Charter schools, social norming and zero-sum games (2010)(educationandstatistics.blogspot.com)
educationandstatistics.blogspot.com
Charter schools, social norming and zero-sum games (2010)
http://educationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2010/10/charter-schools-social-norming-and-zero.html
313 comments
Indeed, and the assertion that 'only poor kids together' will behave even worse certainly needs backing up with data.
It seems obvious to me (since the experiment is repeated over and over within millions of families) that environment plays a major role in behaviour, but tbh I don't see good behaviour rubbing off onto the 'bad' kids in a mixed setting, it's almost always the other way around, or at best, a productive environment is disrupted by a few troublemakers.
So 'good' kids should get an environment free of disruption so they can do what they do. And the 'bad' kids should get an environment much more focused on encouraging good behaviour, so they learn to do the good stuff too. Win-win.
It seems obvious to me (since the experiment is repeated over and over within millions of families) that environment plays a major role in behaviour, but tbh I don't see good behaviour rubbing off onto the 'bad' kids in a mixed setting, it's almost always the other way around, or at best, a productive environment is disrupted by a few troublemakers.
So 'good' kids should get an environment free of disruption so they can do what they do. And the 'bad' kids should get an environment much more focused on encouraging good behaviour, so they learn to do the good stuff too. Win-win.
Except you run into a few problems when implementing that, especially for public schools.
Proactive parents will typically want their children in good schools, regardless of their child's behavioural history. (This doesn't mean they refuse to acknowledge the issue, though some will. It simply means they want their children to have access to better supports.)
There is an overarching philosophy within the school system that integration is better than separation. I don't know if this has to be the case, but it has been historically true. Think of it this way: even though some of the best teachers may want to serve the most challenging schools, good teachers almost always want to teach in good schools. Where does that leave the challenging schools? If they're lucky, with a great teacher. More often, with a bunch of mediocre teachers.
Related to that, schools rarely have the resources to distinguish between students who would benefit from integration and those who would benefit from specialized and separate programs.
Proactive parents will typically want their children in good schools, regardless of their child's behavioural history. (This doesn't mean they refuse to acknowledge the issue, though some will. It simply means they want their children to have access to better supports.)
There is an overarching philosophy within the school system that integration is better than separation. I don't know if this has to be the case, but it has been historically true. Think of it this way: even though some of the best teachers may want to serve the most challenging schools, good teachers almost always want to teach in good schools. Where does that leave the challenging schools? If they're lucky, with a great teacher. More often, with a bunch of mediocre teachers.
Related to that, schools rarely have the resources to distinguish between students who would benefit from integration and those who would benefit from specialized and separate programs.
I don't think you should segregate schools. Just classrooms. That gives students in 'bad' classes something to aspire to, and keeps them on the map rather than being written-off to a 'poor school', and parents should realise that, though their kid is in the 'bad' class, they are getting appropriate help, not just being discarded.
In some ways, the 'best' teachers should be assigned to the 'bad' kids, certainly those with the best command of a class. The 'good' kids don't need that so much.
In some ways, the 'best' teachers should be assigned to the 'bad' kids, certainly those with the best command of a class. The 'good' kids don't need that so much.
These kids are still going to be on the bus, at recess, or at school functions. Not sure if you were ever bullied, but all three of those are prime locations due to lack of adult supervision.
I mean bullying is a thing worldwide to some extent, but I think America needs to fix it's high school culture. If not it's entire, aggressive culture.
Bullying is worldwide but to the same frequency and intensity?
IIRC bullying is much worse in East Asia (Korea/Japan/China)
[deleted]
I think you still need something to incentivise the best teachers to voluntarily sign up for the lowest performing classes. Obviously its way more prestigious to be the teacher with all the ivy league destined students than the teacher whose students are just trying to get set up for a community college or a blue collar apprenticeship. [This is not to say the latter cohort is less intelligent, capable, or important-- just less prestigious.]
I see teaching these kids as a specialization in itself, so the incentive is to be a great 'turnaround' teacher, plus the pay should reflect that it is a difficult specialization.
The right answer is probably to pay the teachers of the problem kids more or adjust student teacher ratios- For example, with no behavior problems a single math teacher could probably handle instructing and grading 50 students, as this is the model in college calc.
For what it's worth, in New York City the Gifted & Talented classes are often larger for this reason. A 2nd grade G&T classroom where I was a student teacher had 30 students, for example; standard classes at the same school had ~20 students per class.
I think you do want the "good" kids to be taught by the best teachers. That way they'll have better chances to succeed and you won't have so many good teachers get burnt out. I think people should just normalize sort of giving up on the "bad" kids and send them to the delinquents school or military school or whatever. The whole idea of having the best teachers teach the "bad" kids is completely wasteful of limited resources.
>There is an overarching philosophy within the school system that integration is better than separation.
I don't think it's fair to Black or female students to equate their integration with the "integration" of students who are specifically disruptive.
I don't think it's fair to Black or female students to equate their integration with the "integration" of students who are specifically disruptive.
"Proactive parents will typically want their children in good schools, regardless of their child's behavioural history"
Why wouldn't this apply to private schools especially because in that situation parent's have financial leverage?
Edit Another comment said that private schools have an incentive to provide a good service otherwise people will take their money and leave. I want to temper my statment about parent's changing schools because
1. Unlike grocery stores or gas stations how many schools would be within reasonable distance where a parent could easily change.
2. "Customers take their money and leave" doesn't seem to happen that often with every other business. It's a constant theme here where we complain about the general public continuing to use substandard products. Yes it's a serious product (child's education) but factor in my points.
3. Changing schools could be traumatic for a child because they made friends, comfortable with teachers, familiar with the school. School isn't where you buy gas or go to the gym. Children are young AND emotional, stability is probably ideal. This means parents don't have as much leverage as I first stated
4. What metric do parents use? Grades, bullying?
If grades schools will have a financial incentive to inflate more than public schools. Public schools and private both have standardized tests, however a report card from a private school is a subjective judgements from the teacher that the parent will use as a metric
If bullying and a parent complains once should the other child be expelled? How does this system work? What if there are no witnesses, bully denies it. What about verbal abuse, what if no one hears it?
If private schools start expelling bullies why aren't they required to teach children like public schools. Charter schools are supposed to be about a parents choice why should a child, bully or not, have less rights especially since they receive public money.
Why wouldn't this apply to private schools especially because in that situation parent's have financial leverage?
Edit Another comment said that private schools have an incentive to provide a good service otherwise people will take their money and leave. I want to temper my statment about parent's changing schools because
1. Unlike grocery stores or gas stations how many schools would be within reasonable distance where a parent could easily change.
2. "Customers take their money and leave" doesn't seem to happen that often with every other business. It's a constant theme here where we complain about the general public continuing to use substandard products. Yes it's a serious product (child's education) but factor in my points.
3. Changing schools could be traumatic for a child because they made friends, comfortable with teachers, familiar with the school. School isn't where you buy gas or go to the gym. Children are young AND emotional, stability is probably ideal. This means parents don't have as much leverage as I first stated
4. What metric do parents use? Grades, bullying?
If grades schools will have a financial incentive to inflate more than public schools. Public schools and private both have standardized tests, however a report card from a private school is a subjective judgements from the teacher that the parent will use as a metric
If bullying and a parent complains once should the other child be expelled? How does this system work? What if there are no witnesses, bully denies it. What about verbal abuse, what if no one hears it?
If private schools start expelling bullies why aren't they required to teach children like public schools. Charter schools are supposed to be about a parents choice why should a child, bully or not, have less rights especially since they receive public money.
[deleted]
Only, the measure of what constitutes 'bad behavior' is inconsistent as heck. I had cerebral palsy and undiagnosed ADHD as a kid and was constantly being sent to the principles office for simply 'spacing out' and getting distracted. I would have been royally screwed if I had been diverted to a school for kids with behavioral problems. Eventually I got glasses, got medicated, and thrived, but there were a lot of people who wanted to write me off without giving me a chance.
This used to be the case. Even in rural Wyoming. In each region there were at least one military-style dedicated boys school and girls school focused on disciplining bad students. Public school students would receive a few detentions and suspensions, followed soon after by expulsion to the boys school. Parents could also voluntarily and temporarily enroll their kid there if they needed disciplinary help.
The boys school had a good reputation and would have engagement with the local schools via sports and dances.
The boys school had a good reputation and would have engagement with the local schools via sports and dances.
I benefited immensely from a homosocial environment, though in a snootier form of what you're describing. There's basically no incentive to be a cheeky little shit when there are no girls around to impress. I always thought it'd be nice if same-sex education were not just limited to expensive private schools and borderline prisons. I reckon a lot drama for students and teachers alike would vanish in these settings.
While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) in the assumptions that "poor kids" will be more disruptive in class, there is, to my understanding, substantial data backing up the perception, with causal mechanisms that have nothing to do with race or "poor breeding", and everything to do with how grindingly awful it is to be poor in America.
> While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism)
I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.
I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.
It's just a bad-faith take, ascribing intentions as a smear on the OP.
I'm not claiming to read anyone's mind; I wasn't commenting on the opinions of the GP or GGP, but rather on that assumption as it exists within our culture.
Agreed, and to the parent comment's point, I believe the studies that prove this have already been done, it's just that they study the material effects of poverty in america, so they're more specific than 'poverty'
Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry.
Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school.
Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school.
Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school
Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse
Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.
Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry.
Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school.
Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school.
Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school
Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse
Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.
Seems that the biggest problem all relates to an unstable family life.
Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home?
Isn't it great how that panned out.
EDIT
To be clear I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce, but the fact of the matter is that at some point they convinced us all we had to have 2 parents working and that's when things went to hell. It was great for a little bit while everyone was making a bit of extra cash, but basically what happened was the supply of labor doubled, and when supply goes up...
Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home?
Isn't it great how that panned out.
EDIT
To be clear I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce, but the fact of the matter is that at some point they convinced us all we had to have 2 parents working and that's when things went to hell. It was great for a little bit while everyone was making a bit of extra cash, but basically what happened was the supply of labor doubled, and when supply goes up...
I don't think you understand: poor women have never been able to afford to be a stay at home mother. Stay at home motherhood has always been a middle class and above lifestyle. Wealthier women employ the nannies and maids that are obviously overwhelmingly women who aren't at home.
I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.
I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.
Historically poor, married women did tend to stay at home, but frequently worked from the home sewing, washing, small scale manufacturing etc… The Industrial Revolution reduced the value of that kind of work though.
Until near the middle of the century running a household of as too time intensive for most women to go off to work.
Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women.
I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor...
Also only about 7% of children lived with single mothers in 1900.
Until near the middle of the century running a household of as too time intensive for most women to go off to work.
Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women.
I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor...
Also only about 7% of children lived with single mothers in 1900.
You're not looking back far enough historically.
We've fallen prey to the philosophy that being at home with kids isn't adding value to society. You should be out making some big corporation wealthy!
> I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce
Whether you intended to or not, it is exactly what you were saying.
Whether you intended to or not, it is exactly what you were saying.
"Women shouldn't be in the workforce" is a statement with ambiguous and even opposite meanings (with regard to why), so I think GP's intent is probably better captured by a statement like "raising children and maintaining the home is more important, more impactful, and more fulfilling work than almost all work outside the home".
When my daughter was born, a coworker asked if I hope she'll be a programmer one day, and my answer was that I hope not; I want her to be able to stay at home like her mother, and if she can't and has to work some corporate job, that means I will have somehow failed her. If she wants a job like mine, then again I will have probably failed her somehow.
When my daughter was born, a coworker asked if I hope she'll be a programmer one day, and my answer was that I hope not; I want her to be able to stay at home like her mother, and if she can't and has to work some corporate job, that means I will have somehow failed her. If she wants a job like mine, then again I will have probably failed her somehow.
sure everything would be rosy if women just spent their time breastfeeding somewhere near the sink or cooker.
Sure, and in fact it's not only about poverty, I think there are some relatively wealthy (maybe white) kids who struggle because their families are dysfunctional, it's all about their close environment.
That still only goes so far because sometimes its a disrupted life at home that causes the in class disruptions.
This is absolutely a huge factor, if not the biggest factor in education: kids who are actively disruptive and harmful to the learning of others being kept in with other kids, draining all of the attention from the teacher.
The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
>> I went to public school as a kid and the disruptive kids were expelled. Not just kicked out of class - totally kicked out of school and told to find a new one! One reason I send my kids to private school is if you don’t want to learn they will kick you out. In public schools today you get a few bad kids and it ruins the whole class.
> The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
But it might not be that much more complicated. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but in our district there was an "alternative" high school, which had a reputation among the kids as the place you'd end up if you were too much of a behavior problem.
That said, the kids at my schools were well-behaved in class and I never knew of anyone specific who was expelled.
If behavior problems are getting more widespread, maybe embracing more of an explicit containment strategy is appropriate.
> The causes and solutions are not as simple as "these kids are bad, kick them out of school", but any solution needs to involve kids who aren't disruptive and WANT to learn getting an environment conducive to that.
But it might not be that much more complicated. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but in our district there was an "alternative" high school, which had a reputation among the kids as the place you'd end up if you were too much of a behavior problem.
That said, the kids at my schools were well-behaved in class and I never knew of anyone specific who was expelled.
If behavior problems are getting more widespread, maybe embracing more of an explicit containment strategy is appropriate.
It's sad but I largely agree.
The complicated part is the "why" of their behavior, which can range from an antisocial personality disorder, to not getting enough attention at home.
Sadly many of the cause of behavior problems is from systemic issues like poverty, or poor mental health services across the country.
The bottom line is that neither the kids nor the teachers want to, or deserve to, deal with the byproduct of other failed systems.
The failed systems should be fixed, and services provided to these kids to the extent possible, but OUTSIDE of a classroom setting.
The cost of past failures can't be borne by the students and teachers in the public school system.
The complicated part is the "why" of their behavior, which can range from an antisocial personality disorder, to not getting enough attention at home.
Sadly many of the cause of behavior problems is from systemic issues like poverty, or poor mental health services across the country.
The bottom line is that neither the kids nor the teachers want to, or deserve to, deal with the byproduct of other failed systems.
The failed systems should be fixed, and services provided to these kids to the extent possible, but OUTSIDE of a classroom setting.
The cost of past failures can't be borne by the students and teachers in the public school system.
> The complicated part is the "why" of their behavior
You can have specialized people look at the "why" after you remove the disruptive (some times dangerously disruptive) person from forced prolonged contact with innocent ones.
It's certainly very good to look and fight the causes; as it's important to give the people chances to go back on track, and protect them at that new environment too. But forcefully submitting everybody else to them is just horrible.
You can have specialized people look at the "why" after you remove the disruptive (some times dangerously disruptive) person from forced prolonged contact with innocent ones.
It's certainly very good to look and fight the causes; as it's important to give the people chances to go back on track, and protect them at that new environment too. But forcefully submitting everybody else to them is just horrible.
its worse than that, i have some examples of what always annoyed me:
- a terrible kid was constantly given presents from a teacher, chocolates, and small things she could give him so that he would stop misbehaving in class. normally these prizes would go to a single student every day, for merit, but once this terrible person kept getting them, everyone else became pissed and demoralized.
- the young kids copy the teachers behavior, and it creates this culture of "they have a harder life than you" when trying to complain about the terrible students in their vicinity (which i completely disagree with, they're not trying hard at all that's why they get like this), so when terrible people bully decent, kind, and hardworking students, there's no sympathy for the hardworking students. they get treated like shit and abused from the future-criminals who do nothing but degrade the experience of everyone who attends, then they get told "get over it, you have everything" by their peers who for whatever reason weren't bullied, and refuse to help. its cult-like behavior
- you also have kids who are way too old for their grade, by at least 4 years. someone who should otherwise be way ahead of the classroom they're in is 2x the size of anyone else, is a literal delinquent, and is for some reason still allowed in the public school system where they either terrorize their classmates, get them into their same terrible habits, or bully people who express any kind of discontent with their behavior.
- a terrible kid was constantly given presents from a teacher, chocolates, and small things she could give him so that he would stop misbehaving in class. normally these prizes would go to a single student every day, for merit, but once this terrible person kept getting them, everyone else became pissed and demoralized.
- the young kids copy the teachers behavior, and it creates this culture of "they have a harder life than you" when trying to complain about the terrible students in their vicinity (which i completely disagree with, they're not trying hard at all that's why they get like this), so when terrible people bully decent, kind, and hardworking students, there's no sympathy for the hardworking students. they get treated like shit and abused from the future-criminals who do nothing but degrade the experience of everyone who attends, then they get told "get over it, you have everything" by their peers who for whatever reason weren't bullied, and refuse to help. its cult-like behavior
- you also have kids who are way too old for their grade, by at least 4 years. someone who should otherwise be way ahead of the classroom they're in is 2x the size of anyone else, is a literal delinquent, and is for some reason still allowed in the public school system where they either terrorize their classmates, get them into their same terrible habits, or bully people who express any kind of discontent with their behavior.
I went to a public school and disruptive kids were NEVER expelled, or kicked out of class, they were just tolerated and placated. I wish I had gone to your school because no matter how disruptive they were, or how much they bullied others in class, the school simply would not expel them. The worst they would get is after school detention. It was hugely disruptive and made life miserable for the rest of us.
If only disruptive kids were expelled instead of placated MANY of us might have had a better education.
If only disruptive kids were expelled instead of placated MANY of us might have had a better education.
I was the disruptive kid in public school (although I'd blame it on excessive and biased attention from teachers and teachers not in control over their egos) and I was indeed kicked out of class and eventually given the ultimatum of be medicated into submission or be expelled.
The next year I was at the private school across the street. Suddenly I wasn't a problem child anymore there.
I had already been taught algebra at home by first grade. I was in the "gifted program" in public school and the curriculum was still boring and slow. Teachers lasered in on my boredom and made my life miserable despite (or perhaps because of) being able to answer anything. I thrived a little more in private school in part because the children were on-average smarter but also because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world (and rewarding only the kids they liked) they taught children the value of group conformity and not being the nail that sticks up.
