Tomorrow here in Utah the whole voucher program will be on the ballet.
Things have gotten pretty crazy here, with both sides pouring over $7 million into ads and such.
Those in favor (like myself) feel that it reinforces the idea that it is parents, and not the state that are responsible for educating their children. That it would reduce class sizes in public schools.
The teachers union has been trying to convince people that it would hurt public schools, and that if you vote for vouchers it means you hate teachers. This group sadly seems to be winning according to current polls (~60% say they will vote against it.)
I favor vouchers too, and look forward to the day when homeschoolers get a check. That day is probably a long way off, but voucher wins will bring it closer.
Plus, I'm of the opinion that if you figure out what the teachers union says, and do the opposite, it benefits kids.
LM
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
I hope it passes too. Then maybe there will be a chance of it passing in other states. Of course I expect a long court battle. The teacher's unions will not go away quietly if it passes.
I used to be for vouchers as a way to increase competition. But then someone pointed out to me that that would mean that previously privately funded institutions would be getting government money. Government always puts a lot of strings on the money it gives out. Pretty soon you would have government making all sorts of requirements for anyone who wants to be able to accept school vouchers, and everyone would be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
We had a voucher program on the ballot a few years ago where we live. I don't think it passed. And, like Utah the teacher's union were doing everything in their power to get people to vote against it.
I have thought about the same thing Arbilad. It seems to be one of the only reasons I can think of against it. However I feel something should be done.
If the government puts too many strings people can still choose not to do a voucher. The schools in many cases are so broken that the poor have no options. Any option for them would be better than staying in their broken school.
The infamously corrupt Detroit Public School system and board pushed to have charter schools allowed... with the teacher's union fighting it.
Several years later, audits and investigations found that in a lot of areas, the state funds that were going to the charter schools (ostensibly created to help DPS out so they could better reform and get better in fiscal matters and compliance to No Child Left Behind standards) were being wasted because DPS, who had been placed in stewardship over monitoring the charter schools, was basically ignoring the failings of the charter schools. As a result, the state decided DPS owed the state some where in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars...
Teachers union was happily stating all the time once the proverbial fecal matter applied itself to the air moving device essentially "We told ya so!"
If a system is already corrupt and in serious problems, publicly funded charter schools and vouchers is not necessarily going to fix anything... it may just end up being a vehicle for increased corruption and wasting of public funds.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Government always puts a lot of strings on the money it gives out. Pretty soon you would have government making all sorts of requirements for anyone who wants to be able to accept school vouchers, it may just end up being a vehicle for increased corruption and wasting of public funds. Just like anything govt does, the devil is in the details. If written and enforced correctly, it would work fine. But yeah, that's always a great big IF.
LM
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
There is not much space for more students in current private schools. Because vouchers would create a higher demand for private school slots, the result could very well be an increase private school tuition (supply and demand). There is nothing to stop private schools from increasing tuition, so a school that costs $3000 per year now, could go up to $6000 per year, which would leave the poor holding a voucher still $3000 short.
Even if tuition does not increase, the voucher will not cover 100% of tuition for all private schools. In a recent survey by the Deseret Morning News, a $3,000 voucher would fully cover average tuition at nine of the 62 schools that provided data about tuition and enrollment. Another seven schools had average tuition between $3,000 and $4,000. Twenty schools had tuition between $4,001 and $5,000. And 28 schools had tuition over $5,000. At the low income level required to qualify for the full $3000 voucher amount, coming up with the extra money to meet tuition costs would be very difficult, particulary if the family had multiple children.
Additionally, there is nothing that requires private schools to accept voucher students, particularly ones with poor reading or English skills. What private school is going to want to reduce their average test scores by accepting disadvantaged students who haven't learned how to read/write, etc? I may have a voucher in my hand, but if I can't find a school to accept my underachieving child, it's not going to help.
I cannot seem to find out how the vouchers will be paid for. If paid for by siphoning off money that would have otherwise gone to public schools, I disagree with that. Conversely, if paid for out of general state funds, it could result in higher taxes down the road.
Personally, I feel that the schools where I am are good. Talk of how the public school system is "broken" puzzles me. Are the schools where I live an exception to the rule in Utah?
bokbadok wrote:I cannot seem to find out how the vouchers will be paid for. If paid for by siphoning off money that would have otherwise gone to public schools, I disagree with that.
How come?
Society has a vested interest in educated children, so we have a property tax for that purpose. We don't have a "fund public schools" tax, we have an "educate our kids" tax.
