and kids are not motivated together.
(06-14-2017, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you take unmotivated kids with unmotivated parents and give them school choice, or even a private school, they will still fail, because they are UNMOTIVATED.
The problem isn't the schools, it's the CULTURE of these kids. They have no desire to learn. If they did, they would learn, no matter what school they were in.
I mentioned the same thing earlier in this thread. This culture you're referencing is a generational thing, and this apathy can and does spread to some of the teachers and administrators. They have given up on trying to reach these kids. It's a cancer.
(06-14-2017, 08:37 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you take unmotivated kids with unmotivated parents and give them school choice, or even a private school, they will still fail, because they are UNMOTIVATED.
The problem isn't the schools, it's the CULTURE of these kids. They have no desire to learn. If they did, they would learn, no matter what school they were in.
I mentioned the same thing earlier in this thread. This culture you're referencing is a generational thing, and this apathy can and does spread to some of the teachers and administrators. They have given up on trying to reach these kids. It's a cancer.
So we send these kids to private school, and how long does it take for those teachers and administrators to give up on these kids?
The problem of failure that stretches from one generation to the next and to the next has no simple solution, but at some point, it has to be driven home to the people who continuously fail that there are consequences for failure. The opportunity is there if the motivation is there. And failure to seize that opportunity must have consequences.
(06-14-2017, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you take unmotivated kids with unmotivated parents and give them school choice, or even a private school, they will still fail, because they are UNMOTIVATED.
The problem isn't the schools, it's the CULTURE of these kids. They have no desire to learn. If they did, they would learn, no matter what school they were in.
True. That is a problem that any change in the education processes won't fix.
But the problem is exacerbated by government schools allowing those kids to remain in general classes and ruin it for the kids who do want to learn.