The next year I was at the private school across the street. Suddenly I wasn't a problem child anymore there.
I had already been taught algebra at home by first grade. I was in the "gifted program" in public school and the curriculum was still boring and slow. Teachers lasered in on my boredom and made my life miserable despite (or perhaps because of) being able to answer anything. I thrived a little more in private school in part because the children were on-average smarter but also because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world (and rewarding only the kids they liked) they taught children the value of group conformity and not being the nail that sticks up.
>they taught children the value of group conformity and not being the nail that sticks up
That seems like an awful lesson to impose on children. "Keep your head down and don't do anything to attract attention. Go to your grave having spent your life hiding among the faceless crowd".
Shitty teachers that play favorites won't not exist in a private setting. Shitty teachers that demand abject compliance from students to soothe their egos won't not exist in a private setting.
It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
That seems like an awful lesson to impose on children. "Keep your head down and don't do anything to attract attention. Go to your grave having spent your life hiding among the faceless crowd".
Shitty teachers that play favorites won't not exist in a private setting. Shitty teachers that demand abject compliance from students to soothe their egos won't not exist in a private setting.
It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
> That seems like an awful lesson to impose on children. "Keep your head down and don't do anything to attract attention. Go to your grave having spent your life hiding among the faceless crowd".
It's a crucial survival skill. You learn when and where in your life to apply it. The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you. Please keep me away from the karens that _haven't_ yet learned that about life.
> It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
Most of my time in that school was fine, I just got unlucky one year and got a nasty old tenured b* of a teacher who decided from day one that she hated me and directed constant negative attention towards me. I just wanted to be left alone. I had had 5 consistent years at that school already without problems, but she was besties with the principal. Later on in her career she got rubberroomed by the school board, so I don't think the problem was me here.
It's a crucial survival skill. You learn when and where in your life to apply it. The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you. Please keep me away from the karens that _haven't_ yet learned that about life.
> It sounds like a bored student was disrupting the education of 30 others, so teachers punished them more than the other students? They should have probably kicked you ahead a grade if you were so far ahead of your peers, but that would require someone in the situation to attribute your behavior to boredom rather than mere defiance. Did your parents not suggest such a thing? Was it not an option for some other reason? It sounds like a change of environment brought you away from old grievances and that the increased coursework gave you something to do. It's completely possible that a grade skip in the same school could have done the same.
Most of my time in that school was fine, I just got unlucky one year and got a nasty old tenured b* of a teacher who decided from day one that she hated me and directed constant negative attention towards me. I just wanted to be left alone. I had had 5 consistent years at that school already without problems, but she was besties with the principal. Later on in her career she got rubberroomed by the school board, so I don't think the problem was me here.
>they taught children the value of group conformity and not being the nail that sticks up
>The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you
These strike me as very different things.
Teaching kids to remain grounded, respectful of others and how to live within an existing system is one thing.
The former sounds like teaching them to avoid garnering attention at all, which is quite another.
I've read about cultures where standing out, for good or bad, is socially punished. "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down". I would not want us to foster such a culture here.
I could agree with "don't stand out for the wrong reasons".
>Most of my time in that school was fine
It doesn't seem this has much to do with the debate between public and charter schools at all. Just a poor experience you unfortunate enough to have gone through.
>The "lesson" is that the whole world doesn't revolve around you
These strike me as very different things.
Teaching kids to remain grounded, respectful of others and how to live within an existing system is one thing.
The former sounds like teaching them to avoid garnering attention at all, which is quite another.
I've read about cultures where standing out, for good or bad, is socially punished. "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down". I would not want us to foster such a culture here.
I could agree with "don't stand out for the wrong reasons".
>Most of my time in that school was fine
It doesn't seem this has much to do with the debate between public and charter schools at all. Just a poor experience you unfortunate enough to have gone through.
What made them like a student over another? Behavior? Ability?
How/why were students they liked rewarded? Teaching is a job, there are tests and many times grading is subjective. The only factors I thought would come into play are.
1. How much the student tried, cared, or showed interest during class
2. The content of the test (answers-objective, writing-subjective)
3. If they were disruptive in class which normally led to 1 and 2 being negative
What unjustified reasons would a teacher have to show favoritism to a portion of students excluding rare situations like sexual relations and nepotism?
--------
"because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world"
How? When I was in school I went from class to class where the teacher would read material, show examples (i.e.) math, or have a class discussion. Do you mean they inflated grades? Then you wouldn't have done poorly in public school as you said.
If you mean they verbally told students they were doing good when they weren't why would they do that? Public school students have to take standardized test which are so important for the school that it's a common complaint that teachers only teach the test. If this is the case how does rewarding unworthy students benefit the teacher or school. Why would they do that?
----
Your comment hit a nerve because it is very dense with political talking points.
- public school teachers are corrupt (i.e.favoritism )
- public school teachers are bad at their job
- public school teachers are too soft and treat kids like snowflakes and this has a negative affect.
How/why were students they liked rewarded? Teaching is a job, there are tests and many times grading is subjective. The only factors I thought would come into play are.
1. How much the student tried, cared, or showed interest during class
2. The content of the test (answers-objective, writing-subjective)
3. If they were disruptive in class which normally led to 1 and 2 being negative
What unjustified reasons would a teacher have to show favoritism to a portion of students excluding rare situations like sexual relations and nepotism?
--------
"because instead of the school treating everyone like they were special and going to save the world"
How? When I was in school I went from class to class where the teacher would read material, show examples (i.e.) math, or have a class discussion. Do you mean they inflated grades? Then you wouldn't have done poorly in public school as you said.
If you mean they verbally told students they were doing good when they weren't why would they do that? Public school students have to take standardized test which are so important for the school that it's a common complaint that teachers only teach the test. If this is the case how does rewarding unworthy students benefit the teacher or school. Why would they do that?
----
Your comment hit a nerve because it is very dense with political talking points.
- public school teachers are corrupt (i.e.favoritism )
- public school teachers are bad at their job
- public school teachers are too soft and treat kids like snowflakes and this has a negative affect.
> What made them like a student over another? Behavior? Ability?
Between my experience and the data I would say it comes down to class and gender, but maybe in the reverse order.
In my primary school education, both public and private, there was a pervasive and often oppressive favoritism towards the girls in just about all situations.
We've been starting to see the results of this in the data for the last couple of decades where men have worse education outcomes by a sizable percentage.
Between my experience and the data I would say it comes down to class and gender, but maybe in the reverse order.
In my primary school education, both public and private, there was a pervasive and often oppressive favoritism towards the girls in just about all situations.
We've been starting to see the results of this in the data for the last couple of decades where men have worse education outcomes by a sizable percentage.
I'm not sure how that relates to my comment which was a response to a private vs public school comment.
The public school I went to was worse. If you were attacked by one of those disruptive kids you'd be suspended for starting a fight.
My middle school was like this. They had a "zero tolerance" policy on fights, which meant if you were in one, you were supposed to get suspended.
In reality, it did not actually work this way. I did get into at least one fight where administration got involved, and they let me off the hook. (Neither of us got suspended, in fact.) In my own view, I 'started' that fight although I did not 'instigate' it, not that the difference matters much. Some kid in line for PE kept kicking the back of my shoes, and after the fourth or fifth time, I started punching him.
In reality, it did not actually work this way. I did get into at least one fight where administration got involved, and they let me off the hook. (Neither of us got suspended, in fact.) In my own view, I 'started' that fight although I did not 'instigate' it, not that the difference matters much. Some kid in line for PE kept kicking the back of my shoes, and after the fourth or fifth time, I started punching him.
That's because of "zero-tolerance" policies, which never made any sense.
I always say the best way to solve Zero Tolerance policies is to threaten to replace the management with a minimum wage box-checker. If we aren't getting any discretion or thought why pay more for it? You would see quite the shift from acting like lazy ass-covering automatons.
This comes up a lot, but similar to people complaining about wikipedia reverting their edits, no one seems to even care if it is on balance a good policy or not. They're too caught up in their own injustice.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, I don't know but I have to at least consider that a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.
You could even argue the opposite, that if you're going to get suspended for being attacked you might as well try to bite their ear off and go down fighting, but no one does, they just focus on the innocent kid getting suspended.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, I don't know but I have to at least consider that a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.
You could even argue the opposite, that if you're going to get suspended for being attacked you might as well try to bite their ear off and go down fighting, but no one does, they just focus on the innocent kid getting suspended.
An injust policy is not a good policy by definition. There is a reason "better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent should suffer" is an axiom. To do otherwise utterly fucks with incentives and promotes selfishness in the worst of ways. Why bother being honest if it is no protection? Do whatever the fuck you can get away with and maximize the personal advantage. That is a recipe for breakdown. Injustice has a way of creating a "karmic backlash" of reputations which is less than precise. Not through any cosmic force but that in a world with billions of agents actions begetting reactions. It goes beyond classic vigilantism and into reputations in general. Letting the Mai Lai Massacre go unpunished certainly contributed to Vietnam Veterans branded baby-killers.
On another note I highly suspect residual trauma is a reason for teachers having issues with parents, and schools with willingness to fund. The tree remembers and assumes the worst of teachers based upon their own experience.
On another note I highly suspect residual trauma is a reason for teachers having issues with parents, and schools with willingness to fund. The tree remembers and assumes the worst of teachers based upon their own experience.
So when you get jumped in a hallway, a concussion so hard you black out, multiple broken ribs from being kicked while on the ground & then you wake up in a hospital with no memory of the event, you should consider that it is OK you got suspended for getting your ass beat?
A good example of my point. So you don't even care if the policy helps other kids avoid that same fate, it's just a point of principle to you and you're happy to see them go to hospital with concussion?
It's hard to guess why you've interpreted their comment as being "happy to see them go to hospital with concussion".
But I would suggest that in a debate over whether or not it's a good idea to punish children who are innocent (e.g. being attacked in a one-sided "fight"), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are benefits to the approach, not on others to demonstrate that punishing innocent kids, or people in general, isn't a bad idea.
But I would suggest that in a debate over whether or not it's a good idea to punish children who are innocent (e.g. being attacked in a one-sided "fight"), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are benefits to the approach, not on others to demonstrate that punishing innocent kids, or people in general, isn't a bad idea.
> a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further.
Kids being unfairly punished for being attacked encourages more attacks, though, especially if it is punishing all participants regardless of role in a manner that is less of a punishment for the kind of people who would be inclined to attack and more of a punishment to those who would not.
Kids being unfairly punished for being attacked encourages more attacks, though, especially if it is punishing all participants regardless of role in a manner that is less of a punishment for the kind of people who would be inclined to attack and more of a punishment to those who would not.
It also might discourage reporting.
> a few innocent kids getting suspended unfairly for being attacked might be worth it if it prevents more attacks that escalate further
What is it with education that makes people so willing to internalize well known Fascist values?
Acceptance of that thought is common; of collective punishment is common; blatant repression is advocated everywhere. If you take the values of a common school and try to apply them to adults, you will get either punched away or arrested.
What is it with education that makes people so willing to internalize well known Fascist values?
Acceptance of that thought is common; of collective punishment is common; blatant repression is advocated everywhere. If you take the values of a common school and try to apply them to adults, you will get either punched away or arrested.
Huh.
I categorically oppose "zero tolerance". It removes judgement, ignores context. It's a strategy for bureaucrats to absolve themselves of responsibilty.
But I actually don't know if it's better, worse, or indifferent. If it proves a net win, I might change my stance.
Please share if you find any such research. Thanks.
I categorically oppose "zero tolerance". It removes judgement, ignores context. It's a strategy for bureaucrats to absolve themselves of responsibilty.
But I actually don't know if it's better, worse, or indifferent. If it proves a net win, I might change my stance.
Please share if you find any such research. Thanks.
I would be astounded if a strategy that "removes judgement, ignores context" can be effective in a world of people who may be dealt injustices and have complicated circumstances. Seems completely antithetical to improving trust and social cohesion, which are important for a healthy society.
My daughter was threatened by 3 girls (with a long history of behavioral problems) that they would beat her up the next day. The school VP suggested with a straight face that maybe my daughter should stay home that day (since it was a Friday).
It hasn't been that way for a long time, but it used to be. And I can say that as a disruptive kid that was kicked out of a school. I then had to go through middle school in a special school for kids kicked out of other schools. Thankfully, they knew what they were doing when it came to getting kids back in line, and I turned out pretty okay in my book.
[deleted]
Too many liberals feel such guilt about expelling disruptive kids, when the reality is just what you've said: if they stay, they don't improve and they ruin genuine learning for everyone else.
It is so wrong for adults to fail to protect children who want to learn simply because they want a facade of feel-good egalitarianism.
It is so wrong for adults to fail to protect children who want to learn simply because they want a facade of feel-good egalitarianism.
And this feel-goodism causes serious long-term harm. It's better to discipline people displaying rogue behavior when they're young. This feel-goodism just pushes the consequences to when these people get old, and they end up in prison, unemployed, working dead-end jobs, or something similar...at that point no one cares because they assume the person is an adult that can take care of themselves.
Not to mention that behaviors become more ingrained with age.
I think it’s correct to feel guilty about expelling disruptive kids. Majority of cases they’re disruptive as a direct result of their home life, which you’re now throwing them into full time.
I agree that keeping them in general education is bad too, though. A caring society would take that kid somewhere with specialised staff that will help them work through their issues.
I agree that keeping them in general education is bad too, though. A caring society would take that kid somewhere with specialised staff that will help them work through their issues.
The school cannot fix the home life, so it should not try.
Home life should be addressed by child services, etc. Granted in reality they are often as understaffed or as incompetent and corrupt as any other government service, but at least that's their mission. School teachers should not be doubling as social workers.
Home life should be addressed by child services, etc. Granted in reality they are often as understaffed or as incompetent and corrupt as any other government service, but at least that's their mission. School teachers should not be doubling as social workers.
I personally suspect that it would work better if schools had dedicated staff to deal with that side of stuff rather than only having those people in the separate child services organisation - maybe in such a way that it's the school social care team who directly work with the children & families (with a separate team at child services to do the same for any kids not attached to a school), while being able to call on support from central child services for either advice and guidance or for the use of an expert in a specific area when needed.
But underfunding is a big problem whichever way it's structured, and I of course agree with you that it's not something you can just say "this is the responsibility of the teachers to do on top of their existing responsibilities".
But underfunding is a big problem whichever way it's structured, and I of course agree with you that it's not something you can just say "this is the responsibility of the teachers to do on top of their existing responsibilities".
There should be counselors to help ease the gap between school and home, but yes, teachers don't need even more burdens.
You should feel more guilty of subjecting twenty kids to the spillover of that one child’s dysfunctional life.
The problem is the selective and performative guilt:
Why don’t kids who have a terrible home life, but are studying diligently to better themselves and improve their lives equally deserve our help?
The problem is the selective and performative guilt:
Why don’t kids who have a terrible home life, but are studying diligently to better themselves and improve their lives equally deserve our help?
Exactly - this is the tragic mistake of fixating on only one type of "victim".
I literally said “I agree that keeping them in general education is bad too” but I feel like you have a point you want to make irrespective of anything I’m saying so go on.
And I agree with you. It's right to recognize that there are no good options here. In such situations, it's important to consider the bad effects and victims on both sides, not fixate on one as the only morally correct one to consider.
This is life though, that spillover doesn't disappear when you're an adult. You will always be subject to someone else's dysfunctional life unless you isolate yourself from society completely.
We need to have structures that can address this behavior in a way that fosters societal integration. This "spillover" might not be a problem given proper staffing... but a 1:25 ratio is never enough to handle problems and never will be.
We need to have structures that can address this behavior in a way that fosters societal integration. This "spillover" might not be a problem given proper staffing... but a 1:25 ratio is never enough to handle problems and never will be.
Kids should learn that other people have dysfunctional lives early so that they grow up with the capability of empathy towards others. Too many people are in their own bubble about how the world works.
For this same reason I've always hated (since a kid) the way anti-drug education has been presented to children. It's not taken seriously and doesn't present the reality of how prevalent drug (even prescription) use is among adults in society. It doesn't treat prescription drug use, alcohol, nicotine or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever and doesn't prepare children for the reality of having to deal with people who are on drugs.
For this same reason I've always hated (since a kid) the way anti-drug education has been presented to children. It's not taken seriously and doesn't present the reality of how prevalent drug (even prescription) use is among adults in society. It doesn't treat prescription drug use, alcohol, nicotine or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever and doesn't prepare children for the reality of having to deal with people who are on drugs.
Where does this end?
Are people with a pattern of disruptive, dysfunctional behavior allowed to be present in your workplace?
Is this something you would see as desirable to experience, for the same reasons you've given that children should experience it?
Are people with a pattern of disruptive, dysfunctional behavior allowed to be present in your workplace?
Is this something you would see as desirable to experience, for the same reasons you've given that children should experience it?
> Are people with a pattern of disruptive, dysfunctional behavior allowed to be present in your workplace?
Yes, actually. The standard to fire people is high and HR wants these people constructively managed out rather than fired. This is incredibly common in large corporations.
Had a bad hire once that abused an entire engineering department for 2 years while they had no responsibilities and did no work until they were finally bored enough to quit.
Yes, actually. The standard to fire people is high and HR wants these people constructively managed out rather than fired. This is incredibly common in large corporations.
Had a bad hire once that abused an entire engineering department for 2 years while they had no responsibilities and did no work until they were finally bored enough to quit.
What about the second question? Is it desirable to tolerate abusive employees? Should managers who do something about it be considered problematic because they're shielding people from the real-life learning experience of being bullied?
These are not gotcha questions. I'm honestly trying to understand your worldview here.
These are not gotcha questions. I'm honestly trying to understand your worldview here.
