Improving public school as money saving strategy

[freeazabird]

The school in my neighborhood is pretty bad. It has just been converted to a charter school and is seeking lots of input from parents and other members of the community on ways to help the school. I was wondering if anyone has viewed improving their public school as a money saving strategy? Where I live most parents who can afford to do so, send their kids to private school, many of which cost around $25k a year, which of course is not very Mustachian. Nonetheless I run across families maxing out credit cards, not saving for retirement, and never going on vacation to scrape up the money for private school.

[Rezdent]

We sent all of our kids through public school - one that many in our area felt was "bad" because it included some of our worst neighborhoods.

Not only did this save us from going broke, but our children gained valuable experience with diverse groups.  They saw the differences between status, culture, and opportunity, and how these things helped and hurt their friends. They gained soft skills that would likely not been learned in private school.  All of them graduated with excellent grades and prospects.

As long as the neighborhood and school are reasonably safe, the most important factors for success are almost completely under your control: stable home life, good routines, good nutrition, and parental involvement.

[lthenderson]

I send my kids to a private grade school ($2800/year tuition). There isn't an option for a private high school in my area but there has been a lot of documentation in our community that sending the kids to a private school does help them when they enter the public high school. The kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when they enter high school. I know this because I am on the school board for the private school. Which brings me to your original question of improving schools as a money savings strategy. My answer is probably not for your kids.

Schools have huge budgets and lots of requirements to meet. Both of these mean that change is slow to occur. I have spent five years implementing changes in the private school my kids attend and most likely, they will see very little benefit because they will be on to the public school before the changes are fully up and running. Due to budgets, we find that we have to implement things in bits and pieces to be able to afford them. I also find that lots of things that I would like to do can't be done if we are to meet state and nationally mandated requirements. This can be not enough hours in the school day, not enough money in the budget, etc.

I still encourage people to be as active in their schools as possible because school budgets generally account for the lions share of where your local taxes go to. I've always said that if you are concerned about the amount of taxes you pay, the local school board election has a bigger impact than whomever is running for president of the country.

[MoneyCat]

If you live somewhere with bad public schools (like drugs, gangs, violence, etc) and you have school aged children, then you should move somewhere with better schools. Period. You are already paying for the schools with your taxes, so you should get your money's worth instead of paying twice by also paying for private school. If the schools are crap, there is nothing you can do about it outside of gentrifying your neighborhood and that usually takes years.

[mozar]

There was a good article in Slate recently about how heroin addiction is a growing problem in wealthy suburban schools. Not sure it's so easy to get away from drugs.

[bonjourliz]

I do view school involvement as a money saver, to an extent. 

Our elem school is well regarded in the area, but it (like all the schools in our state) doesn't have the money for many extras.  The PTA and school foundation pay for things like STEAM days and nights, festivals, campus cleanups, music, etc, programs, in-house field trips, a technology coordinator for the school, iPads & technology, enrichment offerings for the after school program.... All things that are "unnecessary" but really round out the kids' experience. Our teachers and admin are able to focus on the core stuff because the PTA is so strong. 

I make it a priority to serve in the PTA.  And to help my kid's classroom teacher too.  This past year, I went in every Friday and served as an extra hand during computer lab.  Other parents went in weekly too, and helped with small group reading, research projects, kids who needed a one-on-one, etc etc.  I believe that this type of commitment helps keep the teacher from burning out and helps reduce the effect of the larger than ideal class sizes our district has.  Both of which are big differences btwn our school and the private schools around us.

If our school didn't offer the kinds of extras it does (which are made possible by volunteers like me), private school would be have a much bigger appeal to us.  So it's not like I place a dollar value on my involvement with the school, but I definitely do prioritize it and make it happen.

Sent from my HTC first using Tapatalk

[mousebandit]

We choose to homeschool, although not as a money-saving strategy.  It is, however, extremely cost-effective.  You can invest as much or as little as you desire to, and have available, in curriculum, extra-curriculars, field trips, etc.  You can't beat the teacher-to-student ratio, and you can ensure that the academics are tailored to your child's strengths and weaknesses.  It's a challenge, absolutely.  If you have 2 highly-paid working parents, it can even be a short-term loss (although it's common to recoup some of the investment with advanced academics, college scholarships, and CLEP credits that likely wouldn't have been accessible otherwise).  But, after giving it a try, many parents find that it is the best choice for their families. 