In the ideal world, the math would be simple: You gather $X in county taxes You have N kids to educate in the county
Therefore, every kid of school age gets a voucher for X divided by N.
[LM opinion on] Wherever you take your voucher, those funds will be used for the cost of facilities, teacher salaries, equipment, bussing, janitorial, etc. If you take it to the public school, they can fund their unnecessary levels of management, huge useless bureaucracies, political activism, and court settlements for abuse claims.
[LM opinion off]
In reality, I'm sure the voucher is for something quite less than X / N.
LM
-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 14:20, 2007-11-06
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
That is essentially how public schools are funded here in Michigan... and it doesn't work properly.
Property taxes are collected and it gets passed up to a state general fund. School districts then get paid x dollars per pupil, across the board for the whole state, based on some combination of the number of students in attendance on the audit day vs. the number enrolled vs. tax base for the area.
In theory, it seems equitable. In reality, you have a disparity created because small school districts (e.g. those in rural areas where population is low) don't get the funds necessary to provide as quality an education as those districts in suburban areas. And then you have the problems of the urban districts (e.g. Detroit Public Schools, Pontiac Public Schools, Flint Public Schools) that are full of corruption on top of the problems with having the bulk of students from the low end of the socio-economic scale. What ends up happening is the rich communities end up subsidizing the poor communities' horrendously managed and poor quality education to the detriment of the quality they could be providing and it turns into a "pay to play" requirement for any and all extracurricular activities in the "rich" communities. We have to pay for our high school age daughter just to be a member of the Theatre Club... plus, we have to pay for any of the events the club participates in... and if she did a sport or was in band, we would have to pay for that too!
"Vouchers" don't work as it is when funding for public schools comes from one central pot, and it won't work any better to have a voucher system for private schools other than offset tuition / expenses to families that can take advantage of it.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
How it works, In utah all income taxes and the property taxes for education go into education. These funds cannot go elsewhere. Other revenue streams feed what is known as the general fund. This is where the voucher money is coming from. In each of the last three years we have had surpluses running into the hundreds of millions of dollars so taking the voucher funds won't neccessitate a tax increase.
Thus when a student takes a voucher to a private school (the private schools in Utah are currently running at 2/3 capacity so plenty of room for growth without needing more private schools.) The tax funds that are already generated automatically from income and Property taxes stay in the school system as mandated by law. The student takes his/her voucher of $500-$3000 to the private school, his parents may need to make up an average of $1000 difference but $1000 split over 9 months is much easier to come up with than $4000 over that same nine months.
Thus both sides win. The student has another option in case the public schools don't fit him/her (my own nephew was in this boat), and if that student takes it the school system still gets the same money as before but no longer has that student to pay for.
I realize I'm simplifying some of the issues but it really is a win/win for everybody except the Teachers Unions and even then it's not likely to really impact them either. I'm praying the vouchers pass. The school system is broken in many ways. Yes it still does work for most students but not all.
Throwing more money at the current system will not fix the problems, Increased parent involvement will not fix the problems (Parents protested the worthless "Investigative Math" method of teaching mathmatics in the Alpine SD, so it was changed, to the exact same type of math system just under a different name and with a new text book), giving parents an alternate option can only help begin to fix the problems.
That is interesting Daknife. Thanks for sharing that!
I'm not defending the teachers unions, nor am I defending public school districts. I guess I'm not defending anyone.
I would be very concerned about going into a voucher system if one of the biggest selling points is that it won't cost us anything in taxes and that there is ample capacity in the state's private schools.
Why? Because anytime there seems to be a massive amount of reserves from earmarked funds for government sponsered programs, new programs are suggested, passed, and put into effect... and suddenly, the money that was there to fund the new programs evaporates. Either it is gone as it is used up, or it turns out it was only "funny" money on the books. There isn't a whole lot of long term thinking about how to pay for things.
