Is this the end for public schools?

[joe189man]

I have some friends in education, one an administrator and the other a teacher, and they have alluded to the decline. one has 4 day schooling to save money and to entice teachers but still have a deficit qualified applicants.

regarding school funding, using school digger and zooming around the front range of Colorado you can see expenditures per pupil any where from ~$9,000 to over $14,000 for elementary schools. there is also no rhyme or reason for the "rank" vs expenditure, as in the expenditures didn't seem to have a correlation to how well the school performed.

I am glad i stumbled upon this thread as there are a lot of good viewpoints and information but damn if it isn't depressing.

[zolotiyeruki]

For those who are interested, the debate about teaching with "fidelity" (ie, teach the standard/curriculum) vs "integrity" (teachers flexibly helping students in the way that works best for them, even if it isn't according to the usual curriculum) is one that is hot in academic circles, but the general conclusion among the education academics I know (which is quite a few) is that fidelity is the only option when you have shitty teachers. Most parents want integrity, but it's not really an option unless the people teaching can actually do it.

-W

That's interesting. Hadn't thought of this before, but demanding strong adherence to standards/curricula seems like a pathway to proletarianize teachers. Take a lot of decision-making power out of their hands and de-skill the profession as much as possible. Probably not great for morale.

I know an older woman who worked for years as a public school teacher. She told me that the administrators were convinced that phonics should not be taught. They had a sight-word system that they insisted on, but she thought it was bad. She secretly taught the kids phonics anyway so that they could learn to read fluently. Every year her students did very well on the standardized tests, but she had to keep her approach under the radar, like literacy samizdat.

One of the things that drives me nuts about administrators is that there is a tendency to chase the latest hot trend, whether it's a flashy new curriculum, or Chromebooks for every student, or School Fad X That The Rich District Next Door Is Doing, rather than finding something that works and sticking to it.  Our district used to use Everyday Math as their curriculum.  It caused our oldest son to actually regress in his math skills. They eventually dropped it, but how much money was wasted, and how many kids suffered in the meantime?  Several months ago I learned that the district replaces their science curriculum every few years.  I'm sorry, folks, but the content of High School Chemistry ain't changing, absent some massively-world-disrupting discovery.  Same for physics and biology.  Oh, and did I mention the all-expenses-paid trips to train teachers on the new curriculum?

Another thing that drives me nuts?  Top-down one-size-fits-all micromanagement from administrators and legislators at all levels who have never taught in a classroom.  Retaining teachers isn't just about the money, although that's important.  Whatever the industry, if people don't enjoy what they're doing, you're going to lose them.  Our district used to (and may still use) Springboard for ELA.  It is an extremely prescriptive curriculum that allows no deviation, no adaptation, and no customization.  On day X, you will say sentence Y, have a student read paragraph J, and ask question Z, and only answer H is acceptable.  Parents hate it.  Students hate it. Teachers hate it, but are afraid to say anything, lest they hurt some administrator's feelings and face retaliation.  And then teachers are evaluated on their students' performance. 

Adminstrators, you can't have it both ways.  You can either A) trust your teachers to teach well, but verify via teacher evaluations, standardized tests, whatever, or B) don't trust your teachers' ability and force them to use a (very expensive) prepackaged curriculum, and then evaluate the effectiveness of the boxed curriculum.  It's unfair to judge teachers' performance based on something over which they have little control.

[StarBright]

Let's pay teachers really, really well (say, $100k a year to start?) and fire a lot of administrators, but let lots of competition and new school ideas do their thing, even if that means giving people (big) vouchers and letting them choose what they want at the expense of job security for mediocre teachers. And let's be patient enough to understand that improving education will take not just money but time.

None of that will happen, of course.

-W

I think giving teachers money and prestige/respect are key. The last two states I have lived in getting a teaching degree has questionable ROI and people seem to hate teachers.

In NC it takes you 10 years of teaching to make it up to 45k and then you top out at 50k (a masters degree gets you an extra 5k).  I think some districts can opt to pay more? but I'm not sure how that works. But anyways, the number I stated are the state salary schedule.

Our old day care in NC was hiring young people with teaching degrees straight out of school. They made about the same amount of money and had a true 8 hour day w/ less paperwork and stress.

Ohio pay isn't as bad, but when I compare it to the cost of a bachelor's from our state teaching school - it still isn't great. Your best and your brightest are not going in to teaching unless they have a true passion for it. Our second tier state school runs 20k a year (if you include the cheapest room and board) and average entry level teachers make 35-44k - but subtract pension (15%) and health care costs from that, and if you have student loan payments . . .

[startingsmall]

My daughter is currently in elementary school, and we really like our assigned public school. It's diverse in a variety of ways (ethnically, socioeconomically, etc.), the administration and teachers work really hard to foster a sense of community, and her teachers have been excellent.

When she starts middle school in a couple of years, though, I don't know what we'll do. Our assigned middle school has apparently lost nearly half their teachers this year (due to an awful administration - I've heard numerous stories about their lack of support for teachers), they have significantly fallen in test scores over the last year or two, and bullying is apparently rampant. I realize that middle school stinks for everyone, but the stories I've heard make me really question sending our daughter there. Alternatives include using school choice to send her to a different nearby middle school (a much older campus and a lower-income neighborhood, but it sounds like perhaps a better environment), paying $8k/year for private school (there's only one secular option in our area, which looks okay but not amazing... and I'm kind of anti-private school in general), or homeschooling. I worry about pulling her away from her friends for three years and sending her back to her assigned high school... we moved near the start of COVID and then homeschooled, so she just started at her current elementary school this year. Switching to a completely new "group" for middle school and back to this "group" for high school seems like a lot of changes in just a few years.

I also worry that the negative changes at the middle school are only going to become more widespread. Even our awesome elementary school has struggled to find teachers this year. Our state's political climate certainly wouldn't encourage me to want to teach here, because I'd always feel like I needed to watch my back and worry about saying something that would cost me my job. I worry that the far right is successfully chipping away at public education, one step at a time... and as much as I want to encourage the teachers to stay and fight, I couldn't ask them to do something that I'd never be able to do myself.

It's a concerning time, for sure. I don't know the right answer. I'm fortunate that I can homeschool (I work from home, and my daughter and I both enjoyed it last year but she missed socialization), that we can afford private school, and that I could provide her with transportation to a non-assigned school. At least we have options (even if they're overwhelming); many parents are not that lucky.

[GuitarStv]

For those who are interested, the debate about teaching with "fidelity" (ie, teach the standard/curriculum) vs "integrity" (teachers flexibly helping students in the way that works best for them, even if it isn't according to the usual curriculum) is one that is hot in academic circles, but the general conclusion among the education academics I know (which is quite a few) is that fidelity is the only option when you have shitty teachers. Most parents want integrity, but it's not really an option unless the people teaching can actually do it.

-W

That's interesting. Hadn't thought of this before, but demanding strong adherence to standards/curricula seems like a pathway to proletarianize teachers. Take a lot of decision-making power out of their hands and de-skill the profession as much as possible. Probably not great for morale.

I know an older woman who worked for years as a public school teacher. She told me that the administrators were convinced that phonics should not be taught. They had a sight-word system that they insisted on, but she thought it was bad. She secretly taught the kids phonics anyway so that they could learn to read fluently. Every year her students did very well on the standardized tests, but she had to keep her approach under the radar, like literacy samizdat.