[aceyou]

I send my kids to a private grade school ($2800/year tuition). There isn't an option for a private high school in my area but there has been a lot of documentation in our community that sending the kids to a private school does help them when they enter the public high school. The kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when they enter high school. I know this because I am on the school board for the private school. Which brings me to your original question of improving schools as a money savings strategy. My answer is probably not for your kids.

 You said that kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when entering high school. 

May I ask a follow up question on your data?  If you take the median household income of those private school children, and then only look at the incoming freshmen from the public school with similar incomes, where do those children end up placing when they enter high school.  My bet would be they also place in the top 20%, but this is just an educated guess, as I don't have the data. 

In my community, the private school test scores are higher overall than the public school.  However, if you just isolate public school scores for the kids who's income is similar to those at the private school, then the public school is actually producing higher test scores...we are crushing them actually.

So, my advice is to send your kids to the public school.  This is what I will do with my children, and I expect them to turn out just as well academically, and miles ahead in terms of empathy for those who are less privileged, understanding of diversity, etc.  Oh, plus we'll have thousands of extra dollars/year that we can spend to supplement their experiences even more...bonus!!!

Disclaimer: I'm a public school teacher at the school I mentioned, so I'm biased, but the data does support my bias:)

[singlemominmass]

I agree with ace.  I'm also a public school teacher.  I think the SES piece has a lot to do with it and the involvement of the parents.

[Yaeger]

Public schools suck. It's not a problem with the teachers or the students, they're merely symptoms of a larger problem. Our historical answer of throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer and hasn't been the answer for decades. We've been sliding down international rankings for education for decades because of our dysfunctional education system.



This doesn't apply to all schools, but I think the below represent some of the reasons public schools perform more poorly than private. And recommendations in general:

1) Make public education a voucher system where parents have a choice in where to send their children. This will form reforms to better the quality of education to attract funds and promote competitiveness between schools.
2) Eliminate teacher's unions. Stop basing decisions based on seniority in some districts and move towards demonstrated superior performance as the metric that influences pay growth and job security.
3) Aggressively stop the usage of classes where students are told what topics will be on the test and they're allowed to bring notes. Don't base performance on standardized tests.
4) Bring back vocational training in schools like shop class.

[aceyou]

Public schools suck. It's not a problem with the teachers or the students, they're merely symptoms of a larger problem. Our historical answer of throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer and hasn't been the answer for decades. We've been sliding down international rankings for education for decades because of our dysfunctional education system.



This doesn't apply to all schools, but I think the below represent some of the reasons public schools perform more poorly than private. And recommendations in general:

1) Make public education a voucher system where parents have a choice in where to send their children. This will form reforms to better the quality of education to attract funds and promote competitiveness between schools.
2) Eliminate teacher's unions. Stop basing decisions based on seniority in some districts and move towards demonstrated superior performance as the metric that influences pay growth and job security.
3) Aggressively stop the usage of classes where students are told what topics will be on the test and they're allowed to bring notes. Don't base performance on standardized tests.
4) Bring back vocational training in schools like shop class.

Public education doesn't suck.  There's TONS of room for growth (I know I can always do a better job, and I work hard to improve the quality of my instruction every day), but it doesn't suck.
 
1.  Regarding vouchers...Most places that are doing the best internationally...basically all of them, are nationalized public school systems...not voucher systems/private school systems/charter schools.  We are far less nationalized and have far more "competition" via charter/private schools than the countries that are scoring higher.  Education is not a business, yet we in the US often treat it like it is a business far more than the other countries.  If your hypothesis is that the other countries are better, shouldn't we put a stronger emphasis on a nationalized public school system?  (note I didn't say that we need more money, I'm not advocating for that).
2.  I was a former teacher union basher, I'm now a supporter.  My pay(57k/year with ten years teaching experience and a masters in mathematics) and work conditions would plummet without the union.  Trust me, I wish I didn't feel the need to pay the union dues, but I've seen way to many examples of why I need to. 
3.  I don't understand your 3rd point, can you clarify it a little more? 
4.  Regarding vocational training, I couldn't agree more.  A job like a diesel mechanic or an electrician, etc.  Those jobs are very valuable, very employable, and can earn as much as a college degreed job.  The idea that college = only way to success is bunk.  Every child should be given the opportunity to go to college, but that doesn't mean every child should go to college and be on that track.