This happened here in our area in Mental Health... it had been run by the county government. They were running with a nice big surplus, and then decided to privatize everything... even the county administration portion. The thought was it can be so better handled privately, and there less chance for fraud and it allows the government to focus in on what government is good at and it will cost us less in the long run. Well, guess what? Within two years what had been something like $20MM in the black turned into $10+ MM in the red. What no one had apparently taken into account that by privatizing, they lost oodles and oodles of federal matching dollars or something like that. And they didn't notice the loss in revenue because they were still operating in the black because of the vast reserves. Then, it suddenly became a crunch, and the company that replaced what had been the county's mental health administration decided to sign an exclusive contract with another company to actually administer the programs with some funny accounting of passing on the bulk of that shortfall to that second company's books. That second company was responsible for actually dividing up funds between the "consumers" (the families and mentally handicapped individuals within the county receiving services). They suddenly didn't have any money to provide what families had been receiving in the form of wages and authorized number of hours to care givers and other basic needs like OT and other therapies. The families not only got the raw end of the deal, but since this was now private and not government run, there was a loop hole in the law that allowed this private company to go and start charging the families or the services they were receiving (that were ostensibly being paid through Medicaid / Medicare / and a variety of other charitable donations / tax levies / federal and state funds). This second company then also started laying off staff and caseworkers, so the consumers didn't even have a reliable base of professionals to rely on. And then, to make things even funner, this second company then subcontracted administration of the direct care workers to a third company. This third company was full of corrupt practice, and they then subcontracted payroll of the direct care workers to a fourth company (which as it turns out was simply a shell organization for the people running the third company).
Long story short... let's say that at the state level, $25 / hr was allocated for every hour of direct care. By the time it was actually getting to where any work was actually being done (the direct care giver), the people were being asked to accept about $8 to $10 / hr for their work. The rest of it had been siphoned off as "overhead" and "administration" by the various intermediary private companies (who are not under the same sort of scrutiny as a public entity) for doing nothing and adding absolutely no value... in fact the opposite.
As bad as the public schools may be, I could see the same thing as what happened to community mental health here in our county happening under a educational voucher system.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Public school teachers must meet minimum standards of professional education and competence as evidenced by pre- and in-service education and by passing the certification exams. Private, parochial, and charter schools don't have those requirements, so it's likely (especially in charter schools) that teachers are not certified. Most of those schools cannot afford the same level of pay and benefits as a public school. The net effect is that while some teachers at those schools may be excellent (and I'm sure everyone here has anecdotal stories to support that), many teachers are underpaid and uncertified, giving a net effect of a less professional faculty.
Aditionally, those schools are not required to adhere to curriculum standards. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the curriculum standards of your state.
Unless the voucher program includes a mandate for teacher certification and for curriculum standards, your children will likely get a better overall education at a public school.
In Texas, when vouchers were first introduced, hundreds of new charter schools sprang up overnight. They met the minimum standards, of course, but now, after several years, almost all have closed down because they couldn't attract enough good teachers, they were financially mismanaged, and because parents realized their children actually got a better education and had more resources at a public school (Federal Title-1 money, technology grants, special ed programs, diagnosticians, etc.) The voucher program is still in place, but families use it to help defray the cost of the few private schools left in the area (which are excellent and have been in operation for over 20 years.)
Bottom line: "School choice" in Texas really means that those families who can already afford to send their kids to private schools now can use vouchers to help pay for it--usually about 1/4 to 1/3 of the tuition.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Bottom line: "School choice" in Texas really means that those families who can already afford to send their kids to private schools now can use vouchers to help pay for it--usually about 1/4 to 1/3 of the tuition.
Bingo...particularly this comment. One of the reasons I voted no.
If all teachers were like Roper, we'd all vote no.
All teachers are not like Roper. Had I lived in Utah, I would have voted YES.
I feel Utahns made another backward choice... in a state where education has always seemed to come first I am amazed that it failed.
Too many transplants have moved there I suppose and it looks like SLC has another extreme liberal as it's mayor. Rocky II.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Bottom line: "School choice" in Texas really means that those families who can already afford to send their kids to private schools now can use vouchers to help pay for it--usually about 1/4 to 1/3 of the tuition.
Bingo...particularly this comment. One of the reasons I voted no.
That's why I voted against the voucher program when it came around here.
There is the average $ that it costs to educate each student in the system, but that is very misleading. Your normal student costs much less and your special needs/life skills student costs much, much more. If the private schools were accepting only the special needs/life skills students, then the public schools would end up with more money (and the teacher's unions would be happy). But, the private schools will probably accept only the normal students, which will take away more $ than that student actually costs, which will leave substantially less money available for everyone else.
I think we/society are judged highly because we treat the disabled and disadvanted so well. Vouchers would take away from that.
I don't have a problem one way or the other with school vouchers. I do think though that parents should have the right to put their child in whatever public school they want. I think it is criminal that some parents have to put their kids in failing or dangerous schools. Getting transfers is difficult if not impossible in many places.