It's not desirable, no, but there are other employers to go work for.
If you get expelled _by a public school system_ you may not have another option.
My worldview is that all kids have the right to an education, regardless of how "manageable" adults interpret their behavior. "Disruptive children" are more often a failure of the adult to meet the needs of the child. Also they're children. They haven't learned how to behave like adults yet. Expecting them to do so is cruel.
If you get expelled _by a public school system_ you may not have another option.
My worldview is that all kids have the right to an education, regardless of how "manageable" adults interpret their behavior. "Disruptive children" are more often a failure of the adult to meet the needs of the child. Also they're children. They haven't learned how to behave like adults yet. Expecting them to do so is cruel.
But you've defined education as learning how things are out there in the real world, including bullying which prevents children from getting what people traditionally called education.
What if most people don't want this type of education? Are they wrong? Do you have the moral authority to force it on them?
What if most people don't want this type of education? Are they wrong? Do you have the moral authority to force it on them?
Nah, looking back on it, there was no learning about dysfunctional lives, it was just absolutely misery. Emotional and physical bullying, fear, intimidation, and misery. If a child is disruptive to other students and impinging on their opportunity to learn they should be removed from the classroom. It's not the school's job to teach discipline. Removing them from the class puts the burden on the parents and the administration, instead of the kids.
School isn't really just there to teach you facts, it's to prepare you for life as an adult. You are going to deal with bullies your whole life and you'd better be well prepared for it before you're out on your own as an adult.
> You are going to deal with bullies your whole life
Never dealt with them again once I left high school. Not even any close calls.
That shit's like living in a war zone. No one sends their kids to a war zone so they can "learn to survive". No good lessons exist in a war zone, not even in between people stepping on landmines or getting pulverized by airstrikes.
All that exists in such a place is a bunch of trauma, and yes, debilitating/mutilative injuries, for those that somehow manage to get sneak back out of them.
Bullying is like this too, though obviously to a lesser degree.
I strongly suspect that most people get their ideas about what bullying is from the same half-dozen made-for-tv movies and other narrative fragments thereof on the subject.
Never dealt with them again once I left high school. Not even any close calls.
That shit's like living in a war zone. No one sends their kids to a war zone so they can "learn to survive". No good lessons exist in a war zone, not even in between people stepping on landmines or getting pulverized by airstrikes.
All that exists in such a place is a bunch of trauma, and yes, debilitating/mutilative injuries, for those that somehow manage to get sneak back out of them.
Bullying is like this too, though obviously to a lesser degree.
I strongly suspect that most people get their ideas about what bullying is from the same half-dozen made-for-tv movies and other narrative fragments thereof on the subject.
Cannot echo this enough. Not once in the 20 years since high school have I had to deal with with the same kind of bullies, intimidation, and violence. School was like a prison and going each day, steeling myself to deal with misbehaving kids, apathetic teachers, and an administration that thought ignoring the problem, social promoting, and punishing anyone who fights back was the best strategy.
It's not just the constant picking and poking that bullies do, it's the way they make the entire school environment like a prison yard. You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react. Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless, they mostly threw up their hands because they were not allowed to send the student out of the class.
Public school in America is, in a word, prison.
It's not just the constant picking and poking that bullies do, it's the way they make the entire school environment like a prison yard. You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react. Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless, they mostly threw up their hands because they were not allowed to send the student out of the class.
Public school in America is, in a word, prison.
> It's not just the constant picking and poking that bullies do, it's the way they make the entire school environment like a prison yard.
It wasn't the only way that schools were like prisons, just the most uncomfortable of those. We can be honest now, we're well distance from it at this point.
> You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react.
Did you ever have any of the teachers join in? Not just decide that it was your fault, but to actually pick up on the name-calling and contempt? When it happens during class, that's the cue for everyone else to join in too, even those who'd always be too timid.
But pretty much the whole administration does this in more subtle ways, you know? For me, this happened on the school bus more than anywhere else. I was in second grade, they were in highschool. An hour's bus ride to school every morning, an hour home each afternoon. Bus driver was an old asshole of a curmudgeon and from his driving I doubt he could see 6ft in front of his face (let along 14ft back through a mirror). When my mama went to the administration to try to have a stop put to it... they threatened her with me being thrown off the school bus. We lived in a rural area, she didn't have a car at the time. The implication was that if/when I missed school, it'd be truancy. She'd be arrested, I'd be put in foster care.
You know, me. The second-grader who is a troublemaker just provoking the 16 yr olds into beatings, into having my clothes torn and stained with god knows what, into having my hair snipped off whenever my head was turned.
I can't even tell anyone about this shit. No one believes me. I don't believe it myself. My memories seem like lies to me.
> Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless,
Sounds alot more like "only following orders" to me.
It wasn't the only way that schools were like prisons, just the most uncomfortable of those. We can be honest now, we're well distance from it at this point.
> You never know when someone is going to do something to you, or how a teacher (guard) would react.
Did you ever have any of the teachers join in? Not just decide that it was your fault, but to actually pick up on the name-calling and contempt? When it happens during class, that's the cue for everyone else to join in too, even those who'd always be too timid.
But pretty much the whole administration does this in more subtle ways, you know? For me, this happened on the school bus more than anywhere else. I was in second grade, they were in highschool. An hour's bus ride to school every morning, an hour home each afternoon. Bus driver was an old asshole of a curmudgeon and from his driving I doubt he could see 6ft in front of his face (let along 14ft back through a mirror). When my mama went to the administration to try to have a stop put to it... they threatened her with me being thrown off the school bus. We lived in a rural area, she didn't have a car at the time. The implication was that if/when I missed school, it'd be truancy. She'd be arrested, I'd be put in foster care.
You know, me. The second-grader who is a troublemaker just provoking the 16 yr olds into beatings, into having my clothes torn and stained with god knows what, into having my hair snipped off whenever my head was turned.
I can't even tell anyone about this shit. No one believes me. I don't believe it myself. My memories seem like lies to me.
> Teachers exacerbating the problem because, while powerless,
Sounds alot more like "only following orders" to me.
You're going to learn to avoid bullies entirely and live the remainder of your life without them, is what you mean.
As to how 18 years of being forced into a small room with them helps prepare you for that, I hope you'll enlighten me.
As to how 18 years of being forced into a small room with them helps prepare you for that, I hope you'll enlighten me.
>It's not the school's job to teach discipline. Removing them from the class puts the burden on the parents and the administration
No, all it does is make sure that any child with a bad home life has no future. Sure, it solves the "problem" of making one teacher manage 30 kids meaning one kid can DDoS the system but it does that by ignoring it all together.
Mom's a teacher, and "bad" kids LOVE her because she's extremely good at her job. Those bad kids pretty much universally just need attention because they get none in normal life. There are still occasionally young psychopaths but they generally do get expelled at some point. Otherwise most bad kids would come do their homework in her class because she was basically the only adult in the building they respected. She was literally "just" a french teacher but because she understands what it means to be a teacher she was an intervention for many a "bad" kid.
You want one bad kid to not spoil the bunch? Stop making undertrained, underpaid "teachers" without even an education degree oversee a class of 30 kids. How good could one person possibly manage 30 adults, let alone kids. Stop hiring glorified baby sitters because that's all you can get for $30k a year in salary. Stop treating teaching like a disposable profession.
No, all it does is make sure that any child with a bad home life has no future. Sure, it solves the "problem" of making one teacher manage 30 kids meaning one kid can DDoS the system but it does that by ignoring it all together.
Mom's a teacher, and "bad" kids LOVE her because she's extremely good at her job. Those bad kids pretty much universally just need attention because they get none in normal life. There are still occasionally young psychopaths but they generally do get expelled at some point. Otherwise most bad kids would come do their homework in her class because she was basically the only adult in the building they respected. She was literally "just" a french teacher but because she understands what it means to be a teacher she was an intervention for many a "bad" kid.
You want one bad kid to not spoil the bunch? Stop making undertrained, underpaid "teachers" without even an education degree oversee a class of 30 kids. How good could one person possibly manage 30 adults, let alone kids. Stop hiring glorified baby sitters because that's all you can get for $30k a year in salary. Stop treating teaching like a disposable profession.
Also it's not always the kid's home life that's the problem.
Teachers can be bad and do have the capability to pick on children. Having these kinds of outcomes totally allows a teacher to single out a child they don't like and wreck their whole life.
Teachers can be bad and do have the capability to pick on children. Having these kinds of outcomes totally allows a teacher to single out a child they don't like and wreck their whole life.
All you’re teaching is that adults lack empathy towards them:
Adults are intentionally victimizing the majority of students to cater to their own shallow virtue signaling.
Adults are intentionally victimizing the majority of students to cater to their own shallow virtue signaling.
Everyone votes too. The government lacks empathy towards me by forcing me to have an equal vote with morons and criminals.
There are scenarios in life where we're all in this together and excising people for their inconvenience isn't what's best for society.
You don't just cast off disabled people into the void, for example. Unless you have a solution for where to put these problem public school kids that isn't juvenile detention, I don't want to hear it.
There are scenarios in life where we're all in this together and excising people for their inconvenience isn't what's best for society.
You don't just cast off disabled people into the void, for example. Unless you have a solution for where to put these problem public school kids that isn't juvenile detention, I don't want to hear it.
I hear you. It's no good for chronically disruptive kids to be in juvie all the time, but it's also no good for them to remain in classrooms. Any amount of pay won't salve the sheer stress of attempting to teach those who won't learn. It would be great if someone could just snap their fingers and give those kids stable homes or something. Unfortunately, I suspect the solution requires efforts on multiple fronts (ample food, housing, social support, etc.) and will be expensive, difficult, and slow.
The callousness of the HN commentariat towards those who "don't behave according to the rules" is off the charts these days.
We're talking about children here. They don't know how to behave like adults yet. Cutting them out of society where they fail to meet expectations is cruelty.
We're talking about children here. They don't know how to behave like adults yet. Cutting them out of society where they fail to meet expectations is cruelty.
This is sympathy ethics run amok. Being unable to protect yourself or your family from disruptive influences because of some sympathetic property of the disrupter is self-undermining. Presumably you would quarantine a kid who contracted some highly contagious and potentially deadly disease. This is really no different. One can be sympathetic to the plight of an innocent and not be willing to suffer significant hardship for their benefit. There is no contradiction here.
It seems to me that you recognize one kind of cruelty but not another, forcing innocent bystanders to have their education heavily disrupted.
No, it's just that "disruptive" is a pretty broad and subjective spectrum of behavior and a lot of kids get a raw deal from school administrators for really harmless shit. See zero-tolerance policies. Everyone in this thread is using broad weasel language with a blanket response of "expulsion" when really that should be reserved for heinous offenses.
> Kids should learn that other people have dysfunctional lives early so that they grow up with the capability of empathy towards others.
You say children should learn this, and then you say that this is because they will have some new capacity for empathy they wouldn't otherwise have.
I see no reason to believe this proposition is true. What if instead, when they learn this, it just makes them more vulnerable to various kinds of dysfunction themselves? What if, even if learning about this is a good thing, it's only a good thing when they're well on their way to adulthood?
You have no real evidence of cause and effect here. Just a lazy asumption. "But when I learned of this, I immediately had intense feelings of empathy!" doesn't mean much because you're not even a single data point, but an anecdote. Self-reported. And not a young child.
> or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever
This is coming from someone who would legalize heroin, cocaine, and meth and sell it from liquor stores: no one ever sucked cock in the alley behind the pawn shop for a hit of caffeine. It's not in the same category.
You say children should learn this, and then you say that this is because they will have some new capacity for empathy they wouldn't otherwise have.
I see no reason to believe this proposition is true. What if instead, when they learn this, it just makes them more vulnerable to various kinds of dysfunction themselves? What if, even if learning about this is a good thing, it's only a good thing when they're well on their way to adulthood?
You have no real evidence of cause and effect here. Just a lazy asumption. "But when I learned of this, I immediately had intense feelings of empathy!" doesn't mean much because you're not even a single data point, but an anecdote. Self-reported. And not a young child.
> or caffeine abuse with any weight whatsoever
This is coming from someone who would legalize heroin, cocaine, and meth and sell it from liquor stores: no one ever sucked cock in the alley behind the pawn shop for a hit of caffeine. It's not in the same category.
You say children should learn this, and then you say that this is because they will have some new capacity for empathy they wouldn't otherwise have.
Public education is like Lord of the Flies. There is no room for empathy, only survival.
Public education is like Lord of the Flies. There is no room for empathy, only survival.
> Kids should learn that other people have dysfunctional lives early so that they grow up with the capability of empathy towards others.
They should learn by being subjected to the effects of their dysfunction? I honestly don't grasp this strategy. It's like saying that we should learn that some people are psychopaths by going to live with them..
They should learn by being subjected to the effects of their dysfunction? I honestly don't grasp this strategy. It's like saying that we should learn that some people are psychopaths by going to live with them..
> which you’re now throwing them into full time.
Is that really possible in the US? IIRC, the government has a mandate to educate every child, including those that are extremely developmentally disabled (which is why special education is such a huge item in school budgets). If a kid is expelled from school, wouldn't the district be legally required to find some alternative arrangement?
Is that really possible in the US? IIRC, the government has a mandate to educate every child, including those that are extremely developmentally disabled (which is why special education is such a huge item in school budgets). If a kid is expelled from school, wouldn't the district be legally required to find some alternative arrangement?
No, the parent is. Worst case, they can be home schooled.
Despite being treated as such, schools are not day cares, and parents still have some responsibility for the upbringing of their children. If the kid misbehaves enough, it is on the parent.
Despite being treated as such, schools are not day cares, and parents still have some responsibility for the upbringing of their children. If the kid misbehaves enough, it is on the parent.
We might want it to work that way, but depending on which state it is, and the she of the child, the district's legal responsibilities might be what the GP wrote.
In places with mandatory public education, parents suing the district for not providing education for their expelled child are likely to win.
In places with mandatory public education, parents suing the district for not providing education for their expelled child are likely to win.
The problem is that it just moves the issue around. If you expel a 5th grader, they will be at SOME school for at least several more years, since that is the law. All you're doing is making life more miserable for their parents as they have to arrange transportation to increasingly far flung school districts, and for the child as they are ripped away from all their friends every year when they are sent to a new school.
I don't know what the answer is, but "all children are owed a public education and in fact we'll arrest their parents if they drop out" and "public schools can kick children out" are self-evidently not compatible policies.
I don't know what the answer is, but "all children are owed a public education and in fact we'll arrest their parents if they drop out" and "public schools can kick children out" are self-evidently not compatible policies.
> All you're doing is making life more miserable for their parents as they have to arrange transportation to increasingly far flung school districts, and for the child as they are ripped away from all their friends every year when they are sent to a new school.
That's not all we're doing. We're also protecting an entire classroom of children from disruptive behavior.
If it's gotten to the point where we would consider expulsion, then some of those children, or their families, likely find that disruption so intolerable that they themselves would need to arrange transportation to far flung school districts. That's why so many underprivileged families are desperate to get their kids into charter schools.
As I keep trying to point out in this comment tree, people seem to have learned that it's morally appropriate to talk about only one type of victim here. I don't agree. I think it's morally necessary to always discuss both the disruptive child and the classroom they are disrupting, always in the same breath.
That's not all we're doing. We're also protecting an entire classroom of children from disruptive behavior.
If it's gotten to the point where we would consider expulsion, then some of those children, or their families, likely find that disruption so intolerable that they themselves would need to arrange transportation to far flung school districts. That's why so many underprivileged families are desperate to get their kids into charter schools.
As I keep trying to point out in this comment tree, people seem to have learned that it's morally appropriate to talk about only one type of victim here. I don't agree. I think it's morally necessary to always discuss both the disruptive child and the classroom they are disrupting, always in the same breath.
If we suppose that this theoretical child is a problem that is disrupting their classroom, then we are not saving any children from that disruption, merely spreading it around. They will be a problem for one classroom this year, a different one next year, and so on. Assuming class sizes are the same, we will have on average the same number of disrupted-pupil-hours with the expulsions as without them, just a different distribution.
If you want to argue it's a better distribution, or that there is some reason to believe expulsions will push "problem children" to smaller classrooms on average, then fine, but absent those arguments it's very clearly worse for the student and their parents but not better for anyone else (or rather, it's maybe better for specific other people, but also worse for yet other ones, and on average no better for anyone).
If you want to argue it's a better distribution, or that there is some reason to believe expulsions will push "problem children" to smaller classrooms on average, then fine, but absent those arguments it's very clearly worse for the student and their parents but not better for anyone else (or rather, it's maybe better for specific other people, but also worse for yet other ones, and on average no better for anyone).
I agree that spreading it around is not clearly better. In many districts there are special-ed schools where these students are placed. I don't know what it's like in these schools. Some of them are probably terrible. But I think I'm obligated to weigh that against the disruption to a much larger body of students.
There used to be regional boys schools and girls schools that had a military-style ethos and were quite effective in reforming bad students. They would still interface with the local school system in sports and dances, etc. So in some cases expelled students didn't necessarily have to travel too far, just to the shared alternative school for the area.
Making life more miserable for the parents is, in some senses, an encouragement for the parents to straighten up and spend a little more effort on their kids. If it were completely painless, fewer would bother.
Changing behavior requires pressure and people generally do not like it when they notice it.
Changing behavior requires pressure and people generally do not like it when they notice it.
A Republican Congress with a Republican President in 2004 enacted the federal law that makes it difficult for public schools to expel disruptive children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEA_2004
All a parent has to do is ask for an individualized education plan, IEP, and a public school will have to do a metric ton of cover your ass to be able to expel a child.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495879.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEA_2004
All a parent has to do is ask for an individualized education plan, IEP, and a public school will have to do a metric ton of cover your ass to be able to expel a child.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495879.pdf
> A Republican Congress with a Republican President in 2004 enacted the federal law that makes it difficult for public schools to expel disruptive children.