One of the tricky things about education is that it's so highly variable.  There are students who will learn via phonics really well.  There are students who will struggle with the same material presented in the same way.  Then there are teachers who instinctively understand and are thus are better at explaining one method of educating over another (your fonix teacher sounds like one of them) . . . and their students will do better learning via the teacher's bias because the quality of education will naturally be better.

The goal of standardization is a good one.  We want kids to receive the same rough level of education regardless of where they're going to school or who's teaching them.  Implementation in a workable way is really hard though due to the variability.

[waltworks]

That's interesting. Hadn't thought of this before, but demanding strong adherence to standards/curricula seems like a pathway to proletarianize teachers. Take a lot of decision-making power out of their hands and de-skill the profession as much as possible. Probably not great for morale.

I know an older woman who worked for years as a public school teacher. She told me that the administrators were convinced that phonics should not be taught. They had a sight-word system that they insisted on, but she thought it was bad. She secretly taught the kids phonics anyway so that they could learn to read fluently. Every year her students did very well on the standardized tests, but she had to keep her approach under the radar, like literacy samizdat.

Yes, older teachers can do that. The cohort from the 70s/80s/90s is pretty good. Then things go downhill. As most of the older cohort has now retired, the overall quality has plummeted.

As an example, my son's 4th grade teacher doesn't know how to pronounce words like "limerick" and can't correctly demonstrate 4th grade math. She's a nice person and not a terrible teacher as compared to others at the school, but she's only really capable of teaching a pre-prepared set of materials. Instruction right now is just hamstrung by the teacher quality (bad admin doesn't help, of course).

-W

[ChpBstrd]

For those who are interested, the debate about teaching with "fidelity" (ie, teach the standard/curriculum) vs "integrity" (teachers flexibly helping students in the way that works best for them, even if it isn't according to the usual curriculum) is one that is hot in academic circles, but the general conclusion among the education academics I know (which is quite a few) is that fidelity is the only option when you have shitty teachers. Most parents want integrity, but it's not really an option unless the people teaching can actually do it.

-W

That's interesting. Hadn't thought of this before, but demanding strong adherence to standards/curricula seems like a pathway to proletarianize teachers. Take a lot of decision-making power out of their hands and de-skill the profession as much as possible. Probably not great for morale.

I know an older woman who worked for years as a public school teacher. She told me that the administrators were convinced that phonics should not be taught. They had a sight-word system that they insisted on, but she thought it was bad. She secretly taught the kids phonics anyway so that they could learn to read fluently. Every year her students did very well on the standardized tests, but she had to keep her approach under the radar, like literacy samizdat.

One of the tricky things about education is that it's so highly variable.  There are students who will learn via phonics really well.  There are students who will struggle with the same material presented in the same way.  Then there are teachers who instinctively understand and are thus are better at explaining one method of educating over another (your fonix teacher sounds like one of them) . . . and their students will do better learning via the teacher's bias because the quality of education will naturally be better.

The goal of standardization is a good one.  We want kids to receive the same rough level of education regardless of where they're going to school or who's teaching them.  Implementation in a workable way is really hard though due to the variability.

I would expect private schools to be more likely than public schools to fall into the "fidelity" side of the spectrum. The uniforms, forced religious participation in some cases, and marketing for a rigorous curriculum seem to communicate the value of everyone conforming to the same standard way of doing things. Additionally, a less-diverse student body probably helps mitigate the effect of some students being left behind by the "fidelity" approach. And finally, it sounds more profitable to keep the curriculum straightforward. A relative of mine flunked their way through such a private school because the school didn't understand (or their curriculum couldn't accommodate) his dyslexia.

I would expect public schools to respond to private competition, the disadvantages of having students from low-income families, and their more-expensive cost structures with an emphasis on innovation (aligning with the "integrity" approach). In my public school district, lots of effort goes into making their "F" students become "D" or "C" students because this is where the greatest gains are, in terms of boosting the school's overall averages on the all-important standardized tests. Those test scores cause parents to flock toward or flee from public schools, so it is financially important for public schools to reach their lowest performers with an "integrity" approach.

[jeninco]

Yeah, when women and minorities didn't have as many options, we wound up with higher quality teachers. Now that people with ovaries and melatonin have other choices, being an underpaid -- and over-regulated, in many states by politicians who are more interested in earning points than in understanding child development and what quality teaching looks like -- makes a lot of other jobs look better.

I mean, I love doing math instruction, and have done it for free for our schools for .. gee, coming up on two decades, as a volunteer support/extension/after-school program person. But no freaking way am I going to let a bunch of moronic politicians and administrators tell me how to do what I'm already doing quite effectively, especially not for the pittance they'd be paying me. As long as I'm volunteering, I get to set the parameters of who I'm helping and how (as long as it's effective. And it's effective!).

[Shane]

It's going to take more like generations, I think. Pouring money into schools in poor neighborhoods is something we definitely need to do, but it's an inefficient means of eliminating poverty. Education should just be one part of a much bigger project to wipe out poverty in the US.

Yes, I was simply pointing out that spending 4k more per student is a relatively meaningless stat that proponents of property based school funding love to point out. The purposeful ruin of generations may take as long to repair. And we aren't anywhere close to attempting to repair. The general white and/or wealthy population can't even accept the reality that there's anything that needs repair.

I'm not advocating that schools be locally funded, merely pointing out that the schools which you'd expect to be less-well-funded (Chicago) are actually better funded, on a per-pupil basis, than the vast majority of districts in the state.  Simply pointing out that funding education via property taxes doesn't necessarily mean that rich areas end up with more funding.

I don't know that I'd consider a 33% difference in per-pupil funding to be "relatively meaningless."  Although, with the way I see public schools spend money, I can see how such a difference in overall funding could have zero impact on students...

Where we live now, there's a similar disparity in spending between city schools and some of the suburban school districts, with more money/pupil going to the city schools, but still with much worse outcomes. Partly, that's because the city school district is bigger, and the school buildings are older. Much of the excess funding going to the city schools is required to deal with millions and millions of dollars of deferred maintenance issues in the 100+ year old city school buildings. Whereas, the suburban schools were mostly built much more recently, so require less money to upkeep, which allows more of the suburban schools' funding to go into benefiting kids in classrooms. The other thing is that the majority of people in the city are still poor black and brown people, many of whom are immigrants who don't speak English as their first language, and many aren't even in the country legally. So, of course, adding a little more funding may help city school districts to keep treading water, but it's not even close to enough to actually make a difference.

I've heard the "maintenance is more on older buildings" line before, so I looked into it a year or two ago.  At least for Chicago, that argument doesn't hold water--capital and maintenance spending is similar between them and our suburban district.  It's also worth pointing out that the hypothetical newer buildings in suburbs didn't come free.  A substantial portion of our district's budget is claimed by debt service on those new buildings, a cost which, presumably, fully built-out areas don't face.

I'm sure this varies by area, but it's clear to me that "maintenance on older buildings soaks up all the excess funds" is not universally true

TBH, I don't know where the excess spending by our city school district is going. "Older buildings need more maintenance," sounded like it might be a possibility. You're right, though, that newer buildings don't come cheap and, presumably, the 100+ year old school buildings in our district are all long since paid for, so maintenance is the only cost of continuing to use them. Maybe, the city school district has a bigger, more bloated, administration, that's sucking up all the extra money?