I so desperately wanted the parents of this state to show that they were in charge instead of the UEA/NEA.
Why do these parents continue giving creedance to the educational "professionals" who've been failing at their jobs for the past 60 years?
There is so much unseemly stuff being taught in our public schools and suffered by our children, but there aren't a lot of parents who seem to want to find out about it, or do anything to change it.
Is it laziness? Most likely.
Is it fear of repercussions? Highly likely.
US schools are non performing, and until parents take them back over and take an active role in forcing the proper curriculum, they aren't going to improve.
And Utah parents just showed that they are willing to settle for more of the same.
US schools are non-performing? All of them? Particularly in Utah? Please.
It is true that Utah spends less per pupil than most other states. It is also true that Utah students test well above the national average in all categories. Utah public schools do more with less. If ever there was a state where vouchers are unnecessary, Utah is that state.
Parents need to be in the schools, know the teachers, be involved in the classroom. It's a lot easier to vote for vouchers than to take the time to actually get in the trenches and work with the teacher to help a child improve.
Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't think that vouchers are the answer, because they would basically make all schools publicly funded (and thus government controlled). The government regulations and curriculum are the problem. I've known principals and teachers on a casual basis (not in their capacity as teachers and principals), and many of them really care about the education of the children. But like one principal told me, frequently the requirements the government puts on them can be not only onerous but contradictory. That is, you can follow only one, not the other. If you really feel strongly that poor kids should have the option to go to private schools, contribute to a scholarship fund for that school. Most private schools that I know of have a scholarship fund of one form or another. If they don't have one, help form one. Organize bake sales or whatever to raise additional funds for scholarships. You will be helping poor kids to get a better education. And private schools won't become de facto public schools.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Even if it had passed I think very few parents would take advantage of something like this. Many parents seem lazy or apathetic when it comes to their kids schooling. Most parents don't even show up for parent teacher conferences at my kids school. No phone call or anything, they just don't care as long as little Johnny and Suzi are being babysat.
Organist wrote:Your normal student costs much less and your special needs/life skills student costs much, much more. If the private schools were accepting only the special needs/life skills students, then the public schools would end up with more money (and the teacher's unions would be happy). But, the private schools will probably accept only the normal students, which will take away more $ than that student actually costs, which will leave substantially less money available for everyone else.
I think we/society are judged highly because we treat the disabled and disadvanted so well. Vouchers would take away from that.
Special needs students are indeed a very relevant factor to think about. One thing that surprised me as we started travelling in homeschooling circles, was the large percentage of special needs kids. The parents tried all of the extra expensive stuff the school provided, and concluded their kid's needs were not being met.
The second thing that surprised me, was how most of these special needs students were thriving in the homeschool environment - in some cases, 2 or 3 grade levels ahead of their age. The thing about special needs, is they're special - which means they're different from the next special needs kid over. One of them has a 5th grade vocabulary at age 4, but can't add 2+2. The next one can do algebra at age 6, but hasn't learned how to write yet. Some are gifted, some are delayed, some are a mix. I'm reasonably certain some special needs kids catch the label just because they don't fit into the traditional mold that 'normal' kids must fit into in school.
A third thing I've learned, is that many school systems fight harder to keep special needs kids in the system, when their parents try to homeschool. This lends evidence to the notion that these kids are seen as dollar signs in the eyes of public school officials. Lose the kid, lose the funding. There's also the financial incentive to keep special needs kids special, because you lose the funding if the kid becomes 'normal'.
[Everything I've said is based on my own anecdotal experience. I don't claim to be right, or even relevant. I just hope you find me interesting.]
LM
-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 12:54, 2007-11-07
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
I've seen parents deal with, firsthand, trying to get their kids out of a special needs system. Apparently, in Colorado at least, once you are evaluated as special needs, you absolutely must complete the special needs program prescribed for you or you cannot participate in regular school. This applies, for some reason, to homeschool as well. Normally homeschool kids in Colorado can participate in extracurricular activities at the public school without enrolling. But apparently, if your kid has been evaluated as special needs, they cannot participate even in extra-curricular activities unless they enroll in the public school and finish their special needs program. And when your kid no longer needs the program is entirely at the discrimination of the officials running the program.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Then there are parents who have to fight for services for their kids.
Fortunately here in Michigan if your home district doesn't have what your child needs then they will send him to a district that does and pay the tuition and pay for the transportation. (I think I've mentioned this before). Our son attends school out of the district. The only thing our home district had to offer was full-inclusion. Which basically meant he would sit in a regular ed classroom all day with a "para-professional" there to "babysit" him.