The Republicans only had a slight majority. And after a change, the bill passed in both chambers almost unanimously.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1350
The Republicans only had a slight majority. And after a change, the bill passed in both chambers almost unanimously.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1350
The purpose of pointing out that it was a Republican majority is to counter the claim that (only) “liberals” support not expelling kids.
Anytime something becomes political there becomes two sides. If conservatives want to expel students, liberals want to keep them. If conservatives say no, liberals say yes, this is America at its core. We cannot agree on anything so when it comes to public education, it's better to ignore the politics and focus on results.
While much of what Bush did as President was not at all compassionate, he actually did believe in and try to practice compassionate conservatism. He made major concessions to liberal ways of thinking, some good and some not so good. A major good one was fighting AIDS in Africa. His education policies were on the not so good side.
> He made major concessions to liberal ways of thinking, some good and some not so good. A major good one was fighting AIDS in Africa.
This is not making concessions to "liberal ways of thinking".
This is not making concessions to "liberal ways of thinking".
I think it is. Part of liberalism is seeing all people as worthy of compassion and help, even if they're not closely related to you. While the contrasting tendency in conservatism is to help people closer to / more similar to us and protect ourselves from outsiders who we do not understand, may not benefit from our help, or may even exploit us. Both of these tendencies are valid and adaptive in different situations, they're just different and at least somewhat in opposition. Do you disagree?
I would think a truly liberal policy would be to provide funding for the “compassionate” policies.
On the other hand, federally legislating that local school taxing districts provide services costing $x and if they do not, open up local taxpayers to litigation of $y where x and y are quite large is…something else.
How is a poor school district serving poorer taxpayers supposed to provide expensive IEP for every problem child and/or collect all the evidence to expel them, and at the same time provide quality education to well behaved kids?
On the other hand, federally legislating that local school taxing districts provide services costing $x and if they do not, open up local taxpayers to litigation of $y where x and y are quite large is…something else.
How is a poor school district serving poorer taxpayers supposed to provide expensive IEP for every problem child and/or collect all the evidence to expel them, and at the same time provide quality education to well behaved kids?
Well, I'd be the last person to expect that any particular policy enacted by the US Congress does either liberalism or conservatism effectively.
Was the disruptive student. Am now very leftist.
Some aspects do give me pause.
Such as Any regiment which makes things worse. We're all just guessing; people need to be empowered, so hopefully they can muddle thru things.
Thresholds need to be obvious and ruthlessly enforced. Not fuzzy and optional. (eg If a student assaults a teacher, insta removal, to never come back. And so forth.)
Alas, forging these kinds of rulesets, and then sticking to them at scale, is all but impossible.
Also, most people blathering about public education are repeatedly proven worse than wrong. (Including me.) So am deepyly skeptical of fixes and silver bullets. I insist there's at least some existence proof before supporting any reforms.
Some aspects do give me pause.
Such as Any regiment which makes things worse. We're all just guessing; people need to be empowered, so hopefully they can muddle thru things.
Thresholds need to be obvious and ruthlessly enforced. Not fuzzy and optional. (eg If a student assaults a teacher, insta removal, to never come back. And so forth.)
Alas, forging these kinds of rulesets, and then sticking to them at scale, is all but impossible.
Also, most people blathering about public education are repeatedly proven worse than wrong. (Including me.) So am deepyly skeptical of fixes and silver bullets. I insist there's at least some existence proof before supporting any reforms.
[deleted]
An analogy.
In a dorm the week before finals, 90% of the students are urgently trying to prepare for finals.
10% are drunk and or high and playing frisbee in the halls 24 hours a day.
From friends who have taught high school in poor neighborhoods the situation as similar, only more violent.
In a dorm the week before finals, 90% of the students are urgently trying to prepare for finals.
10% are drunk and or high and playing frisbee in the halls 24 hours a day.
From friends who have taught high school in poor neighborhoods the situation as similar, only more violent.
I don't get the expulsion discussion here (not just your comment, but responses as well). At least in the US, these kids legally need to be educated somewhere. Expelling doesn't remove them from the school system. It just means they'll be disrupting a different set of kids at some other school. Making something someone else's problem isn't solving the problem. It's like dealing with homelessness by rounding them up and bussing them to a different city.
You could conceivably create schools composed entirely of the kids who got expelled from somewhere else, which I think some districts have actually done (continuation schools), but you're effectively creating a juvenile prison system for people who didn't commit any actual crime and definitely never got a trial.
You could conceivably create schools composed entirely of the kids who got expelled from somewhere else, which I think some districts have actually done (continuation schools), but you're effectively creating a juvenile prison system for people who didn't commit any actual crime and definitely never got a trial.
I think that's pretty much the crux of every argument here - move those other kids somewhere else. Don't worry about improving their situation, but make my situation better.
Cite a study, draw incorrect conclusions from it that support your argument, find some exception to the norm and use that as your example, and don't forget - describe how you were brought up and how that was better.
Cite a study, draw incorrect conclusions from it that support your argument, find some exception to the norm and use that as your example, and don't forget - describe how you were brought up and how that was better.
> they are behavioral consultants rather than teachers
During covid, someone observed that it exposed the primary role of public schools to be day care.
During covid, someone observed that it exposed the primary role of public schools to be day care.
Except there must be a difference between school and day care because the kids who stayed home during covid are now way behind academically.
“bad” kids don’t need discipline, they need help - of course they don’t behave well when there’s 0 modeling at home, it’s not because someone isn’t yelling at them enough - raising a child “takes a village” and many of us aren’t operating within a village anymore, we’re all stressed out and working too much
This is why if I had to teach I would teach college kids. I don’t want to be a therapist and bear the weight of all parents’ failures. I want to teach math. So if to be a public school K-12 teacher you have to also “model” how to be a functional human (as the kids go home and see the opposite) then I would never accept that job.
I was raised by a single mom who worked a million hours and didn’t have a baby sitter when I let myself in after school. Don’t see how “working too many hours and being stressed” is a new phenomenon because most of my extended family is poor and have always been. My mom told me not to steal and don’t be an obnoxious asshole in school, wasn’t exactly rocket science.
I was raised by a single mom who worked a million hours and didn’t have a baby sitter when I let myself in after school. Don’t see how “working too many hours and being stressed” is a new phenomenon because most of my extended family is poor and have always been. My mom told me not to steal and don’t be an obnoxious asshole in school, wasn’t exactly rocket science.
While (as a former math teacher, btw) I sympathize with you, let me point out that absolutely every teacher should "model how to be a functional human" (and in fact does, better or worse). This is true for every stage of education, from kindergarten to a university.
Yelling isn't the only form of discipline. There's withholding privileges. There's physical restraint even. Without cooperation from parents, school staff can't really do either. A teacher I know tells me how some of the violent elementary school children just get put in a room alone when they are having an episode because that's all they are allowed to do. These children (under 12 years old) have sent teachers to urgent care with injuries, and the kids are let back to school not long after.
physical restraint and discipline addresses a symptom, not the cause — if discipline worked the US wouldn't have outrageously high prison population and recidivism rates
The US justice system isn't discipline. It's punishment. Discipline isn't just giving consequences for actions, but it's also giving tools to choose better actions.
On that I agree, but specifying "discipline" for the average person often means punishment only. This is why the prison system is the way it is... no one wants to pay for things that benefit the prisoners, just the punishment.
Discipline does work; it's ultimately what the 'bad' kids get when they have runins with the criminal justice system.
The lack of discipline from the parents, mentors, and teachers early on is why the State has to do it later. Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
The lack of discipline from the parents, mentors, and teachers early on is why the State has to do it later. Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
> Discipline does work; it's ultimately what the 'bad' kids get when they have runins with the criminal justice system.
…and does that work? Recidivism rates would suggest otherwise.
…and does that work? Recidivism rates would suggest otherwise.
Considering a large experiment has just occurred with progressive prosecutors no longer putting criminals in jail, and the SF prosecutor was recalled and a tough-on-crime mayor was elected in NYC, I think the results are that “throwing criminals in jail” works better than not.
As an NYC resident I can assure you in at least one of those examples you are vastly, vastly oversimplifying matters.
Both examples are silly and bad. Alameda County (Oakland) elected a tough on crime DA at about the same time as SF’s “reform” one and their crime rate increased more than SFs in that period.. there are no easy answers in policing or discipline.
Yes the “crime rate” when no one goes through the hassle to report petty crimes because it’s a pain in the ass and they won’t solve it anyway. The stats are a joke and everyone knows it.
Yeah except for this conversation, we're clearly talking about violent crime which increased in Oakland at a rate far greater than it did in SF.. and I can't imagine your contention that the people of San Francisco are less likely to report violent crime compared to people living 10 miles away..
To be fair, theres no way to reliably control for the affect of the da without a parallel universe with a weak on crime oakland da. Especially when certain violent crimes like murder are so rare in the population to begin with where a single multiple shooting event could skew things significantly year over year.
Yep. No argument there. Which definitely cuts both ways though. The 'weak on crime' DA in SF was lambasted and ultimately recalled for a crime spike that was smaller in magnitude than the crime spike in much of the country in areas with all manner of DAs and Policing policies.
If you want to treat crime through a disease model, then you should quarantine the infected and prevent transmissions, eg by them victimizing more people.
Somehow, that part of medicine never makes it into these “alternatives” — which makes claims of “systems thinking” or “crime as disease” sound like shallow pretenses for performative virtue rather than legitimate considered policy.
Somehow, that part of medicine never makes it into these “alternatives” — which makes claims of “systems thinking” or “crime as disease” sound like shallow pretenses for performative virtue rather than legitimate considered policy.
At no point did I say I wanted to treat crime through a disease model so your "shallow pretense" dismissal feels out of place.
All I'm saying is that it's pretty obvious jailing criminals is incredibly expensive and not particularly effective at reducing future crime.
All I'm saying is that it's pretty obvious jailing criminals is incredibly expensive and not particularly effective at reducing future crime.
The justice system is punishment. Proper disciplining would help foster discipline in the individual with teaching and guidance on how to make good choices and conform with those consistently.
I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise if this is a strongly held belief, but once a kid (or anyone) is in the criminal justice system they're pretty much doomed. I've seen this time and time again, it's all punishment and very little help. We literally enslave inmates in some states, they're picking cotton on former slave plantations. We need to get over this concept of punishment only.
> Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
Yes, but discipline alone will never work. Never has.
> Discipline is not orthogonal to 'help'.
Yes, but discipline alone will never work. Never has.
>> We need to get over this concept of punishment only.
And replace it with what?
And replace it with what?
Depends on the circumstances. If someone gets a life sentence, then it's probably not a benefit to society to work on rehabilitation. If someone gets 5 years or so for a non-violent offense, then perhaps providing resources that foster hope of permanent change could benefit society rather than derail them from society entirely just to punish them. That can be a balance many factors, such as a display of discipline through good behavior in jail/prison, work release, learning a skill/trade so one can get a job to support themselves (the primary precursor to being a benefit to society), and some sort of job placement assistance or at least the removal of so many barriers.
Some of these exist to some degree already. Some of the issues are systemic and not just related to those in prison. For example, the decline of real wages over the past 50 years and the rise of barriers to entry for many things (renting, jobs, etc) has made it difficult for lower skilled individuals to succeed. If you feel you have no hope in the system, then you will be more inclined to act outside the system.
None of this is an excuse for someone to break the law, merely an observation that the current system might not be maximizing societal benefits but rather too focused on punishment alone.
Some of these exist to some degree already. Some of the issues are systemic and not just related to those in prison. For example, the decline of real wages over the past 50 years and the rise of barriers to entry for many things (renting, jobs, etc) has made it difficult for lower skilled individuals to succeed. If you feel you have no hope in the system, then you will be more inclined to act outside the system.
None of this is an excuse for someone to break the law, merely an observation that the current system might not be maximizing societal benefits but rather too focused on punishment alone.
Or you can teach the normal kids how to defend themselves and unite against the bully.
Rehabilitation. We need to help people understand why they're constantly angry and impulsive, it can not be beaten out of them. For some people this can take a lifetime of mental health counseling.
I've seen irate voters at town meetings upset that tax dollars were being using to pay for books and tutoring for inmates, let alone mental health counseling. As a country the US is incredibly far off from the mindset of prisoner rehabilitation. We treat prisoners like animals, and for some reason are surprised when they keep acting like animals.
I've seen irate voters at town meetings upset that tax dollars were being using to pay for books and tutoring for inmates, let alone mental health counseling. As a country the US is incredibly far off from the mindset of prisoner rehabilitation. We treat prisoners like animals, and for some reason are surprised when they keep acting like animals.
A friend taught public school in a poorer area outside of DC for about 8 years until moving into admin. He had one tactic that worked for many "bad" kids - call their parents, in the middle of the class if need be. He said today's young teachers, are non-confrontational and not used to verbal communication over phones as they were raised on social media and texting. So those young teachers sit there helpless while the student runs wild.
Now in admin hes some kind of teacher manager and he had teachers come to him, sometimes physically crying, unable to deal with a child with a behavioral problem. His says 99% of the time these problems are corrected with a single phone call to the parents. Just one call but no - young teachers these days don't have the guts or social wherewithal. So his job is now teaching adults how to make phone calls.
Another thing to realize is a lot of these kids do respond positively to teachers when they show them that they care and aren't there to simply baby sit and yell at them. He has had many students come to him later on thanking him for breaking their balls and setting them on the right path. Kids aren't stupid - they want respect but are treated like little monsters to be corralled and controlled like cattle.
Showing the kids you truly care is incredibly powerful for them - it connects at the human emotional level and those positive interactions boosts the kids moral and they feel more confident or centered in life.
Now in admin hes some kind of teacher manager and he had teachers come to him, sometimes physically crying, unable to deal with a child with a behavioral problem. His says 99% of the time these problems are corrected with a single phone call to the parents. Just one call but no - young teachers these days don't have the guts or social wherewithal. So his job is now teaching adults how to make phone calls.
Another thing to realize is a lot of these kids do respond positively to teachers when they show them that they care and aren't there to simply baby sit and yell at them. He has had many students come to him later on thanking him for breaking their balls and setting them on the right path. Kids aren't stupid - they want respect but are treated like little monsters to be corralled and controlled like cattle.
Showing the kids you truly care is incredibly powerful for them - it connects at the human emotional level and those positive interactions boosts the kids moral and they feel more confident or centered in life.
'“bad” kids don’t need discipline, they need help'
Some would argue that disciplining is helpful in many cases. Proper disciplining is not just punishment but should include an explaination of why what they did was wrong and what the right thing to do is.
Kids having discipline is a slightly different topic, but can be partially built through the process above.
Some would argue that disciplining is helpful in many cases. Proper disciplining is not just punishment but should include an explaination of why what they did was wrong and what the right thing to do is.
Kids having discipline is a slightly different topic, but can be partially built through the process above.
Discipline without love or some care starts to look like authoritarianism, so if you're not careful you can instill a strong sense of oppositional defiance and make things worse.
This is a very difficult problem to solve and people will often support the stick and complain that someone doesn't deserve the carrot. Everyone needs both.
This is a very difficult problem to solve and people will often support the stick and complain that someone doesn't deserve the carrot. Everyone needs both.
Agreed, but teachers can't be expected to be the only ones providing this help.
Other public institutions outside the school system need to be in place to support the parents who are stressed and overworked and barely have time to parent.
And their right to be helped stops at the line where they're causing harm to the learning of others.
Discipline in schools isn't and cannot be about holistically reforming the problem kids, it's about making sure those who want to learn can.
You can't dump the entirety of systemic poverty, racism, mental health, etc. on the education system and expect it to work well.
Other public institutions outside the school system need to be in place to support the parents who are stressed and overworked and barely have time to parent.
And their right to be helped stops at the line where they're causing harm to the learning of others.
Discipline in schools isn't and cannot be about holistically reforming the problem kids, it's about making sure those who want to learn can.
You can't dump the entirety of systemic poverty, racism, mental health, etc. on the education system and expect it to work well.
Yep, but also many schools in the US don't even have the basics AND they're getting all of that stuff dumped on them. Teachers are quitting at alarming rates since the pandemic. This is not being treated remotely like the emergency it is, and 10 years from now we're really going to feel it.
What makes a private school more likely to expell children?
Since they are a for profit enterprise, unlike public schools, wouldn't there be a financial incentive to have as many customers as possible?
In one particular area what is the reason a charter school would be better than a public school. Since the entry factor for most (excluding schools for smart kids) is money why wouldn't the same problems occur at a charter school? Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?
Since they are a for profit enterprise, unlike public schools, wouldn't there be a financial incentive to have as many customers as possible?
In one particular area what is the reason a charter school would be better than a public school. Since the entry factor for most (excluding schools for smart kids) is money why wouldn't the same problems occur at a charter school? Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?
The private schools are seeking and selling quality. Plus, the majority of private schools are non-profits. Many are religiously affiliated and would like a large population as as a potential source of new religious members, but they also need some way to fund that. If a family is already paying $5k/yr in property taxes it is less likely they can afford another $10/yr for 2 kids to go to private school. The funding is the biggest blocker to increased private and charter school attendance. That's why there's so much talk about things like vouchers, 529s, etc.
"Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?"
That's a good question without a good answer. Perhaps the best answer is the meta that people don't agree on the course of action that would "fix" the schools since there are numerous opinions on what that is, resulting in no action or half measures.
"Finally, why can't we just fix public schools?"
That's a good question without a good answer. Perhaps the best answer is the meta that people don't agree on the course of action that would "fix" the schools since there are numerous opinions on what that is, resulting in no action or half measures.
What makes a private school more likely to expell children?
Uh, because more customers will leave if the private school is no better than a public school.
Uh, because more customers will leave if the private school is no better than a public school.
Because the paying customers will go elsewhere if they allow another paying customer to ruin it. They want 20 to stay even if they have to lose the 21st payer.