It sounds like you've researched this in your area, zolotiyeruki. Do you know where the excess spending by the Chicago School District is going? If it's not going into 'maintenance on older buildings,' what are they spending the extra money on?

[zolotiyeruki]

TBH, I don't know where the excess spending by our city school district is going. "Older buildings need more maintenance," sounded like it might be a possibility. You're right, though, that newer buildings don't come cheap and, presumably, the 100+ year old school buildings in our district are all long since paid for, so maintenance is the only cost of continuing to use them. Maybe, the city school district has a bigger, more bloated, administration, that's sucking up all the extra money?

It sounds like you've researched this in your area, zolotiyeruki. Do you know where the excess spending by the Chicago School District is going? If it's not going into 'maintenance on older buildings,' what are they spending the extra money on?

Honestly, I don't know.  I didn't dive deep enough into CPS's spending to suss that out--at the time, I was only seeking to confirm or refute the claim that schools in middle-to-upper-class areas were better funded than those in the big city.  I can imagine all sorts of reasons why CPS might spend so much more per pupil--Chicago covers the whole socioeconomic spectrum, and maybe they average cost of living is higher, so they have to pay teachers more?    Maybe more administrative overhead (I'm sure their superintendent is paid more than ours)?  I'd be shocked if they didn't have crushing pension obligations.  Maybe they have more security costs in some areas?

But all that is speculation.

[FINate]

One of the things that drives me nuts about administrators is that there is a tendency to chase the latest hot trend, whether it's a flashy new curriculum, or Chromebooks for every student, or School Fad X That The Rich District Next Door Is Doing, rather than finding something that works and sticking to it.  Our district used to use Everyday Math as their curriculum.  It caused our oldest son to actually regress in his math skills. They eventually dropped it, but how much money was wasted, and how many kids suffered in the meantime?  Several months ago I learned that the district replaces their science curriculum every few years.  I'm sorry, folks, but the content of High School Chemistry ain't changing, absent some massively-world-disrupting discovery.  Same for physics and biology.  Oh, and did I mention the all-expenses-paid trips to train teachers on the new curriculum?

So much this^^^ DW was a public school teacher for a number of years before kids. Curriculum and everything else was changing ALL. THE. TIME. Like churning every year or two. New programs. Different text books. Minutia like what and how stuff had to be displayed on the walls. DW found it demeaning and exhausting. Just as she was getting the details hashed out everything would be upended.

Her district was top heavy, with a cottage industry built around a higher ed to administrator pipeline that drove much of the churn. Education PhD programs need new areas of research for their candidates, which translates to new programs and funding. Many of these folks eventually become administrators where they tap into these programs via grants. The only way to keep the grant money flowing is to churn, churn, churn.

[Shane]

TBH, I don't know where the excess spending by our city school district is going. "Older buildings need more maintenance," sounded like it might be a possibility. You're right, though, that newer buildings don't come cheap and, presumably, the 100+ year old school buildings in our district are all long since paid for, so maintenance is the only cost of continuing to use them. Maybe, the city school district has a bigger, more bloated, administration, that's sucking up all the extra money?

It sounds like you've researched this in your area, zolotiyeruki. Do you know where the excess spending by the Chicago School District is going? If it's not going into 'maintenance on older buildings,' what are they spending the extra money on?

Honestly, I don't know.  I didn't dive deep enough into CPS's spending to suss that out--at the time, I was only seeking to confirm or refute the claim that schools in middle-to-upper-class areas were better funded than those in the big city.  I can imagine all sorts of reasons why CPS might spend so much more per pupil--Chicago covers the whole socioeconomic spectrum, and maybe they average cost of living is higher, so they have to pay teachers more?    Maybe more administrative overhead (I'm sure their superintendent is paid more than ours)?  I'd be shocked if they didn't have crushing pension obligations.  Maybe they have more security costs in some areas?

But all that is speculation.

In our area, a couple of years ago, the city school district was taken over and put into receivership by the state, because administrators were literally stealing money from the kids. Debts built up during past years by corrupt administrators are placing a drag on the whole city education system, causing per/pupil spending to be higher than in some of the surrounding suburbs. This probably isn't the only reason, but it's definitely a factor in why our city school district spends more per/pupil, with worse outcomes.

Whatever the underlying reasons for higher spending by failing city school districts, it seems to me like basing funding of public education on property taxes shouldn't be allowed, as it places a much higher burden on parents who can least afford it. A school district where most parents' houses are worth $100K has to tax homeowners and, indirectly, tenants at much higher rates than a nearby school district where most homes sell for $500K, just in order to produce the same amount of revenue/pupil, let alone to support higher spending rates.

[jeninco]

One of the things that drives me nuts about administrators is that there is a tendency to chase the latest hot trend, whether it's a flashy new curriculum, or Chromebooks for every student, or School Fad X That The Rich District Next Door Is Doing, rather than finding something that works and sticking to it.  Our district used to use Everyday Math as their curriculum.  It caused our oldest son to actually regress in his math skills. They eventually dropped it, but how much money was wasted, and how many kids suffered in the meantime?  Several months ago I learned that the district replaces their science curriculum every few years.  I'm sorry, folks, but the content of High School Chemistry ain't changing, absent some massively-world-disrupting discovery.  Same for physics and biology.  Oh, and did I mention the all-expenses-paid trips to train teachers on the new curriculum?

So much this^^^ DW was a public school teacher for a number of years before kids. Curriculum and everything else was changing ALL. THE. TIME. Like churning every year or two. New programs. Different text books. Minutia like what and how stuff had to be displayed on the walls. DW found it demeaning and exhausting. Just as she was getting the details hashed out everything would be upended.

Her district was top heavy, with a cottage industry built around a higher ed to administrator pipeline that drove much of the churn. Education PhD programs need new areas of research for their candidates, which translates to new programs and funding. Many of these folks eventually become administrators where they tap into these programs via grants. The only way to keep the grant money flowing is to churn, churn, churn.

Yes, all this. Plus, a graduate-level statistics teacher I had once used "Ed Schools" as an example of how NOT to do statistics: just because it worked (more or less) in a lab school full of the kids of highly-educated professionals doesn't mean it's going to work just anywhere.

And now, we're back to the distinction between "Fidelity" and "integrity" -- they're trying to come up with something that can be implemented by any idiot with a pulse, instead of figuring out how to hire actual high-quality teachers (and retain them).

[waltworks]

Yep, unless you throw a lot more money at teachers (or really, potential teachers), you're stuck with the mediocre to crappy ones forever, which means you have to make really good easy to implement curriculums (and use more technology/screens) and make people follow them.

Sucks, but that's what we get for cheaping out.

A lot of systems do have huge pension/healthcare obligations to retirees, but that's not unique to education.

-W

[LaineyAZ]

Shane,
I agree about the funding of public schools.

Another factor is the school district borders.  I just saw a great booktv.org program featuring author Tim DeRoche on his new book "A Fine Line."  He focuses on how school districts are created which includes the racial and economic discriminatory origins.  He also realizes that a sudden switch to no borders could cause havoc.  But ultimately, where kids get their education should be up to the parents, similar to how we pick our medical care - we don't say, sorry, you live south of this imaginary line so you don't get to use that clinic?