When we lived in Ohio however, how good the special education your child received depended on where you lived. We were fortunate then too that we lived in an area that had a good special education system. But, I remember going to an Autism parent support group meeting once and was hearing horror stories from other parents about how they had to fight for services for their kids in other districts. Sure, you could send your child somewhere else, but you had to take him and you had to pay for it. I still remember walking out of there thinking how glad we lived where we did.
If it means anything to the discussion, I hated kindergarden.
I had already taught myself how to read and simple arithmetic when I was ~3. When in kindergarden I was immensely bored, and on top of that the school wanted to keep me in kindergarden instead allowing me to go into first grade, because I couldn't jump rope or throw a ball like the other kids. My mom had to jump through hoops to get me through.
Why do these parents continue giving creedance to the educational "professionals" who've been failing at their jobs for the past 60 years?
And the flip side, from a teacher's perspective, is this: Why would a state want to give more educational choices to "concerned parents" who've been failing in their parenting for the past few generations? Most of the kids in my class entered kindergarten with little or no self control. I spent my first six weeks mostly teaching basic social skills, routines, and discipline--stuff that they should have been learning at home for the past five years. And I still spend part of my instructional time each day modeling and practicing those behaviors. Who's failing when kids begin their academic careers without the faintest idea of the self-discipline required to learn? But we don't want our schools teaching non-academic stuff like self-control to our kids--that's the job of parents. Newsflash--if a kid doesn't have the discipline to engage in more than five minutes of directed instruction without disrupting others, he's gonna fail, and it ain't the school's fault. /rant
Parents blame teachers for failing to educate children. Teachers blame parents for failing to prepare children for education. There's some truth on both sides. It's still a paradigm without practical value, however. Blame doesn't fix any of the problems.
As Bok alluded to, when parents and teachers are together engaged in the education of children, children are successful in education.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Parents blame teachers for failing to educate children. Teachers blame parents for failing to prepare children for education. There's some truth on both sides. It's still a paradigm without practical value, however. Blame doesn't fix any of the problems.
As Bok alluded to, when parents and teachers are together engaged in the education of children, children are successful in education.
You go Roper! You are absolutely, positively right! The most successful school years my children have had have been the ones where the teacher has actively seeked my insight and has provided their's to me on a regular basis.
Roper, sometimes it just doesn't work that way. When our son was in public school, we were very involved. We attended every parent/teacher conference (except one where we got the time badly wrong), we followed up each day on his homework and did our best to help him get it done, we talked to everyone who was involved in our son's education. But still he was failing badly. Now we put our efforts into teaching him at home, and he is excelling. There is no way that we could have made public school work for our boy. He was in one of the top rated elementary schools in the state and failing badly. Now his genius is showing through and he is learning a great deal. Parent involvement in education is critical. But it isn't enough in every case to make public school work. Note, I am not saying that no kid gets an education from public school. That's obviously not true. Neither am I saying that every parent should homeschool. But I thank the Lord that the option was available to us, even with all the sacrifice that it entails.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
School choice in Texas has never been true choice. The charter schools were never much of a choice as government had too much of a hand in them. Sure, you can place your kid in another school if the school they have been going to underperforms but the school a little further away may be performing "acceptibly" but it is not much better.
Of course, we have had mixed results with our two kids that have been in school. The fact is, they are two different children who have been taught the same way. There is a level of inflexibility and a teaching method that is not broad enough to bring in the differences in learning style. Plus, the caliber of teachers has been different. A level of true choice may be part of the solution.
Public schools have a difficult task to perform. They are in charge of teaching children with a wide range of backgrounds under narrow guidelines imposed by government. As Roper mentions, many kids are going in with poor social skills. Many kids do not have much in the way of parental support - their parents drop them off and pick them up, that is the extent of their involvement. Discipline is lacking at home for many and what can be done at school is limited. Some teachers just don't give a darn about making some kids behave at school (probably partly due to frustration with previous attempts). These kids with their problems primarily due to lack of parental guidance and support have an effect of my children's education. They distract and delay both the teacher and the behaved student. This is my greatest frustration.
If school choice was truly provided I would see parents such as myself moving their kids to private schools. I think a majority of those who would make that choice are those concerned and involved in their child's education. Those who care little about their children's education and/or don't get involved in it would continue with the public schools perhaps giving them a more narrowed type of student to focus on - though not a very exciting prospect for public school teachers.