It’s a business where all the customers interact with one another. If it costs more in complaints, then you drop the bad apple.
[deleted]
Many public schools simply cannot expel problem students.
The school district must educate everyone. When a school expels or excludes a student that student is still a live human that must somehow be educated. They may need to be bussed somewhere. Or to be sent to another school in another district. All of this is very expensive. Never mind that someone needs to administer this.
So in a public school expelling a student increases costs significantly, several fold. In a private school, it decreases costs. The private school just tells you to hit the road.
The school district must educate everyone. When a school expels or excludes a student that student is still a live human that must somehow be educated. They may need to be bussed somewhere. Or to be sent to another school in another district. All of this is very expensive. Never mind that someone needs to administer this.
So in a public school expelling a student increases costs significantly, several fold. In a private school, it decreases costs. The private school just tells you to hit the road.
(2010)
> we are thinking about spending an enormous amount of time, effort and money on a major overhaul of the education system when we don't have the data to tell us if what we'll spend will wasted or, worse yet, if we are to some extent playing a zero sum game.
... well, do we have the data now?
Seems to me the "education system" keeps having the same debates over and over; surely "data" isn't at issue here? From an outsider perspective it seems like all sides to any debate feel free to make up any data and any reinterpretation of existing data they need, in order to support their position of the day.
> we are thinking about spending an enormous amount of time, effort and money on a major overhaul of the education system when we don't have the data to tell us if what we'll spend will wasted or, worse yet, if we are to some extent playing a zero sum game.
... well, do we have the data now?
Seems to me the "education system" keeps having the same debates over and over; surely "data" isn't at issue here? From an outsider perspective it seems like all sides to any debate feel free to make up any data and any reinterpretation of existing data they need, in order to support their position of the day.
That's exactly what they say in the beginning:
> First off, this is an observational study, not a randomized experiment. I think we may be reaching the limits of what analysis of observational data can do in the education debate and, given the importance and complexity of the questions, I don't understand why we aren't employing randomized trials to answer some of these questions once and for all.
> First off, this is an observational study, not a randomized experiment. I think we may be reaching the limits of what analysis of observational data can do in the education debate and, given the importance and complexity of the questions, I don't understand why we aren't employing randomized trials to answer some of these questions once and for all.
The drive to use public tax dollars for private schools is great when it is STEM. Seems good right? Charter Schools for STEM. Who could argue?
People miss that the primary interest groups that are lobbying for private schools, that are arguing against public schools, are for Religion. They want to be able to teach the bible as fact, not teach evolution, to allow prayer.
By syphoning public dollars, into private schools, they are bypassing the separation of state-church.
This then takes dollars away from public schools, which then struggle. Then the awful state of the public schools, is used as an argument for more private schools, and thus more religious schools.
Eventually the population wont be able to think in scientific terms anymore, logical reasoning will be gone.
People miss that the primary interest groups that are lobbying for private schools, that are arguing against public schools, are for Religion. They want to be able to teach the bible as fact, not teach evolution, to allow prayer.
By syphoning public dollars, into private schools, they are bypassing the separation of state-church.
This then takes dollars away from public schools, which then struggle. Then the awful state of the public schools, is used as an argument for more private schools, and thus more religious schools.
Eventually the population wont be able to think in scientific terms anymore, logical reasoning will be gone.
My kids go to a private religious school in South Carolina.
They are taught about world religions, evolution, have chapel twice a week and allow prayer. It’s also the best school in the entire state. My kids go there because it's a great school.
There are a lot of anti religious scare tactics used to push people off of vouchers.
The reality is that the only people with true choice in school selection have to either be able to afford private school, afford to move to a house zoned for a better school or afford to have parent who can facilitate a home school group.
Voucher proponents want everybody to have all choices available.
They are taught about world religions, evolution, have chapel twice a week and allow prayer. It’s also the best school in the entire state. My kids go there because it's a great school.
There are a lot of anti religious scare tactics used to push people off of vouchers.
The reality is that the only people with true choice in school selection have to either be able to afford private school, afford to move to a house zoned for a better school or afford to have parent who can facilitate a home school group.
Voucher proponents want everybody to have all choices available.
Even among private schools, pricing differentiation happens. My local catholic parish has many schools: Some are very affordable, but those are not the good ones. The ones that are competitive with the secular private schools charge just as much, and it's not due to facilities suddenly costing five times as much: It's that, for the most part, only the kids with rich parents will afford them, plus a few rare scholarship targets that happen to make the school look a little diverse. The high price is a feature.
So Vouchers do not have all choices available: Having a voucher doesn't guarantee acceptance to a school. And depending on your voucher legislation preference, you aren't going both force all schools to accept vouchers and make sure they don't raise prices. Ultimately, being selective is a feature, and therefore prices will go up, not unlike how easy student loans for colleges help raise prices. The top schools will eat the entire value of the voucher in cost increases, or just refuse the value of the voucher if they can't.
You are right in the fact that really, most people in America have to pay for the good school district, either straight up in cash, or in significant increases in home costs. I've seen 30% drops in home values as, within the same district, the line of who got to go into the 'good' public school changed. Vouchers probably make the school choices far more explicit, and might lead to less housing segregation. But they sure aren't going to make all choices available to everyone, any more than I can choose to marry a supermodel, or own a private island.
So Vouchers do not have all choices available: Having a voucher doesn't guarantee acceptance to a school. And depending on your voucher legislation preference, you aren't going both force all schools to accept vouchers and make sure they don't raise prices. Ultimately, being selective is a feature, and therefore prices will go up, not unlike how easy student loans for colleges help raise prices. The top schools will eat the entire value of the voucher in cost increases, or just refuse the value of the voucher if they can't.
You are right in the fact that really, most people in America have to pay for the good school district, either straight up in cash, or in significant increases in home costs. I've seen 30% drops in home values as, within the same district, the line of who got to go into the 'good' public school changed. Vouchers probably make the school choices far more explicit, and might lead to less housing segregation. But they sure aren't going to make all choices available to everyone, any more than I can choose to marry a supermodel, or own a private island.
I went to a Catholic one of these. World religion was a double edged sword. If you're born a Muslim and are a good Muslim you go to heaven. But it's better to "upgrade" by converting to Catholicism.
That's what we were taught. Including the inferiority of evangelical Christianity. i.e. belief in Christ as a deity and your redeemer, isn't good enough to get you into heaven. You have to do good works.
I have every confidence religious schools teach the superiority of their religion. With a white Jesus on a cross. It's not Jewish and Muslim schools pushing for public money without strings attached into private schools. It's Christian schools.
Well maybe there will come a time once again when folks understand Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, from which we get the wall of separation between church and state phrase. It is in the letter from the Danbury Baptists we see what they were worried about. It wasn't Jews, Muslims, atheists, or anti-religionists. They were worried about the Danbury Congregationalists.
Christians are not on the same page, is an understatement. They really aren't all on the same book either. It's impossible to promote them all the same. And they will not and should not permit dissimilar promotion.
The only sane solution to preserving freedom of religion is to also preserve freedom from it. The government must only promote secularism. Everything else is playing with fire.
That's what we were taught. Including the inferiority of evangelical Christianity. i.e. belief in Christ as a deity and your redeemer, isn't good enough to get you into heaven. You have to do good works.
I have every confidence religious schools teach the superiority of their religion. With a white Jesus on a cross. It's not Jewish and Muslim schools pushing for public money without strings attached into private schools. It's Christian schools.
Well maybe there will come a time once again when folks understand Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, from which we get the wall of separation between church and state phrase. It is in the letter from the Danbury Baptists we see what they were worried about. It wasn't Jews, Muslims, atheists, or anti-religionists. They were worried about the Danbury Congregationalists.
Christians are not on the same page, is an understatement. They really aren't all on the same book either. It's impossible to promote them all the same. And they will not and should not permit dissimilar promotion.
The only sane solution to preserving freedom of religion is to also preserve freedom from it. The government must only promote secularism. Everything else is playing with fire.
> The only sane solution to preserving freedom of religion is to also preserve freedom from it. The government must only promote secularism. Everything else is playing with fire.
There's nothing about vouchers that prevents the creation of secular private schools. Religious schools that you have no choice but to attend are very, very different than religious schools that your parents choose for you because they think it's the best place for your education.
There's nothing about vouchers that prevents the creation of secular private schools. Religious schools that you have no choice but to attend are very, very different than religious schools that your parents choose for you because they think it's the best place for your education.
Government providing $1 to a religious private school is finding favor in that particular religion. Since Christian schools are more common than any other, public funding in any amount is the state promoting that religion above others.
A possible work around is the state donates $x to each registered religious organization in that state. Every group gets an equal amount.
John Rawls "veil of ignorance" thought experiment applies here.
A possible work around is the state donates $x to each registered religious organization in that state. Every group gets an equal amount.
John Rawls "veil of ignorance" thought experiment applies here.
Technically, non-Christian public schools are more common than any other now.
You need to look at the inverse of this though. If people want to be able to ensure that people without the financial means to participate cannot attend, all they'll need to do is attach a religious label to the school and that will ensure that the funds aren't able to be accepted. Creating an exclusivity by proxy.
The other issue is the assumption that public funds aren't supporting any religion already. This is a loop hole by claiming that a religion doesn't have an actual deity and therefore is exempt. Meaning, you can teach anything you want as long as there wasn't a deity involved.
Mindfulness, for example, comes from Buddhism but is widely encouraged in public schools. It's only allowed because it doesn't claim a deity. The "Church of Satan" goes out of it's way to claim they don't believe in any god. Hedonism goes back to the days of ancient fertility cults that were typically associated with some type of idol worship, but as long as you don't publicize the idol it passes the "no deity" test.
The "veil of ignorance" definitely covers use cases along with this. There are a lot of parents who are very aware that belief systems are being taught in schools, deity or no.
You need to look at the inverse of this though. If people want to be able to ensure that people without the financial means to participate cannot attend, all they'll need to do is attach a religious label to the school and that will ensure that the funds aren't able to be accepted. Creating an exclusivity by proxy.
The other issue is the assumption that public funds aren't supporting any religion already. This is a loop hole by claiming that a religion doesn't have an actual deity and therefore is exempt. Meaning, you can teach anything you want as long as there wasn't a deity involved.
Mindfulness, for example, comes from Buddhism but is widely encouraged in public schools. It's only allowed because it doesn't claim a deity. The "Church of Satan" goes out of it's way to claim they don't believe in any god. Hedonism goes back to the days of ancient fertility cults that were typically associated with some type of idol worship, but as long as you don't publicize the idol it passes the "no deity" test.
The "veil of ignorance" definitely covers use cases along with this. There are a lot of parents who are very aware that belief systems are being taught in schools, deity or no.
Seems like a stretch to say that the "mindfulness" that schools teach is remotely promoting Buddhism. If that's the extent of "belief systems...being taught in schools", I'm not concerned.
>"It’s also the best school in the entire state."
That is the problem. Why not make public schools better? Why is everyone else at a disadvantage. If our focus was on putting funding into 'all' schools, not just 'rich geographic locations', then everyone could be educated.
It isn't about 'Choice', it is about everyone getting a minimal education.
If you want to 'choose' to indoctrinate your kids into your particular religion of 'choice', that can be done at home. But everyone should learn the old Reading/Writing/Arithmetic.
That is the problem. Why not make public schools better? Why is everyone else at a disadvantage. If our focus was on putting funding into 'all' schools, not just 'rich geographic locations', then everyone could be educated.
It isn't about 'Choice', it is about everyone getting a minimal education.
If you want to 'choose' to indoctrinate your kids into your particular religion of 'choice', that can be done at home. But everyone should learn the old Reading/Writing/Arithmetic.
> Why not make public schools better?
It'd be nice if you could explicitly define how that would work. I can understand some ideas not working 100% of the time, but throwing money into black holes where nothing comes out is an insult to taxpayers.
Baltimore [City] has been the clearest example. I believe we're around $25k a head in a seat so far there. At what number specifically do you think all that gets turned around? $50k? $100k? If you can't answer that, why should anyone give a shit about what you think is good for society, demanding everyone pay into ponzi schemes like Baltimore? If you refuse to answer that, then you are out of your depth completely and you have no basis for making or influencing policy decisions.
It's far too easy to use other people's money and then wring your hands about not getting the results you advertised.
edit: [City] need to discriminate between Baltimore county and Baltimore city here since there may be eventual confusion on school system ratings
It'd be nice if you could explicitly define how that would work. I can understand some ideas not working 100% of the time, but throwing money into black holes where nothing comes out is an insult to taxpayers.
Baltimore [City] has been the clearest example. I believe we're around $25k a head in a seat so far there. At what number specifically do you think all that gets turned around? $50k? $100k? If you can't answer that, why should anyone give a shit about what you think is good for society, demanding everyone pay into ponzi schemes like Baltimore? If you refuse to answer that, then you are out of your depth completely and you have no basis for making or influencing policy decisions.
It's far too easy to use other people's money and then wring your hands about not getting the results you advertised.
edit: [City] need to discriminate between Baltimore county and Baltimore city here since there may be eventual confusion on school system ratings
So, you need an explicit policy plan and how to implement it, but you can take one cherry picked example from Baltimore to justify turning the US into a Taliban style theocracy?
> So, you need an explicit policy plan and how to implement it
Yes? That's how things work everywhere in the world.
I'd like $50 billion and the biggest yacht in the world, I don't plan on doing anything to get either of those things, so magically, they will appear to me as soon as I walk out the door in 20 minutes.
> but you can take one cherry picked example from Baltimore to justify turning the US into a Taliban style theocracy?
I don't think I addressed religion once until just now, so this is coming out of left field to say the least. But since you want to be hyperbolic about things I never said, I'll imagine your ideas are no more than theft and money laundering.
I suppose that's the end of this discussion.
Yes? That's how things work everywhere in the world.
I'd like $50 billion and the biggest yacht in the world, I don't plan on doing anything to get either of those things, so magically, they will appear to me as soon as I walk out the door in 20 minutes.
> but you can take one cherry picked example from Baltimore to justify turning the US into a Taliban style theocracy?
I don't think I addressed religion once until just now, so this is coming out of left field to say the least. But since you want to be hyperbolic about things I never said, I'll imagine your ideas are no more than theft and money laundering.
I suppose that's the end of this discussion.
Joke? This whole thread is about religion.
People are arguing that they need Private Schools so they can have the 'choice' to indoctrinate their kids into their specific religion.
And because public schools 'bad', religious schools 'good’, They feel justified in taking public funds, to support those religious schools. This breaks the separation of church and state.
Think this is the old “I Require more proof from you, than I provide” argument.
No, posting an entire policy and implementation plan to reform the education system, is not commonly done in internet arguments with trolls. Neither have you provided any detailed analysis of your point. I venture to say, the rest of the world does NOT make their policy decision based on something posted in an online argument.
Think this is the old “I Require more proof from you, than I provide” argument.
No, posting an entire policy and implementation plan to reform the education system, is not commonly done in internet arguments with trolls. Neither have you provided any detailed analysis of your point. I venture to say, the rest of the world does NOT make their policy decision based on something posted in an online argument.
> Why not make public schools better?
Because you can’t feasibly make public schools better. There are too many entrenched players and layers of bureaucracy.
> If you want to 'choose' to indoctrinate your kids into your particular religion of 'choice', that can be done at home. But everyone should learn the old Reading/Writing/Arithmetic.
Afaik charter schools are already obligated to teach the minimal set required for standardized testing.
Because you can’t feasibly make public schools better. There are too many entrenched players and layers of bureaucracy.
> If you want to 'choose' to indoctrinate your kids into your particular religion of 'choice', that can be done at home. But everyone should learn the old Reading/Writing/Arithmetic.
Afaik charter schools are already obligated to teach the minimal set required for standardized testing.
> That is the problem. Why not make public schools better?
People have tried. The problem is the governance structure that creates a race to the bottom. It's not a question of funding anymore.
The reason that private school is so successful? It's run by teachers. People who have gone to school, received training and degrees as professional educators. Not only are they able to get together to talk about new techniques, figure out the best ways to teach and improve what they do, how they teach, what they think is important to teach...but they also have to convince parents that the school is the best place for their kids to be so there's a natural balance factor in play of "teacher collaboration", "parental buy in" and "is it actually working for my child"?
What sold me was the tour we did when my son was getting ready to start K5. Everything looked great on the tour of course. I was happy with everything that I saw, but then I started asking questions.
This was during the time that common core was being rolled out everywhere and I was seeing my friends with parents of older kids talking about how students who were previously getting straight A's or perfect scores in math were suddenly getting bad grades because they were getting the right answers the wrong ways. They were turning into stressed out, anxious basket cases who hated school. That system was being thrust on everybody so quickly by careless governance that it was causing chaos.
The dean's answer? "We also use common core here, but we decided on that a few years prior after our teachers researched it and decided it would be best. It was gradually implemented over 4-5 years and parents were communicated to about the changes along the way. The entire process was very smooth."
That sold me. We actually live where we live because it is zoned for a good public school. The option to have a school experience for my kids that wasn't going to be disrupted by dramatic changes after every election was more important to me. I wanted a stable elementary school experience and we planned to move them out to public in middle school.
Then Covid hit and the school handled things much better than public schools did for those 2 years. Now we're on to high school and the political climate is just about the strangest it's been in my lifetime with so much politics aimed at school boards, so without ever planning to there's a good chance that they'll continue here for high school too.
The educational factors are important, yes. It's a rigorous school. But the stability factor is more important. My kids love school. I didn't when I was a kid and I'm very thankful that they are in an environment that gives them that.
The religious aspects for me are good, but they would get most of the same in church. But I do like knowing that the same values we teach our kids are being modeled in their daily environments.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." - Galations 5:22-23
People have tried. The problem is the governance structure that creates a race to the bottom. It's not a question of funding anymore.