His point is that school district borders perpetuate the cycle of good/bad districts which we in the U.S. have taken for granted.  I've always puzzled over this - why isn't every school district "good"?  It also increases house prices because more people want to buy in a "good" school district and will pay more for that guarantee.

I don't think this will be fixed anytime soon but we all need to look at root causes before we can hash out solutions.

[JGS1980]

Shane,
I agree about the funding of public schools.

Another factor is the school district borders.  I just saw a great booktv.org program featuring author Tim DeRoche on his new book "A Fine Line."  He focuses on how school districts are created which includes the racial and economic discriminatory origins.  He also realizes that a sudden switch to no borders could cause havoc.  But ultimately, where kids get their education should be up to the parents, similar to how we pick our medical care - we don't say, sorry, you live south of this imaginary line so you don't get to use that clinic?

His point is that school district borders perpetuate the cycle of good/bad districts which we in the U.S. have taken for granted.  I've always puzzled over this - why isn't every school district "good"?  It also increases house prices because more people want to buy in a "good" school district and will pay more for that guarantee.

I don't think this will be fixed anytime soon but we all need to look at root causes before we can hash out solutions.

Couldn't this be fixed by a slow and steady merging of school districts over time. This could reduce overall chaos. For example, in my county there are 45 school districts. Merge 2 districts every 5 years and you can have a county level district in 25 years (2->4->8->16->32->64). Meanwhile merge property taxes every 5 years as well to "equalize" every merge. Eventually everyone in the county pays the same rate. Could extend to entire state in a couple more cycles.

Lots of opportunities to cut redundant administrative roles here (much like city/county merging that has occurred in many places -> see Louisville KY). This could better allow resources to be distributed to where they are most needed. You would STILL go to the local elementary school/middle school etc...., but there could be a lot less waste overall.

BUT, ultimately human nature will get in the way of all this. Those folks who are "winning" will only allow this to happen over their dead bodies. Meanwhile politicians will exploit the "fear of the other", or "fear of government overreach" to get voted in and to ban the merger, no matter how well intentioned.

[Shane]

I know it's controversial, but maybe "school choice" could, somehow, be made win-win for both "sides"? Currently, our city school district is spending ~$24K/pupil, while producing objectively poor results. If we just gave parents vouchers they could redeem at a school of their choosing, it's hard to imagine outcomes ending up worse than what city schools are currently producing. Some of the biggest proponents of school choice vouchers I know irl are middle class Blacks, who benefited from school choice growing up in NYC, and now want to be able to opt their kids out of failing public schools in Pennsylvania, where school choice is less accepted. It's true, that many of the most vulnerable kids would fall through the cracks of a system that requires parents to be proactive, in order to succeed. Maybe the role of the state should be to concentrate on educating those types of kids, instead of trying to educate everyone and failing miserably at it?

[zolotiyeruki]

Couldn't this be fixed by a slow and steady merging of school districts over time. This could reduce overall chaos. For example, in my county there are 45 school districts. Merge 2 districts every 5 years and you can have a county level district in 25 years (2->4->8->16->32->64). Meanwhile merge property taxes every 5 years as well to "equalize" every merge. Eventually everyone in the county pays the same rate. Could extend to entire state in a couple more cycles.

Lots of opportunities to cut redundant administrative roles here (much like city/county merging that has occurred in many places -> see Louisville KY). This could better allow resources to be distributed to where they are most needed. You would STILL go to the local elementary school/middle school etc...., but there could be a lot less waste overall.

BUT, ultimately human nature will get in the way of all this. Those folks who are "winning" will only allow this to happen over there dead bodies. Meanwhile politicians will exploit the "fear of the other", or "fear of government overreach" to get voted in and to ban the merger, no matter how well intentioned.

  Am I understanding this right, that you think that a larger bureaucracy would be more efficient? Has that ever actually happened in the history of public education?

What I've seen is the opposite: the smaller and less bureaucratic the school district, the more efficient it is, and the more responsive and flexible.it is towards the needs of students. I don't know if the pattern holds for rural school districts, but there seems to be an inverse corellation between the size of a district and it's customer satisfaction (for lack of a better term)

[jeninco]

One problem with school choice is the question of "what are the choices"?  I personally would take strong exception to my tax dollars being directed to a religious School for instance: I believe the purpose of education is at odds with failing to teach kids about biology, or sex, or that different-appearing people are equally deserving of respect.

another, related question, is about how information gets provided to parents so that they actually can make informed choices. If that semi-military-style school just kicks out all kids that don't comply, what does that say about their test results? If they actually beat kids, are they subjected to the usual mandatory reporting rules? How about (as the OP mentioned early in this thread) the rules regarding sex offenders? How about less exciting stuff, like the requirement to serve disabled students?

[zolotiyeruki]

One problem with school choice is the question of "what are the choices"?  I personally would take strong exception to my tax dollars being directed to a religious School for instance: I believe the purpose of education is at odds with failing to teach kids about biology, or sex, or that different-appearing people are equally deserving of respect.

If I may add a bit of contrary perspective on the bolded part above, a very large percentage parents (nay, a majority!) object to their tax dollars being used to teach their kindergarteners about sexuality, or to stock their junior high public school libraries with instruction books on how to perform various sex acts, or on teaching kids that they should feel guilt, inferior, or indebted to others based on their skin color.

You do raise a very good point, though, about what kinds of schools would be eligible for taxpayer funds, and what sort of standards would be required.  But that's where things get messy, because then everything gets political again.

[waltworks]

Easy peasy, just make the kids at the religious schools pass some standard tests every year to prove they know the basics of the scientific method or whatever. Every state already has a core curriculum/standards in place, and there are already easy, simple ways to deal with homeschooled kids that could be applied to anyone.

Again, if both sides could compromise (red team: we need to spend more money. blue team: some Jesus freaks will get some of our money and that's ok) we could all be winning here... but no...

-W

[Sailor Sam]

One problem with school choice is the question of "what are the choices"?  I personally would take strong exception to my tax dollars being directed to a religious School for instance: I believe the purpose of education is at odds with failing to teach kids about biology, or sex, or that different-appearing people are equally deserving of respect.

If I may add a bit of contrary perspective on the bolded part above, a very large percentage parents (nay, a majority!) object to their tax dollars being used to teach their kindergarteners about sexuality, or to stock their junior high public school libraries with instruction books on how to perform various sex acts, or on teaching kids that they should feel guilt, inferior, or indebted to others based on their skin color.

Indeed! What a travesty. I have fond memories of being a pubescent youngin with new and exciting pants feelings, finally finding that rumored porn stash under the bleachers in the outer athletic field. I’m appalled that we’re depriving young minds of opportunities to learn about sex in a more neutral environment, instead of having their first sexual encounter from a mysteriously stiff 4-page spread of some dude rawin’ his girl, deepthroating until tears streamed down her face, then coming all over her lips.

