Library cuts deny children glorious addiction

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Marcy

Just look at the successful voucher program in Washington DC that Obama, the supposed defender of poor and minorities, canceled against the pleas of many parents, instead caving into teachers unions.

According to the Washington Post, the Department of Education concluded after a 3 year study that the voucher system found limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. It may have been popular, but that doesn't mean it was effective. Since this article was in May 2009, the study and its results were probably from before Obama took office.

My personal suspicion is that the voucher system and charter schools may be the educational equivalent of the placebo effect. The parents who take their kids out of the system because they are concerned about the effectiveness of standard public schools are sending a message to their kids that they are important, and that their education is important, and the parents probably spend more time with the kids on things like their homework, all of which probably motivate the kids to work harder/do better. I don't have any children, so it's hard for me to judge the results of these things.

[OtterBooks]

I wonder if the success rate of private schools has something to do with the students, the small class size, the type of teachers that are willing to often forgo higher pay for a better teaching environment, and the type of values at home that result in kids being sent to private school. Things may not be so sunny if those schools were flooded with domestically neglected kids from impoverished homes (financially or intellectually) that did nothing more than throw a voucher their way. I can only speculate.

[basschick]

school libraries where i went to school were pretty pathetic when i went to school 40 years ago, and they've gotten worse. i was a constant reader as a child, but only because my dad bought us books, let us buy books and taken us to the library every two weeks. had i relied on the school libraries in the normal middle-class neighborhoods i grew up, i might not have bothered.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What are schools for? and why aren't kids getting their books from the schools?

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Would vouchers include funds for transportation to and from said schools?

No. Either drive your kids or use public transport. If you value your kids' education this will be a priority for you. I'm a single mother with a full-time job and make it work for me (not vouchers but a private school with no bus service).

-Marcy

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

According to the Washington Post, the Department of Education concluded after a 3 year study that the voucher system found limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. It may have been popular, but that doesn't mean it was effective. Since this article was in May 2009, the study and its results were probably from before Obama took office.

My personal suspicion is that the voucher system and charter schools may be the educational equivalent of the placebo effect. The parents who take their kids out of the system because they are concerned about the effectiveness of standard public schools are sending a message to their kids that they are important, and that their education is important, and the parents probably spend more time with the kids on things like their homework, all of which probably motivate the kids to work harder/do better. I don't have any children, so it's hard for me to judge the results of these things.

Yes, the parents who take their children out of the crap schools and send them to better ones are the ones actually interested in their children and their education. The ones that don't give a damn will leave their children in whatever is convenient for them.

This still is an amazing improvement. Families interested in education can actually give their kids a good education. Familes that aren't let their kids languish in the pathetic inner-city schools. It self-selects for people that will get the most advantage from the vouchers.

-Marcy

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I wonder if the success rate of private schools has something to do with the students, the small class size, the type of teachers that are willing to often forgo higher pay for a better teaching environment, and the type of values at home that result in kids being sent to private school. Things may not be so sunny if those schools were flooded with domestically neglected kids from impoverished homes (financially or intellectually) that did nothing more than throw a voucher their way. I can only speculate.

Voucher programs require effort. They don't just mail it to your house. You have to apply for the voucher and research the schools available. Parents of neglected kids aren't going to put the effort in. Voucher programs self-select for famlies that care about their children and education and give these people a chance.

-Marcy

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by Marcy

Voucher programs require effort. They don't just mail it to your house. You have to apply for the voucher and research the schools available. Parents of neglected kids aren't going to put the effort in. Voucher programs self-select for famlies that care about their children and education and give these people a chance.

Why do these children deserve a chance while other children do not?

Essentially what you're saying is let the neglected children get more neglected while the privileged children get more privileged.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Why do these children deserve a chance while other children do not?

Essentially what you're saying is let the neglected children get more neglected while the privileged children get more privileged.

I don't think that's what she's saying at all. The neglected children do not get more neglected. The children whose parents put in the effort get rewarded. It's called positive reinforcement. Giving a gold star to a hard-working kid isn't automatically a slap in the face of the class slacker (except we're talking about the parents' effort in this case).

Holding back the "privileged" children in a misguided attempt at evening things out does no one any good. And it's not about anyone "deserving" a chance. It's about the motivated parents creating those chances for their kids, sometimes out of thin air.

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Why do these children deserve a chance while other children do not?

Essentially what you're saying is let the neglected children get more neglected while the privileged children get more privileged.

No, I'm saying that families that will value the chance for a better education will take it. You don't have to be privileged to care about your children. Being poor doesn't mean you are a bad parent and don't love your children. But right now, being poor and living in a poor neighborhood with poor schools means your kid has almost no chance for a decent education. Why are you so against letting poor families who care have the option of a better education for their kids?

And for the families that don't care? Yes, it sucks for those kids. But, other than taking them away and placing them in a home that does care, there's nothing much that can be done to teach those children to value education. You take your cues from your parents.