The reason that private school is so successful? It's run by teachers. People who have gone to school, received training and degrees as professional educators. Not only are they able to get together to talk about new techniques, figure out the best ways to teach and improve what they do, how they teach, what they think is important to teach...but they also have to convince parents that the school is the best place for their kids to be so there's a natural balance factor in play of "teacher collaboration", "parental buy in" and "is it actually working for my child"?
What sold me was the tour we did when my son was getting ready to start K5. Everything looked great on the tour of course. I was happy with everything that I saw, but then I started asking questions.
This was during the time that common core was being rolled out everywhere and I was seeing my friends with parents of older kids talking about how students who were previously getting straight A's or perfect scores in math were suddenly getting bad grades because they were getting the right answers the wrong ways. They were turning into stressed out, anxious basket cases who hated school. That system was being thrust on everybody so quickly by careless governance that it was causing chaos.
The dean's answer? "We also use common core here, but we decided on that a few years prior after our teachers researched it and decided it would be best. It was gradually implemented over 4-5 years and parents were communicated to about the changes along the way. The entire process was very smooth."
That sold me. We actually live where we live because it is zoned for a good public school. The option to have a school experience for my kids that wasn't going to be disrupted by dramatic changes after every election was more important to me. I wanted a stable elementary school experience and we planned to move them out to public in middle school.
Then Covid hit and the school handled things much better than public schools did for those 2 years. Now we're on to high school and the political climate is just about the strangest it's been in my lifetime with so much politics aimed at school boards, so without ever planning to there's a good chance that they'll continue here for high school too.
The educational factors are important, yes. It's a rigorous school. But the stability factor is more important. My kids love school. I didn't when I was a kid and I'm very thankful that they are in an environment that gives them that.
The religious aspects for me are good, but they would get most of the same in church. But I do like knowing that the same values we teach our kids are being modeled in their daily environments.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." - Galations 5:22-23
Read it sometime. Most American Christians have never read the Bible and have no idea what they believe in.
Is this what you want to teach your kids. Search Stoning, literally can't get through the day without being stoned. This is how we become Ameristan.
---- Did you work on Sunday? Dead
Exodus 31:15
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
---- Little Victim Blaming, Dead
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
------ Pretty Harsh - we'll be killing a lot of people to comply with this law. Dead.
Leviticus 20:10
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
---- No Bad Words, or you are Dead.
Leviticus 24:13-14
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him."
----- Wave the bloody Sheet or, Dead.
And father fined.
Deuteronomy 22:20
"But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekels b of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
------- Women are property, and the Bible lists a price sheet. Rape is just fifty silver shekels. Not dead, but now married because you were raped.
Deuteronomy 28
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels c of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
----- Some Sexy Times
Ironically, the least offensive thing here.
Ezekiel 23:19-21
"There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses. You longed for the time when you first became impure in Egypt. That was when you allowed your breasts to be kissed. And you permitted your young breasts to be touched.”
Is this what you want to teach your kids. Search Stoning, literally can't get through the day without being stoned. This is how we become Ameristan.
---- Did you work on Sunday? Dead
Exodus 31:15
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
---- Little Victim Blaming, Dead
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
------ Pretty Harsh - we'll be killing a lot of people to comply with this law. Dead.
Leviticus 20:10
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
---- No Bad Words, or you are Dead.
Leviticus 24:13-14
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him."
----- Wave the bloody Sheet or, Dead.
And father fined.
Deuteronomy 22:20
"But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekels b of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
------- Women are property, and the Bible lists a price sheet. Rape is just fifty silver shekels. Not dead, but now married because you were raped.
Deuteronomy 28
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels c of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
----- Some Sexy Times
Ironically, the least offensive thing here.
Ezekiel 23:19-21
"There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses. You longed for the time when you first became impure in Egypt. That was when you allowed your breasts to be kissed. And you permitted your young breasts to be touched.”
I actually have read and I agree with you. Even started a blog encouraging people to read it and understand it.
Have you read it to understand it or just pulled excerpts?
If you’re looking for a reasonably quick path to that, you should check out “The Bible from 30,000 Feet”. It’s a great companion.
The Bible Recap podcast will also provide you with a lot of study, guidance and insight as you read over the course of a year.
Have you read it to understand it or just pulled excerpts?
If you’re looking for a reasonably quick path to that, you should check out “The Bible from 30,000 Feet”. It’s a great companion.
The Bible Recap podcast will also provide you with a lot of study, guidance and insight as you read over the course of a year.
I'll check out the 30,000 book.
I can't say I've read 100% of the Bible, there are some pretty dry books that don't add much. But, I didn't just search the web and find some good quotes.
I often advocate that Christians should read the Bible. For two reasons,
1. Most Christians advocate/believe things that are not in the Bible and if they are going to so passionately drive the country off a cliff, they should at least know what is in it.
2. Reading it kind of cures them, there is no 'atheist' argument against the Bible that is as strong as just reading it. Read all the parts that churches cherry picks around. Actually reading it will cause most people to realize they don't believe it.
Christianity was viewed as a 'mystic cult' from the beginning, it is almost 'pagan' in its beliefs, which sounds strange today. But seeing a group chanting and talking about Democrats being possessed by demons and thus we need a war to kill them, it all looks very much like a bad horror movie.
-> It really is an argument for why religion should NOT be in politics, because politics is messy and the religion is then tainted by the politics. By being involved in politics the religion is diminished.
If you really want to spread the word of Jesus, then how is politics helping that, unless you are doing it for control. Look at me, I'm open to trying to understand the Bible, but if all I see are evangelicals talking about demon possession, and the need for guns to fight a holy war, and chanting around the president, that is not helping spread the word. It's the opposite, they look crazy and scary.
I often advocate that Christians should read the Bible. For two reasons,
1. Most Christians advocate/believe things that are not in the Bible and if they are going to so passionately drive the country off a cliff, they should at least know what is in it.
2. Reading it kind of cures them, there is no 'atheist' argument against the Bible that is as strong as just reading it. Read all the parts that churches cherry picks around. Actually reading it will cause most people to realize they don't believe it.
Christianity was viewed as a 'mystic cult' from the beginning, it is almost 'pagan' in its beliefs, which sounds strange today. But seeing a group chanting and talking about Democrats being possessed by demons and thus we need a war to kill them, it all looks very much like a bad horror movie.
-> It really is an argument for why religion should NOT be in politics, because politics is messy and the religion is then tainted by the politics. By being involved in politics the religion is diminished.
If you really want to spread the word of Jesus, then how is politics helping that, unless you are doing it for control. Look at me, I'm open to trying to understand the Bible, but if all I see are evangelicals talking about demon possession, and the need for guns to fight a holy war, and chanting around the president, that is not helping spread the word. It's the opposite, they look crazy and scary.
1. This is true. When I read it the first time I was more shocked by how much wasn’t in it than how much was.
2. I had the opposite experience. I was an atheist/agnostic (and an angry one at that) for about 8 years. Then God changed my life in a manner so direct that it left me with no doubt at all. I read the Bible over 3 years to understand what happened to me and I helped a lot. Then I started doing studies, joined a Sunday School class, a men’s Bible study and even guest taught a few lessons. I was greatly encouraged to find that I was allowed to disagree with people during Bible studies and we would all learn together. This blew away all my misconceptions about church in general. I always assumed everybody agreed about everything. That’s not the case. Everybody is there to learn. The more you study, the more you can contribute.
If you’re curious, I blog about it at https://www.readnotmisled.org
As far as politics, the biggest thing people push for is the freedom to live without being forced to do what they believe is wrong or to have their children forced to participate in things that violate their faith. I can’t see any problem with that.
2. I had the opposite experience. I was an atheist/agnostic (and an angry one at that) for about 8 years. Then God changed my life in a manner so direct that it left me with no doubt at all. I read the Bible over 3 years to understand what happened to me and I helped a lot. Then I started doing studies, joined a Sunday School class, a men’s Bible study and even guest taught a few lessons. I was greatly encouraged to find that I was allowed to disagree with people during Bible studies and we would all learn together. This blew away all my misconceptions about church in general. I always assumed everybody agreed about everything. That’s not the case. Everybody is there to learn. The more you study, the more you can contribute.
If you’re curious, I blog about it at https://www.readnotmisled.org
As far as politics, the biggest thing people push for is the freedom to live without being forced to do what they believe is wrong or to have their children forced to participate in things that violate their faith. I can’t see any problem with that.
I wish everyone had that attitude about their religions. Learning is something I can get behind in any endeavor.
Guess why this subject gets heated is because Christians do tend to think their freedoms are infringed upon by others having freedom. Like "other people being allowed to be gay, infringes upon my freedom to not allow gays to exist". (gay as just example here).
That is the problem with Religion. If my holy book tells me that something is evil, and I truly believe that god is real, and this book is divine, then now I'm duty bound to go fight evil, even if it is not infringing upon me in anyway. I now must go out and stop it, and take away others freedom.
Pick any hot button issue they are fighting now, and it is very Cherry picked. All of the passages against being gay also include not eating shellfish, so where is the outrage over seafood restaurants?
I think a closer look at all of these issues, Christians are not being forced to do anything against their beliefs, instead they are actively taking away others freedoms. Lets say you do have a religious based food restraint, is there really a school somewhere tying kids down and forcing them to eat it?
In all cases, the need for religious schools is NOT to prevent kids from doing something against their religion, it is to allow them to practice their parents religion while in school, it is to purposely to keep them from knowledge, so that the message they receive is controlled.
Christians are so indoctrinated in the belief that they are the meek, the victims, that they feel justified in fighting anybody that does not believe like them, then prostrate about being the 'victim'.
In any case. It is good to hear about positive experiences. Just seems like for the typical 'user' of the text, the Bible leads more people astray, than it does leading them to any realizations. There are more wrong paths, than paths to your type of experience.
EDIT Other good example, super hot button: Prayer in School.
But, NOBODY in a public school is forcing kids to pray to the 'wrong' god'. It is Christians actively wanting to force everyone else 'to pray'. You say you don't want to be forced to do something, but this is explicitly a case where that happens, Christians want to force others to pray, then turn around and act the 'victim', because they can't force others.
Guess why this subject gets heated is because Christians do tend to think their freedoms are infringed upon by others having freedom. Like "other people being allowed to be gay, infringes upon my freedom to not allow gays to exist". (gay as just example here).
That is the problem with Religion. If my holy book tells me that something is evil, and I truly believe that god is real, and this book is divine, then now I'm duty bound to go fight evil, even if it is not infringing upon me in anyway. I now must go out and stop it, and take away others freedom.
Pick any hot button issue they are fighting now, and it is very Cherry picked. All of the passages against being gay also include not eating shellfish, so where is the outrage over seafood restaurants?
I think a closer look at all of these issues, Christians are not being forced to do anything against their beliefs, instead they are actively taking away others freedoms. Lets say you do have a religious based food restraint, is there really a school somewhere tying kids down and forcing them to eat it?
In all cases, the need for religious schools is NOT to prevent kids from doing something against their religion, it is to allow them to practice their parents religion while in school, it is to purposely to keep them from knowledge, so that the message they receive is controlled.
Christians are so indoctrinated in the belief that they are the meek, the victims, that they feel justified in fighting anybody that does not believe like them, then prostrate about being the 'victim'.
In any case. It is good to hear about positive experiences. Just seems like for the typical 'user' of the text, the Bible leads more people astray, than it does leading them to any realizations. There are more wrong paths, than paths to your type of experience.
EDIT Other good example, super hot button: Prayer in School.
But, NOBODY in a public school is forcing kids to pray to the 'wrong' god'. It is Christians actively wanting to force everyone else 'to pray'. You say you don't want to be forced to do something, but this is explicitly a case where that happens, Christians want to force others to pray, then turn around and act the 'victim', because they can't force others.
I want to give this a proper response but I don’t know if you’ll see the reply. Can you let me know if you’ll check this in the next couple of days?
Sure. I'll check. I'm not sure how long a discussion like this can go on HN.
And understand, in the last post, those are just some examples. Like recently, 'gay' is no longer the hot topic it was 10 years ago, now Transphobia has taken its place to fire up the religious base. So not sure the bible quotes apply. (It can get confusing, there are legit genetic disorders why victimize them?, and if a woman is infertile, is she still a woman? The religious split hairs in each case and get backed into a corner)
Not to open a whole new line, but the intersection of Religion and Technology(not science) is maybe problem. Like Blood Transfusions, some sects say the bible doesn't allow them. Or invitro fertilization is not allowed. The bible doesn't really have specific opinions on these new things, they are just shoe-horned in.
Don't know. Every Christian Sect has some interpretation. Really, on both sides here, my side too, the arguments are old. Really hundreds of years old, with many notable names.
I do say and mean this, if Religion helped you, then good, if it is something that helps you get through the day and cope with the world, then good. I'm all for people finding some solace. Just keep it private. It's only a problem when someone has a meaningful experience, then gets fired up to make everyone else see it too.
And understand, in the last post, those are just some examples. Like recently, 'gay' is no longer the hot topic it was 10 years ago, now Transphobia has taken its place to fire up the religious base. So not sure the bible quotes apply. (It can get confusing, there are legit genetic disorders why victimize them?, and if a woman is infertile, is she still a woman? The religious split hairs in each case and get backed into a corner)
Not to open a whole new line, but the intersection of Religion and Technology(not science) is maybe problem. Like Blood Transfusions, some sects say the bible doesn't allow them. Or invitro fertilization is not allowed. The bible doesn't really have specific opinions on these new things, they are just shoe-horned in.
Don't know. Every Christian Sect has some interpretation. Really, on both sides here, my side too, the arguments are old. Really hundreds of years old, with many notable names.
I do say and mean this, if Religion helped you, then good, if it is something that helps you get through the day and cope with the world, then good. I'm all for people finding some solace. Just keep it private. It's only a problem when someone has a meaningful experience, then gets fired up to make everyone else see it too.
> My kids go to a private religious school in South Carolina.
> They are taught about world religions, evolution, have chapel twice a week and allow prayer. It’s also the best school in the entire state. My kids go there because it's a great school.
I also went to a private christian high school and it was all that you say here. However I also remember many very rich, ultra religious parents that ousted three principles over religious horseshit while I attended until my latin teacher became Principal and told them all to pound sand or go somewhere else.
I also went to a private catholic elementry school. While it was good at the time, recently it's falling apart. The church has distanced itself from it, attendance YoY is falling, and it'll likely close in the next few years. However unlike a public school, these private schools can close and lean on the public system to catch all of the students they shake out. Unlike the private and charter schools, the buck stops at Public schools.
> The reality is that the only people with true choice in school selection have to either be able to afford private school, afford to move to a house zoned for a better school or afford to have parent who can facilitate a home school group.
Charter schools kick out kids as well, so all of these problems apply to them too. The only purpose of charter schools is to make their lobbyists (like Bill Gates and Betsy DeVos) rich by siphoning public money like defense contractors. All this talk about Charter Schools is about Options for students/parents, but nobody is talking about who is Obligated to those students, parents, and the tax payer. When a charter or private school closes, it dumps its students into the pubic system [0].
> Consider City High School in Los Angeles, California, which received a $575,000 grant from the federal government. The school had barely started its second year when it suddenly closed, leaving 116 students scrambling for a new school. Similarly, a charter school in Wilmington, Delaware, received a grant of $350,000 but closed just five months into its first school year, forcing 206 students to look for a new school.
> The Acclaim Academy charter school chain in Florida received grants of $375,000, $175,000, $175,000, and $19,198 for its four schools. One never opened, another was taken over by the district due to financial concerns and mismanagement, and the two other closed suddenly with no notice, in the middle of the year, leaving students, some of them seniors preparing college applications, searching to find new schools.
Then there is the low attendence and fraud.
> The report locates much of the blame for this waste of taxpayer money on the Department of Education’s practice of awarding grants to states with few rules and virtually no accountability. Often, grants were “doled out to individuals who had no credentials or experience to open up a new school,” according to the researchers.
> The report also identified a “pattern” of charter school operators—even before their school opened—funneling money from grants to their own personal accounts, to purchases of expensive equipment, and to “for-profit consulting and education management organizations” that do not publicly divulge how they spend money. The report concluded that, due to these practices, the charter school grant program “has become a magnet for grifters, consultants, and charter entrepreneurs who see an easy way to cash-in.”
The kicker:
> When members of Congress repeatedly referred to those findings when questioning Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, she dismissed the findings as “political.”
History is littered with corpses and bailouts. At the end of the day, it's all about privatization of public institutions for private profit.
It's also an open secret that private schools rose as a response to desegregation [1] [2].
Privatization is cancer.
[0]: https://progressive.org/public-schools-advocate/new-report-w...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy
[2]: https://southerneducation.org/publications/history-of-privat...
> They are taught about world religions, evolution, have chapel twice a week and allow prayer. It’s also the best school in the entire state. My kids go there because it's a great school.
I also went to a private christian high school and it was all that you say here. However I also remember many very rich, ultra religious parents that ousted three principles over religious horseshit while I attended until my latin teacher became Principal and told them all to pound sand or go somewhere else.
I also went to a private catholic elementry school. While it was good at the time, recently it's falling apart. The church has distanced itself from it, attendance YoY is falling, and it'll likely close in the next few years. However unlike a public school, these private schools can close and lean on the public system to catch all of the students they shake out. Unlike the private and charter schools, the buck stops at Public schools.
> The reality is that the only people with true choice in school selection have to either be able to afford private school, afford to move to a house zoned for a better school or afford to have parent who can facilitate a home school group.
Charter schools kick out kids as well, so all of these problems apply to them too. The only purpose of charter schools is to make their lobbyists (like Bill Gates and Betsy DeVos) rich by siphoning public money like defense contractors. All this talk about Charter Schools is about Options for students/parents, but nobody is talking about who is Obligated to those students, parents, and the tax payer. When a charter or private school closes, it dumps its students into the pubic system [0].