Then again, my 15 year old nephew is already watching internet porn without covering his tracks, so alas, I suppose the nostalgic furtive shame of my own youth is already dead. Though, the difference could be because he goes to a Christian academy, instead of the nice Catholic school that my generation of siblings and cousins went to. Not enough Jesuits in his life.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

One problem with school choice is the question of "what are the choices"?  I personally would take strong exception to my tax dollars being directed to a religious School for instance: I believe the purpose of education is at odds with failing to teach kids about biology, or sex, or that different-appearing people are equally deserving of respect.

another, related question, is about how information gets provided to parents so that they actually can make informed choices. If that semi-military-style school just kicks out all kids that don't comply, what does that say about their test results? If they actually beat kids, are they subjected to the usual mandatory reporting rules? How about (as the OP mentioned early in this thread) the rules regarding sex offenders? How about less exciting stuff, like the requirement to serve disabled students?

Litmus tests for charter schools types can get very political. I personally don't have a problem if "my tax money" funds a charter school that is of a different religion than mine - Jewish or Islamic or whatnot. As WW mentioned, have some sort of standardized tests to verify they are actually learning stuff.

The real issue with charter schools is the fact that they don't play by the same rules in regard to students that require more attention than others. They can either outright kick out, make lives difficult until the kids leave, or just go around governmental rules for supporting students who have challenges and thus need more resources. It is a double whammy - improve test scores by not having students who traditionally underperform and also save money by not needing the additional resources to support them. From what I can see, this is the big advantage they have, and it's not a fair one since they are fully funded by taxes through the government.

[Michael in ABQ]

Easy peasy, just make the kids at the religious schools pass some standard tests every year to prove they know the basics of the scientific method or whatever. Every state already has a core curriculum/standards in place, and there are already easy, simple ways to deal with homeschooled kids that could be applied to anyone.

Again, if both sides could compromise (red team: we need to spend more money. blue team: some Jesus freaks will get some of our money and that's ok) we could all be winning here... but no...

-W

I'll put the science education of my children in a Catholic school against any kids in a public school. The difference in test scores is well established by decades of statistics compiled by the US Department of Education in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) aka The Nation's Report Card - https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/data/

"According to the report, Catholic school students in 4th grade achieved an average score of 235 in reading compared to 219 for their public school peers. Similarly, Catholic school 4th graders achieved an average score of 246 in math and 164 in science, compared to their public school peers, who achieved average scores of 240 and 150 respectively.

The distribution was similar for 8th grade, with Catholic school students outperforming their public school peers in reading with scores of 278 to 262, in math with scores of 293 to 281, and in science with scores of 167 to 153."

All kids in 5th through 8th grades are required to participate in the Science Fair. Most of the people grading are scientists and PhDs from Sandia National Labs and the Air Force Research Laboratory at nearby Kirtland Air Force Base. The public schools don't have the same requirement. A few of the projects this year won first and second at the state level and were invited to a national competition.



Not all religious schools are run by young earth creationists who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. Most famous scientists before the 20th century were religious, and many were Catholic including Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, etc.

[jeninco]

One problem with school choice is the question of "what are the choices"?  I personally would take strong exception to my tax dollars being directed to a religious School for instance: I believe the purpose of education is at odds with failing to teach kids about biology, or sex, or that different-appearing people are equally deserving of respect.

If I may add a bit of contrary perspective on the bolded part above, a very large percentage parents (nay, a majority!) object to their tax dollars being used to teach their kindergarteners about sexuality, or to stock their junior high public school libraries with instruction books on how to perform various sex acts, or on teaching kids that they should feel guilt, inferior, or indebted to others based on their skin color.

Indeed! What a travesty. I have fond memories of being a pubescent youngin with new and exciting pants feelings, finally finding that rumored porn stash under the bleachers in the outer athletic field. I’m appalled that we’re depriving young minds of opportunities to learn about sex in a more neutral environment, instead of having their first sexual encounter from a mysteriously stiff 4-page spread of some dude rawin’ his girl, deepthroating until tears streamed down her face, then coming all over her lips.

Then again, my 15 year old nephew is already watching internet porn without covering his tracks, so alas, I suppose the nostalgic furtive shame of my own youth is already dead. Though, the difference could be because he goes to a Christian academy, instead of the nice Catholic school that my generation of siblings and cousins went to. Not enough Jesuits in his life.

Look, no one is teaching kindergartners to deep throat, but a I understand it, these laws are there to prohibit teachers from acknowledging the fact that existing families can take shapes that don't look like working-man dad, stay-at home mommy, and 2.3 kids cis-het kids and a dog. So possible violations would be:
Acknowledging that Petra's family is two moms, and that's OK!
And Sante's family is two dads and a grandma,
And Grace, in the back there? Lives with three adults, and we can't figure it out but we're going to talk respectfully about the adults, and not pretend that their relationships somehow don't count.
Just like we're not going to be asshats about the fact that Michael, in the second row there, is wearing a dress to school for the second time this week. Or Susan is really liking playing with the toy trucks.

I'm disgusted with the excuse of not only does "my religion provides me cover to be a complete asshole to other kids and their families", but "my religion also allows me to dictate how teachers -- who have the job of connecting with ALL the students in their classes --  can talk about families and individuals that don't look like mine, and it has to be disrespectfully."

Spoiler: show

Can you not see how many kids are having mental health crises and trying to kill themselves, and connect it to the fact that idiots are telling them "it's better for you to be dead then [ fill in the blank here -- be gay, identify as not the gender we told you you were at birth, have sex outside of marriage, be disrespectful to your parents, not follow a religion that teaches that you are limited in what you can hope to achieve by your baby privates, etc. etc. etc.] Any wonder that the kids are just freaking killing themselves after that?

[jeninco]

Easy peasy, just make the kids at the religious schools pass some standard tests every year to prove they know the basics of the scientific method or whatever. Every state already has a core curriculum/standards in place, and there are already easy, simple ways to deal with homeschooled kids that could be applied to anyone.

Again, if both sides could compromise (red team: we need to spend more money. blue team: some Jesus freaks will get some of our money and that's ok) we could all be winning here... but no...

-W

I'll put the science education of my children in a Catholic school against any kids in a public school. The difference in test scores is well established by decades of statistics compiled by the US Department of Education in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) aka The Nation's Report Card - https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/data/

"According to the report, Catholic school students in 4th grade achieved an average score of 235 in reading compared to 219 for their public school peers. Similarly, Catholic school 4th graders achieved an average score of 246 in math and 164 in science, compared to their public school peers, who achieved average scores of 240 and 150 respectively.

The distribution was similar for 8th grade, with Catholic school students outperforming their public school peers in reading with scores of 278 to 262, in math with scores of 293 to 281, and in science with scores of 167 to 153."

All kids in 5th through 8th grades are required to participate in the Science Fair. Most of the people grading are scientists and PhDs from Sandia National Labs and the Air Force Research Laboratory at nearby Kirtland Air Force Base. The public schools don't have the same requirement. A few of the projects this year won first and second at the state level and were invited to a national competition.



Not all religious schools are run by young earth creationists who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. Most famous scientists before the 20th century were religious, and many were Catholic including Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, etc.

All men, I hasten to point out.

Look, send your kids wherever you want (within some parameters outlined by state-wide and national standards). But if the school is teaching students that your version of God is real, and your religion is the only true way, don't use public dollars.

[charis]

Easy peasy, just make the kids at the religious schools pass some standard tests every year to prove they know the basics of the scientific method or whatever. Every state already has a core curriculum/standards in place, and there are already easy, simple ways to deal with homeschooled kids that could be applied to anyone.