[Erica]

Almost all Public school are horrid now. They have an agenda to push perverted sex onto children as young as Kindergarden age.

Charter schools do not have this requirement. I understand they are not 5 days a week though so for the working parent, it can be difficult.

But they do allow parental input and do not have the agenda the public schools have to push certain X rated topics onto children.


If people were allowed vouchers, that would really help. Public School budgets are based on old laws, there are plenty of ways to give a good education at much less expense. The Administrators are making way too much while the Teachers make way too little $$.

[bonjourliz]

Wow, I can't disagree more with the idea that the solution to our education woes is vouchers.  No.  We need to invest (not solely financially, but in other ways -- real support, not just $$$) in our public schools. The more we encourage families to opt out, the less support is left in the public school -- it moves to the alternative options.  When I go into the classroom, I'm helping my kid and all his classmates -- including those whose parents are struggling.  If you continue to make it easier and more appealing for families like mine to opt out, that kind of support won't be there for those kids.and we all suffer when the education system isn't strong -- crime rates, property values, etc etc etc.

Also there are a few charter schools where I live and they're all 5 days a week.  And nobody is pushing "perverted sex" on anyone. ??

Sent from my HTC first using Tapatalk

[Yaeger]

I think Erica's point is in regards to the politics of education funding. There's very rarely funding without strings attached that introduce some politician's personal stamp on 'improving' education.

3) Aggressively stop the usage of classes where students are told what topics will be on the test and they're allowed to bring notes. Don't base performance on standardized tests.

3.  I don't understand your 3rd point, can you clarify it a little more? 

This may not apply to you, but my 3rd point was linking teacher pay, school funding, and school success to increasingly standardized testing performance in which students are taught to pass a test and not adequately prepared follow-on education or careers.

You might have better insight on that than me. I went through several public schools and I have a lot respect for our teachers that have to put up with brats like me. However, even in Europe private schooling far outstrips public schooling in terms of performance and quality. For example, there has been explosive private school business growth in Germany during the last decade.

[Erica]

Wow, I can't disagree more with the idea that the solution to our education woes is vouchers.  No.  We need to invest (not solely financially, but in other ways -- real support, not just $$$) in our public schools. The more we encourage families to opt out, the less support is left in the public school -- it moves to the alternative options.  When I go into the classroom, I'm helping my kid and all his classmates -- including those whose parents are struggling.  If you continue to make it easier and more appealing for families like mine to opt out, that kind of support won't be there for those kids.and we all suffer when the education system isn't strong -- crime rates, property values, etc etc etc.

Also there are a few charter schools where I live and they're all 5 days a week.  And nobody is pushing "perverted sex" on anyone. ??

Sent from my HTC first using Tapatalk

Hence why I said
"Almost all Public school are horrid now. They have an agenda to push perverted sex onto children as young as Kindergarden age.
Charter schools do not have this requirement"

Your point about the poorer students is a good one. It doesn't trump the dodging sexual abuse agenda though, at least for me. At five, children need to be allowed to be children.

[lthenderson]

I send my kids to a private grade school ($2800/year tuition). There isn't an option for a private high school in my area but there has been a lot of documentation in our community that sending the kids to a private school does help them when they enter the public high school. The kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when they enter high school. I know this because I am on the school board for the private school. Which brings me to your original question of improving schools as a money savings strategy. My answer is probably not for your kids.

 You said that kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when entering high school. 

May I ask a follow up question on your data?  If you take the median household income of those private school children, and then only look at the incoming freshmen from the public school with similar incomes, where do those children end up placing when they enter high school.  My bet would be they also place in the top 20%, but this is just an educated guess, as I don't have the data. 