Look at what happened to Kelley Williams-Bolar, a mom trying to get her kids into a decent school. Instead of being praised for caring about them, she was sent to jail. I can't get CPS to remove kids from drug addict parents and this mom was convicted of a felony.

You say, let all the kids suffer because some poor people are also neglectful and selfish. I say, let the kids whose families will make something of the opportunity have the chance.

If you attach the money to the kid and not the school, you create competition, which schools now lack. Schools that suck will have a small core of those lazy parents who send their kid wherever it's convenient. But schools with not enough attendance are closed to make way for new schools that will hopefully do better. All children benefit, even those with lousy parents by the improvement in the schools. It works for European schools, so why can't it work for us?

Finally, if you have a better suggestion I'd love to hear it. And don't say more money. Washington DC spends more per pupil than almost every district in the country for the crappiest performing schools in the country. We've drastically increased primary education spending and decreased class size since the 70s, and as a result have had a steady decline in performance. Our high school kids are outperformed in math and science by kids from places like Estonia, a former Soviet nation with all the problems of a post-communist society and a much lower GDP and much lower education spending than the US.

-Marcy

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Marcy

No. Either drive your kids or use public transport. If you value your kids' education this will be a priority for you. I'm a single mother with a full-time job and make it work for me (not vouchers but a private school with no bus service).

-Marcy

I can see how that would work in some places. A friend of mine is a single dad who makes a very modest income and sends his kid to private school. But the school happens to be fairly close to home. He's barely getting by and had to make an agreement with his boss to allow coming to work 30 minutes later so he could drive his kid to school. Public transportation in many areas is a joke, and if that school were further away he may not be able to do it. There's also extremely impoverished areas to consider, where parents have even fewer resources.

The kids with parents who can't or won't do whatever it takes to get their kid to a better school, well they deserve poor education anyway. Someone has to work menial labor jobs after all, especially if those same politicians who support vouchers continue to support cracking down on immigrati- hey wait a minute. I see what they're doin. Actually quite brilliant.

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

The kids with parents who can't or won't do whatever it takes to get their kid to a better school, well they deserve poor education anyway. Someone has to work menial labor jobs after all, especially if those same politicians who support vouchers continue to support cracking down on immigrati- hey wait a minute. I see what they're doin. Actually quite brilliant.

So, according to you, since some kids have parents that won't make the effort all kids should be stripped of the opportunity? Is that it?

I think education is very important and believe opportunity for good education should be there for those who are interested. You, in contrast, seem to think everyone should get the same crap education in the name of some sort of "fairness." Perhaps you'd like to comment on thrawn_aj's excellent post above which addresses this issue more succinctly that I was able to.

-Marcy

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Why do these children deserve a chance while other children do not?

Essentially what you're saying is let the neglected children get more neglected while the privileged children get more privileged.

Right now, middle class and above kids already have the option to choose their schools: they move to the school district they would like their children to attend.

Vouchers are, basically, an attempt to give poor and lower middle class parents the option to choose the schools that their kids attend.

So it seems misguided to attack a plan that gives the poor some improved educational options. And while it's easy to just say "fix the system," we've been trying that for 30 years with a notable lack of success. Certainly pouring money into failing systems does not help improve outcomes.

Nor are long-term plans to fix education of much interest to a parent whose child is in school *now*.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

And it's not about anyone "deserving" a chance. It's about the motivated parents creating those chances for their kids, sometimes out of thin air.

Arguing the core values behind the voucher system does not address the primary criticisms of it. It reminds me of a comedic pickup line:
Man- "Hey honey, you wanna get a pizza, then go back to my place and f---?"
Woman- "Uh, no."
Man- "What, you don't like pizza?"

The criticism I speak of is based on the reality of differences in access, i.e. transportation. The "But I can do it, why can't everyone else?" response is problematic in that not everyone, believe it or not, is you (general "you"). It's true. Also not every town is your town. I know this may come as a shock, but I promise it is accurate. This reality means that any voucher system that does not include funds for transportation will only replace one system of inequality with another.

Toss in the de facto segregation that will result when exclusive schools inentionally raise tuition or even relocate in order to protect their clientele's cloistered environment, and the whole idea fails after 10 minutes of critical thinking. I urge you to push yourself over the nine-minute mark and stop thinking about the pizza, because people would get f---ed.

[OtterBooks]

and let's not even get started on the separation of church and state. Aside from the obvious violation there, it's likely that culturally religious areas would draw so much funding from public schools that parents would have to choose between well-funded parochial schools (which in the U.S. almost invariably means Christian), skeletonized public school, or leaving town. The entire idea just gets worse by the minute.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Toss in the de facto segregation that will result when exclusive schools inentionally raise tuition or even relocate in order to protect their clientele's cloistered environment, and the whole idea fails after 10 minutes of critical thinking. I urge you to push yourself over the nine-minute mark and stop thinking about the pizza, because people would get f---ed.

So your solution for the single mom who doesn't like that her kid is stuck in an urban school district with a 30% graduation rate is to...do nothing? Because vouchers might harm the wonderful egalitarian system we have today?