> Consider City High School in Los Angeles, California, which received a $575,000 grant from the federal government. The school had barely started its second year when it suddenly closed, leaving 116 students scrambling for a new school. Similarly, a charter school in Wilmington, Delaware, received a grant of $350,000 but closed just five months into its first school year, forcing 206 students to look for a new school.
> The Acclaim Academy charter school chain in Florida received grants of $375,000, $175,000, $175,000, and $19,198 for its four schools. One never opened, another was taken over by the district due to financial concerns and mismanagement, and the two other closed suddenly with no notice, in the middle of the year, leaving students, some of them seniors preparing college applications, searching to find new schools.
Then there is the low attendence and fraud.
> The report locates much of the blame for this waste of taxpayer money on the Department of Education’s practice of awarding grants to states with few rules and virtually no accountability. Often, grants were “doled out to individuals who had no credentials or experience to open up a new school,” according to the researchers.
> The report also identified a “pattern” of charter school operators—even before their school opened—funneling money from grants to their own personal accounts, to purchases of expensive equipment, and to “for-profit consulting and education management organizations” that do not publicly divulge how they spend money. The report concluded that, due to these practices, the charter school grant program “has become a magnet for grifters, consultants, and charter entrepreneurs who see an easy way to cash-in.”
The kicker:
> When members of Congress repeatedly referred to those findings when questioning Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, she dismissed the findings as “political.”
History is littered with corpses and bailouts. At the end of the day, it's all about privatization of public institutions for private profit.
It's also an open secret that private schools rose as a response to desegregation [1] [2].
Privatization is cancer.
[0]: https://progressive.org/public-schools-advocate/new-report-w...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy
[2]: https://southerneducation.org/publications/history-of-privat...
Nice set of anecdotes. You might even be right. It is, however, obvious that you are using motivated reasoning, especially with that dig at the end essentially calling private schools and voucher proponents racist. What's galling enough I bothered to respond is that you're incorrect on that point. Private schooling predates public schooling in America by a lot. Free public education wasn't a widespread thing in the US until the 1830s, and wasn't mandatory and federally supported until the 1910s. Private schools /may/ have opened specifically to counter desegregation, but private schools long predate public schooling. Private school was the norm for most of the history of the US and the commonwealth.
From [2] above:
> Private schools may have a long, honorable tradition in America that goes back to colonial times, but that tradition ended—at least in the American South—in the last half of the 20th century when they were used as safe havens for Southern Whites to escape the effects of the impending and ongoing desegregation mandates. This exodus from public schools began in the 1940s, when private school enrollment in the 15 states of the South[1] rose by more than 125,000 students—roughly 43 percent—in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation in graduate and professional schools in the South.[2] While the decisions only concerned institutions of higher education, it signaled to watchful Southern leaders that desegregation might soon spread to their public elementary and secondary schools, compelling them to react in ways to defend their way of life.
> By 1958, the South’s private school enrollment had exploded, increasing by more than 250,000 students over an eight-year period, and boasting almost one million students in 1965. This growth was catalyzed by Southern state legislatures, who enacted as many as 450 laws and resolutions between 1954 and 1964 attempting to block, postpone, limit, or evade the desegregation of public schools, many of which expressly authorized the systematic transfer of public assets and monies to private schools.
> During this time, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) vacillated in its allowance of tax deductions for private schools. In the early 1960s, facing growing backlash from civil rights organizations, the IRS temporarily suspended applications of avowed “segregation academies” for federal tax exemptions, a tax status permitting taxpayers in Southern states to reduce their federal taxable income when contributing to racially exclusionary private schools.
> As the IRS trudged along with implementation of non-discrimination policies and went back-and-forth in a series of proposed administrative procedures and Congressional hearings, private school enrollment in the South continued to grow. What was once the South’s 11 percent share of the nation’s private school enrollment had reached 24 percent in 1980.
> Private schools may have a long, honorable tradition in America that goes back to colonial times, but that tradition ended—at least in the American South—in the last half of the 20th century when they were used as safe havens for Southern Whites to escape the effects of the impending and ongoing desegregation mandates. This exodus from public schools began in the 1940s, when private school enrollment in the 15 states of the South[1] rose by more than 125,000 students—roughly 43 percent—in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation in graduate and professional schools in the South.[2] While the decisions only concerned institutions of higher education, it signaled to watchful Southern leaders that desegregation might soon spread to their public elementary and secondary schools, compelling them to react in ways to defend their way of life.
> By 1958, the South’s private school enrollment had exploded, increasing by more than 250,000 students over an eight-year period, and boasting almost one million students in 1965. This growth was catalyzed by Southern state legislatures, who enacted as many as 450 laws and resolutions between 1954 and 1964 attempting to block, postpone, limit, or evade the desegregation of public schools, many of which expressly authorized the systematic transfer of public assets and monies to private schools.
> During this time, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) vacillated in its allowance of tax deductions for private schools. In the early 1960s, facing growing backlash from civil rights organizations, the IRS temporarily suspended applications of avowed “segregation academies” for federal tax exemptions, a tax status permitting taxpayers in Southern states to reduce their federal taxable income when contributing to racially exclusionary private schools.
> As the IRS trudged along with implementation of non-discrimination policies and went back-and-forth in a series of proposed administrative procedures and Congressional hearings, private school enrollment in the South continued to grow. What was once the South’s 11 percent share of the nation’s private school enrollment had reached 24 percent in 1980.
Voucher proponents want to get parents hooked on the idea of charter schools, and then the schools will invariably raise their prices past the cost of voucher when the undesirables start trickling onto their campuses.
There is a world of difference between means-tested vouchers and non-means-tested vouchers. Non-means-tested vouchers will have the effect of making expensive private schools more affordable for the upper-middle-class, while means-tested vouchers can't do that.
Ya this is a really sad turn of events for the US. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, public school was considered one of the pillars of the American Way, like free speech and MTV.
But after 9/11, trillions of dollars got funneled to Christian nationalist groups loosely aligned against Islam and diversity in general, who wouldn't have otherwise received that money, that work tirelessly to underline American values like the separation of church and state that you mentioned. Now whole generations have been raised under an MTV that doesn't play music videos. It seems like it's the same, because we have reality shows and influencers and people who are famous because they are famous. But it's not the same.
Private school is not the same as public school and it never will be. I would even go so far as to say that it misses the point of education altogether. Like a for-profit church or hospital. Privatization is making America a caricature of itself.
But after 9/11, trillions of dollars got funneled to Christian nationalist groups loosely aligned against Islam and diversity in general, who wouldn't have otherwise received that money, that work tirelessly to underline American values like the separation of church and state that you mentioned. Now whole generations have been raised under an MTV that doesn't play music videos. It seems like it's the same, because we have reality shows and influencers and people who are famous because they are famous. But it's not the same.
Private school is not the same as public school and it never will be. I would even go so far as to say that it misses the point of education altogether. Like a for-profit church or hospital. Privatization is making America a caricature of itself.
There’s nothing that prohibits public funds given to individuals from then going to religious organizations, eg student loans at university level.
They’re not “siphoning public dollars” as some third-party cabal; members of the public are choosing to allocate their dollars (in benefits) to what they believe will be best for their children.
Edit:
It’s not “siphoning” because the allocation is made by the beneficiary of those funds, who is choosing their preferred service provider. There’s no diversion of funds: they’re being utilized by the intended beneficiary in the manner they deem to best suit their needs.
That’s in contrast to traditional school systems, where funds are diverted by administrators to engage in politicking unrelated to education.
Edit 2:
I understand that many people are upset the beneficiary of a public benefit is allowed to make their own choice of service provider. People that in their wisdom, they know better how other people should run their lives!
But it’s indisputably the case school allocations are to benefit the student — the intended beneficiary. Admit you’re in a huff because you’re being told you can’t control what other people do with their benefits.
You’re like people yelling candy shouldn’t be allowed with SNAP/EBT funds. Next you’ll be yelling about “muh welfare queens!” or whatever.
They’re not “siphoning public dollars” as some third-party cabal; members of the public are choosing to allocate their dollars (in benefits) to what they believe will be best for their children.
Edit:
It’s not “siphoning” because the allocation is made by the beneficiary of those funds, who is choosing their preferred service provider. There’s no diversion of funds: they’re being utilized by the intended beneficiary in the manner they deem to best suit their needs.
That’s in contrast to traditional school systems, where funds are diverted by administrators to engage in politicking unrelated to education.
Edit 2:
I understand that many people are upset the beneficiary of a public benefit is allowed to make their own choice of service provider. People that in their wisdom, they know better how other people should run their lives!
But it’s indisputably the case school allocations are to benefit the student — the intended beneficiary. Admit you’re in a huff because you’re being told you can’t control what other people do with their benefits.
You’re like people yelling candy shouldn’t be allowed with SNAP/EBT funds. Next you’ll be yelling about “muh welfare queens!” or whatever.
It isn't the parent's money!
Everyone in my area pays local taxes, whether they are parents or not, including businesses; the bulk of these local taxes are allocated to fund schools. Most of us don't want our taxes going to charter schools or religious schools, and I'm tired of entitled parents siphoning from the system and leaving everyone worse off. If you want to make changes, fix the rules under which schools operate and allow disruptive kids to be expelled.
Everyone in my area pays local taxes, whether they are parents or not, including businesses; the bulk of these local taxes are allocated to fund schools. Most of us don't want our taxes going to charter schools or religious schools, and I'm tired of entitled parents siphoning from the system and leaving everyone worse off. If you want to make changes, fix the rules under which schools operate and allow disruptive kids to be expelled.
> It isn't the parent's money!
It’s as much theirs at it is any other citizen’s.
> entitled parents siphoning from the system
Very loaded choice of words.
Parents who feel entitled to what? A quality education for their children?
> If you want to make changes, fix the rules under which schools operate and allow disruptive kids to be expelled.
Foisting the responsibility on individual parents to push huge political changes through seems entirely unreasonable.
It’s as much theirs at it is any other citizen’s.
> entitled parents siphoning from the system
Very loaded choice of words.
Parents who feel entitled to what? A quality education for their children?
> If you want to make changes, fix the rules under which schools operate and allow disruptive kids to be expelled.
Foisting the responsibility on individual parents to push huge political changes through seems entirely unreasonable.
But it is much more everyone else's than theirs. Everyone, individuals and businesses, pays into the pot, whether they have kids in the school or not.
Individual parent's taxes are a minority fraction of the actual cost of running the education system.
Thus "siphoning": common public moneys being used to pay individual interests. If you want a private education for your kids, go right ahead and pay for it, don't ask the rest of us to subsidize you.
And yes, we all want a quality education for all children. Make schools better for everyone, not just the entitled or well connected.
Thus "siphoning": common public moneys being used to pay individual interests. If you want a private education for your kids, go right ahead and pay for it, don't ask the rest of us to subsidize you.
And yes, we all want a quality education for all children. Make schools better for everyone, not just the entitled or well connected.
Competition is a way to make things higher quality. School choice is competition.
[deleted]
Is it a similar problem if someone on SNAP buys halal or kosher products with their food stamps? It's not their money either!
In the U.S. education isn't a right. It's a product you buy. Similar to clean water, healthcare, justice, and lower taxes. These are all products. You pay more for better versions. Public versions shouldn't exist, or should be inferior. Why be wealthy if you can't have better things? Especially since wealthy people are simply better.
This is old school Conservatism since before the founding of the country. There is no convincing conservatives that they have any obligation to the public. Money is a means to separate themselves from the public. There's a lot more in common here with feudalism than anything modern or enlightened.
I'm willing to bet more often than not, any expulsion should be applied to the parents. i.e. they are the problem, and the kid is acting out. Punishing the kid has long been a proxy for punishing parents. A more sophisticated system identifies this and gives more (with strings attached) privileges and responsibilities to problem kids. Not in every case. But certainly don't have policies that increase contact between problem kids and bad parents. Where are they learning most of their coping mechanisms? Get them away from bad influences as much as possible.
This is old school Conservatism since before the founding of the country. There is no convincing conservatives that they have any obligation to the public. Money is a means to separate themselves from the public. There's a lot more in common here with feudalism than anything modern or enlightened.
I'm willing to bet more often than not, any expulsion should be applied to the parents. i.e. they are the problem, and the kid is acting out. Punishing the kid has long been a proxy for punishing parents. A more sophisticated system identifies this and gives more (with strings attached) privileges and responsibilities to problem kids. Not in every case. But certainly don't have policies that increase contact between problem kids and bad parents. Where are they learning most of their coping mechanisms? Get them away from bad influences as much as possible.
I don't think the public school system is bad (mainly) because of bias in conservatives to favor private schools. As for your last paragraph, it seems like a logistical nightmare. How will the kids be cared for and educated away from their parents? I agree with the premise (to put it crudely, fix situations where kids have terrible parents) but I'm not sure this is workable.
It's metaphorical. You don't literally expel the parents. Provide more and more diverse extracurricular activities. Even when schools aren't providing those activities they can make students and parents aware of them. Perhaps school boards could be convinced some kids need compulsory activities. If they can have the power to expel, they can have the power to do mitigation.
Expelling difficult kids has the nice property of aligning those parent's interests with everyone else's.
If you have a difficult kid, right now if you don't handle the problem it becomes everyone else's problem but you're not affected.
If the difficult kid gets expelled, now it is solely your problem. It only takes a few cases for parents of difficult kids to become extremely interested in the behavior of their kids and educating them on what proper behavior should be. As it should be.
I'm not sure that actually puts pressure on the parents to be better. I think that decent parents generally raise decent kids because they're good role models, and the opposite for bad parents. There are exceptions, but I wouldn't rely on it. If a bad parent suddenly has to be fully responsible, I doubt they'll suddenly have a change of heart and be able to change the kid's behavior (depending on how old the kid is).
If the parents are just a bit misguided, that could help greatly. I'm concerned that terrible parents would still have much influence over the development of their kids, perhaps even pulling them out of those extracurriculars.
If money is literally being diverted, why can't it be called 'syphoning'?
Guess it depends on the state.
In my state, public dollars are literally, pulled from public schools, and given to private schools, which can then teach religion as fact.
How is that not 'syphoning'?
Guess it depends on the state.
In my state, public dollars are literally, pulled from public schools, and given to private schools, which can then teach religion as fact.
How is that not 'syphoning'?
The "public" dollars were already, literally, pulled from the people who would prefer to use them to choose a school at which to spend them.
Why can't I choose to have my tax dollars go somewhere besides the Military? I think this whole 'choice' thing with education is odd. Government isn't a buffet you get to 'choose' where the money goes.
The responsibility is to provide a minimum education standard. Teach logic, science, math, reading. Give all kids equally some minimal ability to function.
Why do some kids get choice and others do not?
If a lot of parents choose to indoctrinate their kids to be Scientologist, that would be wrong wouldn't it? That would have negative consequences for everyone.
What about teaching them that honor killings if they have sex before marriage is ok?
Even the bible teaches if a women cheats, she should be stoned. Is that where we are going with our 'choice'? What if a large portion of the population 'chooses' to stone women because that is what their school taught where their parents 'choose' to enroll them. At some point that changes society, and that is the goal of the religious right in promoting private schools.
If the Taliban choose to teach stoning, it's Evil, if Christians do it, it's 'Choice'?
How did we get to a point where people are ok with tossing out the separation of church and state?
People are willing to die for the second amendment, but really like cherry picking everything else.
The responsibility is to provide a minimum education standard. Teach logic, science, math, reading. Give all kids equally some minimal ability to function.
Why do some kids get choice and others do not?
If a lot of parents choose to indoctrinate their kids to be Scientologist, that would be wrong wouldn't it? That would have negative consequences for everyone.
What about teaching them that honor killings if they have sex before marriage is ok?
Even the bible teaches if a women cheats, she should be stoned. Is that where we are going with our 'choice'? What if a large portion of the population 'chooses' to stone women because that is what their school taught where their parents 'choose' to enroll them. At some point that changes society, and that is the goal of the religious right in promoting private schools.
If the Taliban choose to teach stoning, it's Evil, if Christians do it, it's 'Choice'?
How did we get to a point where people are ok with tossing out the separation of church and state?
People are willing to die for the second amendment, but really like cherry picking everything else.
> Government isn't a buffet you get to 'choose' where the money goes.
Well, in the case of school vouchers it would be is the point, and thats ok.
With regards to paying your local fire department, it would be impractical to try and get people to "choose" which fire department to be covered by. Fire department vouchers wouldn't work.
But with schooling, it very much is possible for parents to move their children between schools, therefore a voucher/charter systems works quite well.
> The responsibility is to provide a minimum education standard. Teach logic, science, math, reading. Give all kids equally some minimal ability to function.
Yes, it is good to provide those things. But that is the bare minimum. There is lots of room for additional schooling choice that go above and beyond teaching the most minimal necessities.
EX: If some parents want their kids to focus much more on intensive science or technology schooling, thats fine.
Well, in the case of school vouchers it would be is the point, and thats ok.
With regards to paying your local fire department, it would be impractical to try and get people to "choose" which fire department to be covered by. Fire department vouchers wouldn't work.
But with schooling, it very much is possible for parents to move their children between schools, therefore a voucher/charter systems works quite well.
> The responsibility is to provide a minimum education standard. Teach logic, science, math, reading. Give all kids equally some minimal ability to function.
Yes, it is good to provide those things. But that is the bare minimum. There is lots of room for additional schooling choice that go above and beyond teaching the most minimal necessities.
EX: If some parents want their kids to focus much more on intensive science or technology schooling, thats fine.
Not disagreeing with you, just trying to get a grasp of your principle here: prohibit schools from teaching/encouraging illegal acts?
Morality is beyond laws, in a sense, and you might think "immoral acts" is more proper. I don't feel like going down that rabbit hole, but I felt I had to mention it.
Morality is beyond laws, in a sense, and you might think "immoral acts" is more proper. I don't feel like going down that rabbit hole, but I felt I had to mention it.