In my community, the private school test scores are higher overall than the public school.  However, if you just isolate public school scores for the kids who's income is similar to those at the private school, then the public school is actually producing higher test scores...we are crushing them actually.

So, my advice is to send your kids to the public school.  This is what I will do with my children, and I expect them to turn out just as well academically, and miles ahead in terms of empathy for those who are less privileged, understanding of diversity, etc.  Oh, plus we'll have thousands of extra dollars/year that we can spend to supplement their experiences even more...bonus!!!

Disclaimer: I'm a public school teacher at the school I mentioned, so I'm biased, but the data does support my bias:)

We don't have any data from our school that compares things in that way. Saying that, only about 10% of the school population pays full tuition rates (I am one of them) and about 50% don't pay a dime. They get STO grants to pay for their tuition. Part of the reason is that our county is the poorest county in our state.

I didn't mean to imply that ALL private schools are better than public schools because I am sure that isn't the case. But in our county, it is well documented that the kids coming out of our private school are significantly advanced compared to their peers. A lot of this has to do with class size as most of ours average around ten students per teacher compared to 20-25 in the public school system here. Another factor is that we can be selective in who teaches and even which students we allow to continue. If they are disruptive to the classroom environment, the student is not accepted into the school the following year. As a result, we only get students who want to be there and want to learn which really helps out in fostering a good learning environment.

[boognish]

Almost all Public school are horrid now. They have an agenda to push perverted sex onto children as young as Kindergarden age.

Sexually depraved graduate of public schools here; confirming that sex ed ruined my life

[radram]

I send my kids to a private grade school ($2800/year tuition). There isn't an option for a private high school in my area but there has been a lot of documentation in our community that sending the kids to a private school does help them when they enter the public high school. The kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when they enter high school. I know this because I am on the school board for the private school. Which brings me to your original question of improving schools as a money savings strategy. My answer is probably not for your kids.

 You said that kids graduating from the private school generally place in the top 20% of their public school peers when entering high school. 

May I ask a follow up question on your data?  If you take the median household income of those private school children, and then only look at the incoming freshmen from the public school with similar incomes, where do those children end up placing when they enter high school.  My bet would be they also place in the top 20%, but this is just an educated guess, as I don't have the data. 

In my community, the private school test scores are higher overall than the public school.  However, if you just isolate public school scores for the kids who's income is similar to those at the private school, then the public school is actually producing higher test scores...we are crushing them actually.

So, my advice is to send your kids to the public school.  This is what I will do with my children, and I expect them to turn out just as well academically, and miles ahead in terms of empathy for those who are less privileged, understanding of diversity, etc.  Oh, plus we'll have thousands of extra dollars/year that we can spend to supplement their experiences even more...bonus!!!

Disclaimer: I'm a public school teacher at the school I mentioned, so I'm biased, but the data does support my bias:)

We don't have any data from our school that compares things in that way. Saying that, only about 10% of the school population pays full tuition rates (I am one of them) and about 50% don't pay a dime. They get STO grants to pay for their tuition. Part of the reason is that our county is the poorest county in our state.

I didn't mean to imply that ALL private schools are better than public schools because I am sure that isn't the case. But in our county, it is well documented that the kids coming out of our private school are significantly advanced compared to their peers. A lot of this has to do with class size as most of ours average around ten students per teacher compared to 20-25 in the public school system here. Another factor is that we can be selective in who teaches and even which students we allow to continue. If they are disruptive to the classroom environment, the student is not accepted into the school the following year. As a result, we only get students who want to be there and want to learn which really helps out in fostering a good learning environment.

So we have a system that can cherry pick its students, dump the underperformers to a lesser "public" system with class sizes more than double these elite schools (high school class size is now 30-32 in my area), and by your own admission many of them still do not significantly outperform public schools?  Kind of makes you wonder how well a public school with a 10 to 1 ration could do, even if all that was left were these "underperformers".

[Another Reader]

Individual parents cannot overcome the wasteful bureaucracy or political agendas of public schools.  What you can do is carefully examine if you can make the system work for your kids.  Are there better schools in your district that your kids can attend?  Commuting might be a lot less expensive than private school.  Are there programs for gifted/high achieving students at your local school?  You might want to check those out.