Again, if both sides could compromise (red team: we need to spend more money. blue team: some Jesus freaks will get some of our money and that's ok) we could all be winning here... but no...

-W

I'll put the science education of my children in a Catholic school against any kids in a public school. The difference in test scores is well established by decades of statistics compiled by the US Department of Education in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) aka The Nation's Report Card - https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/data/

"According to the report, Catholic school students in 4th grade achieved an average score of 235 in reading compared to 219 for their public school peers. Similarly, Catholic school 4th graders achieved an average score of 246 in math and 164 in science, compared to their public school peers, who achieved average scores of 240 and 150 respectively.

The distribution was similar for 8th grade, with Catholic school students outperforming their public school peers in reading with scores of 278 to 262, in math with scores of 293 to 281, and in science with scores of 167 to 153."

All kids in 5th through 8th grades are required to participate in the Science Fair. Most of the people grading are scientists and PhDs from Sandia National Labs and the Air Force Research Laboratory at nearby Kirtland Air Force Base. The public schools don't have the same requirement. A few of the projects this year won first and second at the state level and were invited to a national competition.



Not all religious schools are run by young earth creationists who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. Most famous scientists before the 20th century were religious, and many were Catholic including Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, etc.

The test scores are not about catholic versus public school education. I have a 6th grader reading above high school level and 3rd grader reading barely grade level with multiple interventions. Same family, wealth, school, etc. And we can afford fancy after school programs and camps that duplicate anything offered in a private school. It's about money and weeding out poor, underperforming, special/behavioral/non English speaking needs students, not because Catholic education is a magic bullet.

[Michael in ABQ]

Easy peasy, just make the kids at the religious schools pass some standard tests every year to prove they know the basics of the scientific method or whatever. Every state already has a core curriculum/standards in place, and there are already easy, simple ways to deal with homeschooled kids that could be applied to anyone.

Again, if both sides could compromise (red team: we need to spend more money. blue team: some Jesus freaks will get some of our money and that's ok) we could all be winning here... but no...

-W

I'll put the science education of my children in a Catholic school against any kids in a public school. The difference in test scores is well established by decades of statistics compiled by the US Department of Education in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) aka The Nation's Report Card - https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/data/

"According to the report, Catholic school students in 4th grade achieved an average score of 235 in reading compared to 219 for their public school peers. Similarly, Catholic school 4th graders achieved an average score of 246 in math and 164 in science, compared to their public school peers, who achieved average scores of 240 and 150 respectively.

The distribution was similar for 8th grade, with Catholic school students outperforming their public school peers in reading with scores of 278 to 262, in math with scores of 293 to 281, and in science with scores of 167 to 153."

All kids in 5th through 8th grades are required to participate in the Science Fair. Most of the people grading are scientists and PhDs from Sandia National Labs and the Air Force Research Laboratory at nearby Kirtland Air Force Base. The public schools don't have the same requirement. A few of the projects this year won first and second at the state level and were invited to a national competition.



Not all religious schools are run by young earth creationists who believe that the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. Most famous scientists before the 20th century were religious, and many were Catholic including Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, etc.

All men, I hasten to point out.

Look, send your kids wherever you want (within some parameters outlined by state-wide and national standards). But if the school is teaching students that your version of God is real, and your religion is the only true way, don't use public dollars.

We don't. But at roughly $5k per child our kid's school manages to provide a far better education than Albuquerque Public Schools spending $22,000 per student ($1.65 billion for approximately 74,000 students - https://www.aps.edu/finance/budget-strategic-planning).

It's not just that it's a Catholic school, it's that it is a single school with ~100 students instead of a giant bureaucracy with 74,000 students and multiple buildings full of administrators.

[Sailor Sam]

Look, no one is teaching kindergartners to deep throat, but a I understand it, these laws are there to prohibit teachers from acknowledging the fact that existing families can take shapes that don't look like working-man dad, stay-at home mommy, and 2.3 kids cis-het kids and a dog.

@jeninco, I was agreeing with you, via indulging in some fairly viscous sarcasm. My point was that kid’s aren’t little purity units, and that they find sex. I did it in the 90’s, and it’s only become hella easier.

The laws are terrible, and cruel. It astounds me that anyone out in radio land agrees with them. It makes me angry when they are justified by “don’t say straight, the poor innocent childrennnn.” I try not to get too angry because…what’s the point? I’ve already made my bid on sticking with this country, even at it reviles me more and more. But clearly my anger does come out sideways, via posts on the internet.

[waltworks]

I'll put the science education of my children in a Catholic school against any kids in a public school. The difference in test scores is well established by decades of statistics compiled by the US Department of Education in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) aka The Nation's Report Card - https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/data/

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that Catholic (or any other) religious schools are doing a bad job. I was simply saying that it's easy to make sure kids are learning the required state curriculum by just testing them everyone once in a while.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

We don't. But at roughly $5k per child our kid's school manages to provide a far better education than Albuquerque Public Schools spending $22,000 per student ($1.65 billion for approximately 74,000 students - https://www.aps.edu/finance/budget-strategic-planning).

It's not just that it's a Catholic school, it's that it is a single school with ~100 students instead of a giant bureaucracy with 74,000 students and multiple buildings full of administrators.

Bingo.  In our district, at $12k/student, they're spending roughly $300k/year per classroom.  If the teacher costs $100k of that (including benefits, pension, etc), That means that 2/3 of the cost of educating each student comes from buildings, administration, supplies, overhead, buses, etc.  Oh, and on top of that, if you want your HS student to join a sport, that'll be $500/season.  Local (one-day, within 90 minutes) band trip?  There's a fundraiser for that, or you can pay out of pocket.  Elective class that requires some supplies?  There's a class fee for that.  Want your kid to drive to school for whatever reason?*  That'll be $300/year, and it's a lottery system.  Don't need/want any of those extras?  It's still $200 just to register your HS student.

DW and I occasionally laugh about what our six kids' homeschooling would look like if we could spend $72k/year on it.  Studying ancient Rome?  Go take a trip there!  Studying marine biology or volcanoes or WWII?  A trip to Hawaii it is! Learning about our Scottish ancestors?  Let's go see where they lived!  Even if we only got our own property taxes back that go to the public schools ($6-7k), we'd be able to do some pretty goshdarn amazing stuff.

[jeninco]

OK but (as has been pointed out) a couple things:
The school district has to educate kids who are significantly physically and mentally disabled (or whatever we're calling it now)
The school district has to educate kids who don't speak English, or who came from a war zone and are significantly traumatized, or who have been suffering from lead poisoning from living in substandard housing. And kids who are homeless, or not eating regular meals, or all other manner of "challenges" that might impair their learning.
And the (certified and licensed) teachers have to have at least a bit of education in how to help those kids.
And some of those fees help cover kids whose families can't afford to pay them -- at least here, if you're getting free- or reduced-priced lunches, you have nominal (or no) costs to, say, play sports.
And some of them are just shitty budgeting -- our music department doesn't get enough money to cover their copier, and has to raise $ for that. Which we're happy to contribute to, because we CAN and it provides music for all the kids in the program.

The part that's easy to lose sight of is that you're not just paying for the education of your own kids, you're helping pay for the education of all the children in your community. Maybe that's not something you value -- that's your call. Me, I want all the kids in my community to learn at least a bit of math, reading, writing, science, history...