I do think there are many good schools out there as bokbadok states. There could be different reasons behind that. The community could be composed of the type of parents schools need and should have or the faculty may just be that good. Success could be a composition of both or even one or the other to a level. The fact is, sometimes you get stuck in a community were one or both of those situations do not exist and that is when the problems arise.
The fact is, a big problem we have is that attitudes of some parents. Lack of support and guidance. I really do not know how we can change that as it seems to be a growing problem. In some places, it seems the only thing you can do is escape the problem by getting your kids in school elsewhere or choosing to homeschool. Those should be viable choices and I think taxpayers should be able to keep their hard earned money and use it towards something that will work for their kids.
The more I think about the schools and my situation the more I realize that I can't solve the education issues for anyone except my own family. And even then I can't solve them. I can only pray, do my best and try to make good decisions.
Public school wasn't working for my oldest. It wasn't gonna work either. The reason is that he needed one-on-one help most of the time. And the public schools have no ability to do that. Ok, they could do it, but they couldn't fund it except if he had WAY more disabilities. In Colorado, they had to make a special exception just to get him 20 minutes a day of resource services. I realized then that they weren't going to see the problem properly until a few years later after barely addressing it would lead to worse problems.
Now, he had good and helpful teachers. I am not disrespecting them. But the system is what it is, and it was not set up to deal with his situation. And without throwing tons of money at it, private schools weren't going to be the answer either.
I made a hard choice, but I do not regret it. There are more hard choices ahead, but we'll get to them when they come.
I guess my point regarding vouchers is that I wouldn't know which would be better, with or without.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
I was bummed the vouchers didn't pass, but oh well.
I started investigating our local school curriculum when my niece's struggles got worse. We were so thrilled when she got an A in Language Arts in the 3rd grade! She has trouble reading, so that A was just wonderful! Then at parent-teacher conference, the teacher said niece wasn't reading at grade level. We had her tested, and she was a year and a half behind (her IQ is normal). How does a girl who is reading a year and a half behind get an A in Language Arts? It's because of her good attitude and good behavior, of course. It has nothing to do with knowledge.
The school district proudly announced they let the teachers mix whole language and phonics however they want to. I tutored her over the summer using an Orton-Gillingham (modified phonics) method of teaching reading. It was fascinating to teach her. I could pick out exactly which whole language ideas were screwing her up. I finally got a Boggle game, and we'd shake it up and she'd have to read the sounds in order without trying to guess the word from the first letter. Anything to get her to stop trying to read an entire word without looking at the entire word, like she was doing because of the whole language instruction.
She's getting As in Language Arts again now in 4th grade, so we have no idea if she actually improved over the summer. Grades are meaningless.
Math is also a problem. Our school district has a warm-fuzzy self-esteem group-project math curriculum. My niece struggles with basic arithmetic.
I had visions of a private school that had a "drill and skill" curriculum that actually taught stuff, rather than putting the kids in groups to figure it out themselves. Group projects in second grade just mean my niece gets to talk about Polly Pockets with her friends.
Probably, private schools like that don't exist anyway.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Arbi and Hiccups--there will always be kids who do much better in a home school. I tutored one over the summer. There was no way he would have succeeded in Public school--he needs the kind of support only parents can give.
I really admire parents who home-school. In some aspects, their job is harder than mine--preparing, delivering, and assessing instruction across grade levels and with differing curriculum. Hiccups said it best: The most important consideration should always be what is best for the child.
From Janey:
I had visions of a private school that had a "drill and skill" curriculum that actually taught stuff, rather than putting the kids in groups to figure it out themselves. Group projects in second grade just mean my niece gets to talk about Polly Pockets with her friends. I teach at an applied learning academy. Most of our curriculum is project-based, where kids get into groups and "figure it out themsleves." Here's the key to making that successful: You have to teach children to be accountable to standards and to each other. We do some really amazing projects, even in Kindergarten. No drill and kill. No teaching to the tests. In fact, the bulk of our grades are based on project and protfolio assessments. And yet, when our kids take the required state standardized tests, they outscore their peers in traditional schools (by a large margin) in every measurable area. Project-based and applied learning works really well for kids, when it's done right. The problem is that very few teachers have the training and experience to help it work like it's supposed to.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
You go Roper! You are absolutely, positively right! The most successful school years my children have had have been the ones where the teacher has actively seeked my insight and has provided their's to me on a regular basis.