Once you get into the middle and high schools, peer pressure becomes a big factor.  Private school might make sense at that stage if the academic and social differences make for better outcomes.  And, of course, I would avoid any school that is dangerous.  Not worth your kid getting robbed or worse.

[Erica]

Almost all Public school are horrid now. They have an agenda to push perverted sex onto children as young as Kindergarden age.

Sexually depraved graduate of public schools here; confirming that sex ed ruined my life

Something wrong with sex ed nowadays?

[Erica]

They employ Cops at our public schools now. Honestly, it is just not safe. One tazed a first grade student for smacking another student. The other student has heart problems and the zap also went thru his body. Cops are not needed on Campus in our well to do area of California.

The public school my son attended was wonderful. Much better than the private school he'd been in for a few months and hated. Lousy education compared to the local public schools. But as he grew, the Cops on campus taking children aside asking about family members who were into drugs and getting them to ratt, all kinds of stuff scared him a little. A team of Cops came in and arrested a few parents for smoking weed and they lost custody of their children. Otherwise good parents. The pushing of casual sex he opposed when a friend or two were the victims of this vitrol. The only safe sex is not a condom but not exchanging bodily fluids, condoms break. But he didn't want to hear the truth. An overtly gay guy was trying to pick fights with the kids, had an agenda explaining you cannot control your sex drive while my son made snide comments back like "Yeah tell that to the pedophiles, I am sure that will help them".  One student said he was waiting until marriage and the guy said "You need to hear this stuff because it aint happening" so he called him a pervert and said not everyone is as out of control sexually as he is. He was sent to the principals office. Sadly, California arrests more children than any other state. Including if they tell the truth outloud about the lies being taught. A Cop will take that student aside. Best senario is if they are sent to the principals office. Public school changed drastically just as our son was attending and he's said he would never allow his future children to attend. We wanted him out but he wanted to stay where his friends are. He's fine but learned enough not to want to repeat it with any of our future grandchildren.

It is cherry picking to use vouchers. The poorer students, students who are behind are more likely to be together while the well to do all attend the same public school. Actually that is happening right now with our Private schools anyhow and happened when my son was little. Parents demanded the best teachers, many criticized me for allowing my son in with the "lower" children. But he was so ahead and one friend was in that class, it was more important than me demanding the perfect teacher. Alot of this depends upon where you live. For some kids public school is  great. Others not so much

[lthenderson]

So we have a system that can cherry pick its students, dump the underperformers to a lesser "public" system with class sizes more than double these elite schools (high school class size is now 30-32 in my area), and by your own admission many of them still do not significantly outperform public schools?  Kind of makes you wonder how well a public school with a 10 to 1 ration could do, even if all that was left were these "underperformers".

No where have I said that we dump underperformers. We do dump children who do not wish to behave and would rather be distractions for other children. That is one of the many "perks" of a private education over a government run education. Saying that, we do get some who aren't as bright as others but still want to behave and learn. Those "many" (which in class sizes of 10 or less amount to one or two kids per class on average) are still in the top 50% of their class in public schools, just not in the top 20% like the majority of their classmates.

As someone who graduated myself from public schools, they could all be much better if they could dump kids who don't wish to be in school. However, somewhere along the line our country has insisted that everyone has the "right" to an education and thus we slow everyone down to the speed of the slowest learning child so that "no child gets left behind" rather than giving our highly intelligent children the chance to learn at a faster pace.  Their only real chance is through a private education but that costs money and allows highly intelligent children from poor families to fall through the cracks.

[MoneyCat]

When I was a kid, public schools were awesome because kids were tracked. I was tested and then put into the college track (even though I was low income, so it surprised the teachers.) Other kids ended up in the vocational training track or the ditch digging track. It was a great system. The worthless loser kids were all put together and the kids who wanted to make something of their lives were put in different classes. Everybody won (except for the worthless loser kids, but they weren't going to win anyway and at least we didn't get dragged down by them.)

[mousebandit]

Dang - I am so glad we homeschool, LOL!  I am sitting here reading the replies, just shaking my head.  I cannot even fathom putting my kids back in public school (or private). 