This is not just me "talking", As much as I'm allowed, I take myself into the local high school to help tutor -- and make connections with -- at risk student, who sometimes just need an educated, engaged adult to pay attention to them. Not because I'm some creepy predatory creep, but because I want all the future citizens of my berg to get a bit of learning, and if I can help some of them with a couple of their hurdles, that's a good day for all of us.

[waltworks]

Yes, Jen makes good points. Dealing with just one kid with a severe learning disability can cost a fortune (here we have many kids that basically require their own full time aide, which is probably $100k/year when all is said and done). Then there are medically vulnerable kids who need nursing attention/extra staff (ie type 1 diabetes) which also have to cost a ton to deal with. Public schools are legally required to meet those kids needs.

So it's not apples to apples.

Is there a ton of wasted administration and overhead in the public school system, though? Undoubtedly yes.

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

@jeninco @waltworks Oh, absolutely, I agree that there are plenty of kids whose needs require a whole lot more spending.  I didn't know exactly *how* much, so I pulled our district's budget, and Special Ed takes up about 10% of the total district budget, and 20-25% of the total budget is "support services"--administration, nurses, secretaries, social workers, etc.

[jeninco]

@jeninco @waltworks Oh, absolutely, I agree that there are plenty of kids whose needs require a whole lot more spending.  I didn't know exactly *how* much, so I pulled our district's budget, and Special Ed takes up about 10% of the total district budget, and 20-25% of the total budget is "support services"--administration, nurses, secretaries, social workers, etc.

That's really cool that you could check so quickly!

Probably add in another 5% - 10% or so for higher-level administration costs around organizing those services, overseeing/managing all those people and making sure the right services are being provided to the right students at the right times (as much as possible) and figuring out how to evaluate academic growth for those students, that brings it up to around 40% of the district budget. Which is higher than I would've figured offhand, but somehow doesn't surprise me. (And that's not even counting "counselors" who have to wear an insane number of hats, for instance.)

[familyandfarming]

That 40% is probably a reasonable ballpark allotment for special education services. That number may be even higher if there are students with severe and profound needs.

Another issue I'm seeing is talented and gifted budgets are getting smaller and smaller. I'll use my almost 4 decades of personal classroom experience as an example. In the '80's our area education association had a consultant for every subject matter. I taught art, and had my consultant stop by every other week. We would brainstorm new and exciting ideas to encourage creativity for all students. She lined up visiting artists from arts councils and universities to come at least 2 times a semester. In the 90's she became a technology consultant. A few years in she took early retirement. I never saw another arts consultant again. I had the skills to line up artists myself, but never had access to the heavy hitters she could get with her consultant funds. Anyone in my building who taught after the late '80's never had a specific curriculum consultant beyond special education.

Now the same area education association is only special education consultants.

This may be another reason you see an exodus of some of our brightest students to private and homeschooling.

[maizefolk]

I think I was the last generation of kids in my hometown to have access to a talented and gifted program, and it was basically just one person each in middle school and high school who tried to coordinate some outside activities.

The message these days to kids who learn the material fast seems to be just "okay so sit quietly and wait for your peers to catch up" which is a recipe for classroom disruption and behavior problems.

[zolotiyeruki]

@jeninco @waltworks Oh, absolutely, I agree that there are plenty of kids whose needs require a whole lot more spending.  I didn't know exactly *how* much, so I pulled our district's budget, and Special Ed takes up about 10% of the total district budget, and 20-25% of the total budget is "support services"--administration, nurses, secretaries, social workers, etc.

That's really cool that you could check so quickly!

Probably add in another 5% - 10% or so for higher-level administration costs around organizing those services, overseeing/managing all those people and making sure the right services are being provided to the right students at the right times (as much as possible) and figuring out how to evaluate academic growth for those students, that brings it up to around 40% of the district budget. Which is higher than I would've figured offhand, but somehow doesn't surprise me. (And that's not even counting "counselors" who have to wear an insane number of hats, for instance.)

Yes, I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to find sufficiently detailed information so easily! :)

The 20-25% of support services includes the higher-level administration, FWIW.

This may be another reason you see an exodus of some of our brightest students to private and homeschooling.

Several years ago, there was a thread on this forum entitled "Does Homeschooling rob kids of grit?" (or something very similar), and one of the topics to which the discussion turned was the idea that maintaining a heterogeneous mix of students was beneficial on the whole, because higher-performing students could help lower-performing students.  It's a nice idea, but the reality doesn't measure up.  High-performing students are heavily held back, while low-performing students benefit little or not at all.  "No child left behind" has had the unintended consequence of "no child pushed to excel."  When our oldest daughter was in first grade and reading on a fifth-grade level, the teacher couldn't offer her any material beyond a first-grade level.  We watched our oldest son, who is naturally gifted in math, actually regress as a result of Common Core math.  I've also seen other parents of gifted kids wrestle constantly with the district to get better-suited instruction.

As for extra costs associated with special needs?  Yeah, those IEP and ARD meetings are expensive, given all the administrative people in attendance.  But don't assume that the required services are being performed. We've had some suboptimal experiences there, and there have been several times this past year when we could have made life *very* difficult for the school district if we were petty. 

One of the policy problems we face, not just in education, but in all sorts of social programs, is that there is no feedback loop.  We spend boatloads of money on fixing Problem X, but there never seems to be any evaluation of how much Problem X was solved, or whether it was worth it, or whether there's a better way of approaching the problem.

[jeninco]

 <snip, because this is getting pretty long>

One of the policy problems we face, not just in education, but in all sorts of social programs, is that there is no feedback loop.  We spend boatloads of money on fixing Problem X, but there never seems to be any evaluation of how much Problem X was solved, or whether it was worth it, or whether there's a better way of approaching the problem.

Yes, this. We've actually had a great TAG program in elementary school (kids now 17 and 21, so not that long ago) but it was (as often happens) a parent with a PhD in chemistry who became a TAG teacher because her kid really needed one, and then she had enough fun that she stuck with it. The school also supported the teacher, both with $ and with scheduling (each grade level had a "pullout" period, where the TAG and Special Ed kids left for special groups, which then served to get some extra attention to the kids in the "middle").  On the other hand, our middle school TAG teacher was a complete waste of space and salary, and as far as I could tell achieved nothing at all (but some of the teachers were able to extend their curricula for advanced kids).

But, more generally, it would be just awesome if they set expectations for the new programs before they started them, and then did at least some level of continuous monitoring, so if it was obvious that something wasn't working, it could be changed or dropped.

You know, like standard statistical techniques: specify your experiment and your ending criteria ahead of time.

[familyandfarming]

When I taught school, I would make a big deal about buying a lottery ticket when it was over $200 million. (That was my dollar trigger to buy a lottery ticket.) I would tell all my classes that I would buy every kid in the high school a high end MacBook and start a well-funded scholarship program. Never won...

But we all know education is such an important thing and we should at the very least continue funding free lunch and breakfast for all kids. (Started in Covid) I see it may stop.

Time for me to contact my congress people!

[waltworks]

Telling kids about buying lottery tickets without a very detailed explanation of why you're throwing your money away seems... odd. But ok.

Sorry, former statistician here. Kids already have a terrible grasp of both probability and personal finance in high school, having an adult tell them that gambling is a good thing in basically any circumstance is not good.

-W

[zolotiyeruki]

But we all know education is such an important thing and we should at the very least continue funding free lunch and breakfast for all kids. (Started in Covid.) I see it may stop.

Hey, it looks like your link is broken.  Can you fix it?

[familyandfarming]

Dang it! Here it is the old fashioned way...

https://theconversation.com/schools-will-stop-serving-free-lunch-to-all-students-a-pandemic-solution-left-out-of-a-new-federal-spending-package-179058#:~:text=Yes.,nutrition%20programs%20at%20higher%20levels.

[familyandfarming]

Walt,
That's why I love this forum. There's always someone telling the truth!

I think I did that lottery thing 3 times in my entire 40 year career. We did look at my chances of winning, what the computers cost, if we could get a discount on the computers, what a scholarship program would cost per pupil, the longevity of the scholarship program, you get the idea. I taught a problem solving class where the focus was the environment during that time, so working on the chances/costs was a pleasant diversion. During that class one student created a program that used a grant to hand out enough trees to account for every person in our small city. He was later awarded a trip to the Amazon. (Not the shopping site, the actual rainforest.) This was in the early '90's before the invention of online shopping.

Edit to add: Right before I retired I worked with a group of students to create a video for a national contest and we won $100,000! We were one of the smallest schools in the nation to win that year. So, yes, sometimes a gamble does pay off!

[jeninco]

When I taught school, I would make a big deal about buying a lottery ticket when it was over $200 million. (That was my dollar trigger to buy a lottery ticket.) I would tell all my classes that I would buy every kid in the high school a high end MacBook and start a well-funded scholarship program. Never won...

But we all know education is such an important thing and we should at the very least continue funding free lunch and breakfast for all kids. (Started in Covid) I see it may stop.

Time for me to contact my congress people!

Haha, I had this added as an addendum to my latest post, but took it out because it wasn't specifically on-point and I'm trying to avoid ranting. Thanks for saying just what I wanted to say! (The other thing I didn't say was that the "COVID payments to families with children" measurably reduced child poverty. But are we going to continue them, even though they were effective, and had low-administrative overhead to deliver? Hahaha...  here's one link, but more are easy to find: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/1075299510/the-expanded-child-tax-credit-briefly-slashed-child-poverty-heres-what-else-it-d)

And @waltworks , I'm just an applied mathematician with some statistics classes under my belt.  And I'm happy to say that a number of non-traditionally strong math students in our school are steered into what's now a full-year AP Statistics class -- so they get an advanced class and some probability and statistics exposure. Woot!

[Abe]

This thread has convinced me to move my son to a private school after he ages out of his well-funded elementary school. Mostly because the private schools charge a ton to hire good teachers, and we live in a libertarian fever dream state that believes only the wealthy deserve anything. I live in a unique neighborhood full of a mix of out-of-state transplants in medicine / research and some mid-level bureaucratic climate deniers in oil and gas, so there’s a range of opinions on how kids should be taught. But in the end; everyone wants their kids to be rich and realize education is what’ll get them there.
I don’t want my son exposed to the rest of the state’s dystopian society any more than he has to (having grown up in another state’s similar society) so guess we’re part of the problem. But if the majority of the people in a state support perpetuating the problem, then what? I’ve read that there’ll be more self-sorting of those with means to move, and probably will be part of that sorting. However, based on people’s comments here most of the US is in a race to idiocy. Maybe we should move to Canada at some point; @GuitarStv ?

For reference the state is Texas.

[JGS1980]

Abe, there must be some good things about Texas or you would not live there, right? Why not move to a more progressive state if you are worried about sending your kids to public middle school?

[charis]

This thread has convinced me to move my son to a private school after he ages out of his well-funded elementary school. Mostly because the private schools charge a ton to hire good teachers, and we live in a libertarian fever dream state that believes only the wealthy deserve anything. I live in a unique neighborhood full of a mix of out-of-state transplants in medicine / research and some mid-level bureaucratic climate deniers in oil and gas, so there’s a range of opinions on how kids should be taught. But in the end; everyone wants their kids to be rich and realize education is what’ll get them there.
I don’t want my son exposed to the rest of the state’s dystopian society any more than he has to (having grown up in another state’s similar society) so guess we’re part of the problem. But if the majority of the people in a state support perpetuating the problem, then what? I’ve read that there’ll be more self-sorting of those with means to move, and probably will be part of that sorting. However, based on people’s comments here most of the US is in a race to idiocy. Maybe we should move to Canada at some point; @GuitarStv ?

For reference the state is Texas.

Interesting. Our private school pay the lowest. Like in the 30s to start. Terribly admin at times and tons of teacher turn over. They have no job protection or pension either. It's well known that folks go to private if they can't hack it in public school or can't get a job anywhere else.

[DadJokes]

This thread has convinced me to move my son to a private school after he ages out of his well-funded elementary school. Mostly because the private schools charge a ton to hire good teachers, and we live in a libertarian fever dream state that believes only the wealthy deserve anything. I live in a unique neighborhood full of a mix of out-of-state transplants in medicine / research and some mid-level bureaucratic climate deniers in oil and gas, so there’s a range of opinions on how kids should be taught. But in the end; everyone wants their kids to be rich and realize education is what’ll get them there.
I don’t want my son exposed to the rest of the state’s dystopian society any more than he has to (having grown up in another state’s similar society) so guess we’re part of the problem. But if the majority of the people in a state support perpetuating the problem, then what? I’ve read that there’ll be more self-sorting of those with means to move, and probably will be part of that sorting. However, based on people’s comments here most of the US is in a race to idiocy. Maybe we should move to Canada at some point; @GuitarStv ?

For reference the state is Texas.

Interesting. Our private school pay the lowest. Like in the 30s to start. Terribly admin at times and tons of teacher turn over. They have no job protection or pension either. It's well known that folks go to private if they can't hack it in public school or can't get a job anywhere else.

I don't know about the teachers not being able to hack it in public schools, but the very few private schools I've encountered (also in Texas) did have very low pay and did not require a teaching certification. However, the few I've had any experience with were basically churches that also taught a little.

[JGS1980]

This thread has convinced me to move my son to a private school after he ages out of his well-funded elementary school. Mostly because the private schools charge a ton to hire good teachers, and we live in a libertarian fever dream state that believes only the wealthy deserve anything. I live in a unique neighborhood full of a mix of out-of-state transplants in medicine / research and some mid-level bureaucratic climate deniers in oil and gas, so there’s a range of opinions on how kids should be taught. But in the end; everyone wants their kids to be rich and realize education is what’ll get them there.
I don’t want my son exposed to the rest of the state’s dystopian society any more than he has to (having grown up in another state’s similar society) so guess we’re part of the problem. But if the majority of the people in a state support perpetuating the problem, then what? I’ve read that there’ll be more self-sorting of those with means to move, and probably will be part of that sorting. However, based on people’s comments here most of the US is in a race to idiocy. Maybe we should move to Canada at some point; @GuitarStv ?

For reference the state is Texas.

Interesting. Our private school pay the lowest. Like in the 30s to start. Terribly admin at times and tons of teacher turn over. They have no job protection or pension either. It's well known that folks go to private if they can't hack it in public school or can't get a job anywhere else.

That's what it is around here. I'm in Pennsylvania.