[mm1970]

Almost all Public school are horrid now. They have an agenda to push perverted sex onto children as young as Kindergarden age.

Charter schools do not have this requirement. I understand they are not 5 days a week though so for the working parent, it can be difficult.

But they do allow parental input and do not have the agenda the public schools have to push certain X rated topics onto children.


If people were allowed vouchers, that would really help. Public School budgets are based on old laws, there are plenty of ways to give a good education at much less expense. The Administrators are making way too much while the Teachers make way too little $$.

Um...huh?  Perverted sex?

Not sure what public schools are like where you are but...

Vouchers won't fix things.  NCLB did nothing but make things worse.  Our district has an open transfer policy.  It's worse.

[mm1970]

When I was a kid, public schools were awesome because kids were tracked. I was tested and then put into the college track (even though I was low income, so it surprised the teachers.) Other kids ended up in the vocational training track or the ditch digging track. It was a great system. The worthless loser kids were all put together and the kids who wanted to make something of their lives were put in different classes. Everybody won (except for the worthless loser kids, but they weren't going to win anyway and at least we didn't get dragged down by them.)

I think the problem with this (as I've read) is that by mixing students together, lower/ middle achieving students actually achieve more.

Hence, you have mainstreaming of disabled students and mixing of levels of students.

Of course, the bad side of that is that the advanced students/ GATE students are harmed by this.  On one hand, it's good for them that they get to help others.  I know I tutored a lot in HS (unofficial tutoring during math class).  On the other...they get further behind.

Our school maintstreams and blends.  It's okay if they have regular "pull outs" for reading, math, etc - which they had in the lower grades (son is going into 5th).  From talking to his 4th grade teacher and a 5th grade teacher next year ... I mean, in 4th grade, there were kids at the 1st grade level in math, and 2nd grade level in reading.  (My son was ~7th grade at the start of the year.) 

The 5th grade teacher, in addition to noting the EXTREME differences in abilities among the students, also noted that about half the kids are "done" with school by then.  Whether it be lack of support at home (either parents working too hard/ 2 jobs or just not invested in education), the lack of personal responsibility, or whatever - they don't want to be there anymore.

So of course, what the school WANTS to do is to continue that.  Many many parents have been requesting "tracks" or "clusters".  The teachers obv don't want to do it - who wants to be the 5th grade teacher with the kids performing at a 3rd grade level??  But this year, we had an unprecedented 12 students make GATE in second grade (~ 20% of the grade).  We have a hard time keeping these students, as the district has a "GATE magnet" (gate only students) program at a different school, which is unfortunately only a mile down the road.  (So, no geographical barrier.) 

How many students will we lose?  I hope not many.  But we are trying to convince the new principal and the staff that what they want to do is do a cluster/ grouping.  Face it - in our school, it's the higher SES families that donate all the money and most of the time.  20% of the families.  It's a struggle to raise even $60k a year (the school 1 mile away?  >$500,000 a year).  If we don't change things, we continue to lose families, and the money that goes with them.

[acroy]

Public schools suck. It's not a problem with the teachers or the students, they're merely symptoms of a larger problem. Our historical answer of throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer and hasn't been the answer for decades.

^^ Truth
Desire mediocre results at huge expense? Put government in charge of it. By definition it is now a monopoly and (worse) it will be politicized.

Mini-Mustaches are homeschooled.

[infogoon]

Vouchers won't fix things. 

I've never understood the urge for vouchers. We've seen what "free" money does to education at the college level; why would anyone want to open up a spigot of government money so vultures like DeVry can start running grade schools?

[Prairie Stash]

The school in my neighborhood is pretty bad. It has just been converted to a charter school and is seeking lots of input from parents and other members of the community on ways to help the school. I was wondering if anyone has viewed improving their public school as a money saving strategy? Where I live most parents who can afford to do so, send their kids to private school, many of which cost around $25k a year, which of course is not very Mustachian. Nonetheless I run across families maxing out credit cards, not saving for retirement, and never going on vacation to scrape up the money for private school.

Is paying for private school the same as paying extra taxes to improve that school?