Teaching about religions, is different than teaching that a specific religion is a fact to follow.
The problem is when teaching that immoral acts are 'correct', that they are actually 'moral'. As in 'I was just taught that stoning was a valid response to cheating, hence I can feel moral in stoning someone'.
I think you are wrong that Morality is beyond law. If morality can shift based on how you were raised, and then people do want laws to reflect their morality, a society can get to a point where stoning is ok with the law, is legal and moral.
The problem is when teaching that immoral acts are 'correct', that they are actually 'moral'. As in 'I was just taught that stoning was a valid response to cheating, hence I can feel moral in stoning someone'.
I think you are wrong that Morality is beyond law. If morality can shift based on how you were raised, and then people do want laws to reflect their morality, a society can get to a point where stoning is ok with the law, is legal and moral.
I suppose I didn't express myself very well. The rabbit hole I mentioned is about how people agree or disagree with aspects of each others' moralities, and what the outcome should be in the larger context of society. I agree that stoning as a punishment for adultery shouldn't be tolerated, but that doesn't mean my principles for believing that are necessarily the same as yours, or that I share your other principles. That's what I'm trying to get at.
The dance of which morality is correct and should be enshrined in law (I think anything that is "clearly" immoral should be prohibited by law as a 1:1 mapping; the law is therefore a reflection of morality) is not one I like to partake in. Even if we all agree to discard current major religious beliefs around morality, there will still be many points for people to disagree on. Some people will be very left out and others slightly; that's what I meant by "morality is beyond laws". There is an inherent impasse that arises at this junction.
The dance of which morality is correct and should be enshrined in law (I think anything that is "clearly" immoral should be prohibited by law as a 1:1 mapping; the law is therefore a reflection of morality) is not one I like to partake in. Even if we all agree to discard current major religious beliefs around morality, there will still be many points for people to disagree on. Some people will be very left out and others slightly; that's what I meant by "morality is beyond laws". There is an inherent impasse that arises at this junction.
Ok. I get that. Agree with that.
There is definitely a problem with splitting hairs on finer and finer points, until everyone is subdivided, until each individual has their own religion, their own morality. No two people are identical, and it is also impossible to force or convince everyone to be identical, thus there is always something different to disagree on.
So all arguments on religion are really fruitless.
I guess I come back to, how to get to a best common good. And in todays US, there is such a wide split between people, that there is also a wide range of things where there could be compromise to have a better society. Every difference is a chance to find a solution.
So how do we get to commonalities if kids are indoctrinated (brain washed) from an early age. Religion blocks progress, because if someone truly believes in their god, then they wont compromise. Then there are religious wars, persecutions, inquisitions, etc... And sadly, the US is moving that way with the blurring of the split between state and church.
We don't have to agree on all points of religion to make progress, we just have to agree to some basics like maybe treat everyone equally, don't beat up trans kids. Religion should be taught in the home, not in the schools. There should be a lot of room to come together before we get to an impasse.
The 'left' is trying to do good, make things better, 'to progress', and they are clueless that the 'right' is actually in a Holy War without compromises where anything goes. It's an un-even fight. This country went to the moon, I never in a million years thought we could backslide into religious dogmatism. So, all of this arguing in this thread that religious schools are ok, is really not looking at history.
There is definitely a problem with splitting hairs on finer and finer points, until everyone is subdivided, until each individual has their own religion, their own morality. No two people are identical, and it is also impossible to force or convince everyone to be identical, thus there is always something different to disagree on.
So all arguments on religion are really fruitless.
I guess I come back to, how to get to a best common good. And in todays US, there is such a wide split between people, that there is also a wide range of things where there could be compromise to have a better society. Every difference is a chance to find a solution.
So how do we get to commonalities if kids are indoctrinated (brain washed) from an early age. Religion blocks progress, because if someone truly believes in their god, then they wont compromise. Then there are religious wars, persecutions, inquisitions, etc... And sadly, the US is moving that way with the blurring of the split between state and church.
We don't have to agree on all points of religion to make progress, we just have to agree to some basics like maybe treat everyone equally, don't beat up trans kids. Religion should be taught in the home, not in the schools. There should be a lot of room to come together before we get to an impasse.
The 'left' is trying to do good, make things better, 'to progress', and they are clueless that the 'right' is actually in a Holy War without compromises where anything goes. It's an un-even fight. This country went to the moon, I never in a million years thought we could backslide into religious dogmatism. So, all of this arguing in this thread that religious schools are ok, is really not looking at history.
Well said, and I agree. I have some staunchly religious friends, and while they're happy to discuss things with me, there are just some topics they'll never change my mind on, nor I them. Oh well. That's life. I'll stand up for what I think is right and hopefully society largely agrees.
It's also in large part profit motive. You can bet there are corporations licking their chips at the thought of opening cut-rate schools and raking in the profits. They can also incorporate all sorts of corporate propaganda that their parent companies want them to inject.
The profit motive belongs far far away from education.
The profit motive belongs far far away from education.
As long as they cover the curriculum required by state law, withholding money from them because they choose to teach religion is the violation of separation of church and state. The money is for the state mandated education of the children which is typically being satisfied.
The author seems to be saying that the reason charter schools are successful is because of self-selection, and that is also why public schools are worse, due to the inverse of self-selection.
While there is certainly self-selection occurring here, it would be a mistake for policy makers to dismiss the problems with public schools as just being due to that. They should introspect instead of seeking excuses.
While there is certainly self-selection occurring here, it would be a mistake for policy makers to dismiss the problems with public schools as just being due to that. They should introspect instead of seeking excuses.
Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices.
Why is having competition among public schools, with parents having a choice as to which to send them, so bad? It doesn’t make any sense.
Why is having competition among public schools, with parents having a choice as to which to send them, so bad? It doesn’t make any sense.
> Also it’s totally fine for the rich to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when poor people similarly have choices.
That is, I believe, misrepresenting the problem. Rather, it's more like
> It's fine for the small subset to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when the masses similarly have choices.
And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact.
That is, I believe, misrepresenting the problem. Rather, it's more like
> It's fine for the small subset to self-select among many private schools. Apparently it’s only a problem when the masses similarly have choices.
And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact.
> And that makes sense, because 0.5% of people/funding/etc being taken out of schools isn't a big deal... but 20% starts to make a big impact.
Public schools in NYC spend yearly twice per child what the cost is for the average private school in the city. ($38k vs $19k). And on the private school side of the equation that average is skewed upwards by a minority of very expensive ($60k/yr) schools.
If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives.
Public schools in NYC spend yearly twice per child what the cost is for the average private school in the city. ($38k vs $19k). And on the private school side of the equation that average is skewed upwards by a minority of very expensive ($60k/yr) schools.
If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives.
> If you're spending more money for worse results, we SHOULD divert funding to better-performing alternatives.
The data doesn't really say this. Two things to know about education:
- A large percentage of school outcomes are dictated by home life. Interviewing parents or just picking from the population of people who can afford $20k a year allows you to pick from a higher achieving cohort.
- Private schools don't have to provide the same level of services to children who require additional care. This is a significant cost saving. Most schools I've worked at had multiple staff dedicated to the care of just a handful of children.
The data doesn't really say this. Two things to know about education:
- A large percentage of school outcomes are dictated by home life. Interviewing parents or just picking from the population of people who can afford $20k a year allows you to pick from a higher achieving cohort.
- Private schools don't have to provide the same level of services to children who require additional care. This is a significant cost saving. Most schools I've worked at had multiple staff dedicated to the care of just a handful of children.
My kids go to a charter school. Wife works there. They have a number of people with severe disabilities. A few require multiple staff members per kid. It’s a huge burden as they don’t get nearly as much money as regular school. they only get state money, not local county money.
This is a language immersion school. Kids with IQ of 50 and lower are getting no benefit.
But siblings go there to so the parent doesn’t wanna make two stops.
My wife’s class was mostly shutdown for 6 months because she got six special needs kids and her kindergarten class at the beginning of the year. A mix of non verbal, Violent and or extreme low IQ.
It took that long to go through all the legal processes to get them moved to the proper rooms. She had quite a few injuries from it all. Lot of parents were unwilling to admit that kids had any issues.
Plus a lot of these issues were not caught in preschool since the pandemic had those shut down.
This is a language immersion school. Kids with IQ of 50 and lower are getting no benefit.
But siblings go there to so the parent doesn’t wanna make two stops.
My wife’s class was mostly shutdown for 6 months because she got six special needs kids and her kindergarten class at the beginning of the year. A mix of non verbal, Violent and or extreme low IQ.
It took that long to go through all the legal processes to get them moved to the proper rooms. She had quite a few injuries from it all. Lot of parents were unwilling to admit that kids had any issues.
Plus a lot of these issues were not caught in preschool since the pandemic had those shut down.
Exactly, public schools pay about 3x cost ($30k/yr vs $10k) price for each of the (learning and other) disabled kids which private schools and charters completely avoid. It's just cost shifting and the only solution would be to share costs, which (like insurance) reduces profits so they'll fight tooth&nail.
>> multiple staff dedicated to the care of just a handful of children.
It gets worse. I've seen multiple staff dedicated to a single child, and not the sort of child you would think needs that much. It is mostly behavioral issues that result in some kids needs near-constant dedicated staff.
It gets worse. I've seen multiple staff dedicated to a single child, and not the sort of child you would think needs that much. It is mostly behavioral issues that result in some kids needs near-constant dedicated staff.
Every private school I ever went happily took and cared for disabled children. My impression was that they had a pretty great experience compared to my years in public school, where all disabled children were in the same classroom regardless of grade and basically were babysat and not educated all day.
And we had plenty of braindead but normal kids too. Their parents paid out large donations to get their useless children passed through school and at least an attempt to educate them.
And we had plenty of braindead but normal kids too. Their parents paid out large donations to get their useless children passed through school and at least an attempt to educate them.
Money isn't being taken out of schools when students go to charters. It's just going to different ones.
At the end of the day its still a hollowing out of the school districts budget to make room for a private industry to exist. It really shouldn’t be a goal because this is fundamentally more inefficient than just fixing whatever perceptions are bad about the district.
Fixing a monopoly that has little incentive to improve is incredibly difficult. Without competition there is no reason for the public school districts to improve.
But public schools have no shareholders, no profit motive. Competition doesn't incentivize any behavior in this case. There is no one who is incentivized to grow the school system and out compete other entities like in the for profit shareholder model.
One might consider the democratic elections of school boards and governments a form of competition, however antiquated it may be.
[deleted]
Reality. Those schools are not going to get fixed. Solution, let parents they care send kids to ones that are better.
Of course they will get ‘fixed’ over enough time. Neighborhoods change. What is now the bougie upper east side used to be squalid tenements. However if all those bougie kids end up in a charter instead, don’t be surprised when performance doesn’t budge much. Its basically hollywood accounting, the schools overall aren’t any better or worse, you merely concentrate the worst performers in one area to ostensibly improve stats in another. You don’t need a for profit charter system to do that if that is the goal.
The author is suggesting that the self-selection effect is a problem for this and similar studies, because they potentially mask the effect they the learning environment has. In fact, the author sounds quite complimentary, calling the program being studied "an impressive, even inspiring initiative to improve the lives of poor inner-city children through charter schools and community programs." This piece is calling for randomized trials, as opposed to observational studies.
A randomized trial would probably violate all manner of ethics rules, and be vociferously opposed by parents, at least those who care about their kids' education, and thus we'd fall back to the same self-selection problem the author highlights.
Not necessarily. I went to a charter middle school that received more qualified applications than they had seats, so they had a lottery every year. You could easily compare students who won the lottery to those who did not.
The professional/managerial class can’t stand being responsible for their policy failures — which become apparent when people have options.
Reminds me a lot what Thomas Sowell says in Charter School and Their Enemies book
Charter schools are the saving grace to the public schools hijacked by the teachers union and bloated administrations.
Recently, these unions succeeded to lowering testing standards for graduation in blue states to mask the worse job they’re doing teaching our kids:
Examples: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/new-york-lowers-bar-...
Meanwhile major cities have the highest per pupil spend for public schools, with frighteningly poor outcomes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/03/30/bal...
Fix K-12 schools (no, more money on bloated administrations is not the answer), and the need for affirmative action goes away.
Examples: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/new-york-lowers-bar-...
Meanwhile major cities have the highest per pupil spend for public schools, with frighteningly poor outcomes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/03/30/bal...
Fix K-12 schools (no, more money on bloated administrations is not the answer), and the need for affirmative action goes away.
The Times Union piece you cite does not say that the union supported lowering standardized test scores required for graduation. In fact, the article quotes the union funded Alliance for Quality Education as opposing the change.
Charter schools create duplicate systems with duplicate costs, reduce funds available for traditional school students in sending schools, and are a waste of taxpayer resources. When students leave traditional public schools for charter schools, the traditional public school is unable to reduce costs in proportion with the loss in per-pupil revenues. Students in public schools are left with fewer resources.
Charter schools create duplicate systems with duplicate costs, reduce funds available for traditional school students in sending schools, and are a waste of taxpayer resources. When students leave traditional public schools for charter schools, the traditional public school is unable to reduce costs in proportion with the loss in per-pupil revenues. Students in public schools are left with fewer resources.
If we've learned one thing about education over the years it's that past a certain point more funding doesn't help. Improving educational outcomes requires at least 2 things that the article mentions:
1. Engaged parents.
2. Social Norms that normalize learning behaviours.
Parent's can control the first directly and the second indirectly by "choosing" a non public school option or moving to a district that has the proper norms.
Charter schools are one of a class of escape hatches that less advantaged parents can choose in order to impact the second factor for their child. I strongly believe that these escape hatches should exist for the Parents who can't easily move or choose a private option. Improving education outcomes for the children of those parents who do care requires giving them tools to support their children whether the environment itself does or does not.
It seems unfair to force those parents to fail just because their community is failing around them.
1. Engaged parents.
2. Social Norms that normalize learning behaviours.
Parent's can control the first directly and the second indirectly by "choosing" a non public school option or moving to a district that has the proper norms.
Charter schools are one of a class of escape hatches that less advantaged parents can choose in order to impact the second factor for their child. I strongly believe that these escape hatches should exist for the Parents who can't easily move or choose a private option. Improving education outcomes for the children of those parents who do care requires giving them tools to support their children whether the environment itself does or does not.
It seems unfair to force those parents to fail just because their community is failing around them.
> If we've learned one thing about education over the years it's that past a certain point more funding doesn't help.
Have we learned this? I don't remember a single time in my life when teachers were generally considered fairly paid.
Have we learned this? I don't remember a single time in my life when teachers were generally considered fairly paid.
It is more a dollar spend on the parents is going to have a better outcome than a dollar spent on the teacher. I think Andrew Yang referenced this in his book.
I'm sure my district is worse than yours, but here the public schools are a waste of taxpayer resources. They are corrupt, with more than a handful of superintendents being arrested for sweetheart contracts. They have extreme administrative bloat. They spend more per student than almost any other district in the world. And the outcomes are absolutely garbage. 25% of high schoolers are now in charters here, and honestly it's not for any reason other than the utter incompetence of the public school district. Why should we be giving more money to the system that parents have roundly rejected? At this point I'm forced to see the public schools as a waste of taxpayer resources that reduce funding for the more successful charter schools. We need competition to make schools better. The district was resting on its laurels since they were just counting on poor students showing up no matter how shitty the product was. The public can't accept that.
The solution is to fix public schools not fund charter schools. That’s a failing of the Goverment more then anything else.
> The solution is to fix public schools not fund charter schools.
Charter schools are a mechanism for opt-in flexibility within the public school system to enable identification of generalizable improvements; if there isn’t systematic evaluation and feedback into the broader system, that’s definitely an issue, but (unlike vouchers, which are low-accountability subsidies to nonpublic schools), that’s what charters are for.
Charter schools are a mechanism for opt-in flexibility within the public school system to enable identification of generalizable improvements; if there isn’t systematic evaluation and feedback into the broader system, that’s definitely an issue, but (unlike vouchers, which are low-accountability subsidies to nonpublic schools), that’s what charters are for.
I don't think schools should be privately run, it often brings a profit motive to schools and that bring with it all sorts of negative outcomes and corruption. You can see how poorly that goes with private prisons and american healthcare outcomes.
it also increases the divide between rich and poor (https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/do-charter-school...) all while taking resources away from the public system setting it up to fail more while also removing all incentives for politicians to fix it (their kids go to the private schools)
here is a video going into charter schools and showing a number of rather negative outcomes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I
it also increases the divide between rich and poor (https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/do-charter-school...) all while taking resources away from the public system setting it up to fail more while also removing all incentives for politicians to fix it (their kids go to the private schools)
here is a video going into charter schools and showing a number of rather negative outcomes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I
Politicians have been claiming they're going to fix public schools for my entire adult life and haven't made an inch of progress in that time. We need to abandon the delusion that there's one weird trick (that doctors hate) to fix public schools and instead move to a different system.
if you think privatizing the school system is going to fix it, i suggest you look at other instances of privatization (prisons for instance, or utilities in many states and provincies) and see how that went.
Competition works. Your examples are government granted monopolies which are obviously terrible
Just means the rich kids get a much better education then the poor ones which is a country failing at education.
Not to mention in time you’ll just get charter school mega corps that don’t have too compete.
private prisons are not Goverment granted monopolies and that has gone horribly wrong.
Not to mention in time you’ll just get charter school mega corps that don’t have too compete.
private prisons are not Goverment granted monopolies and that has gone horribly wrong.
Easier said than done. Most elections for the past 20 years have revolves around the schools and they’ve only gotten worse. I honestly see no way to solve the public schools other than having all the students leave and forcing them to reconsider everything they do
You fire all the admin and start from scratch with the teachers and kids.
Teachers want to teach and do a good jobs generally but are prevented from doing so by admin/policies that set them up to fail
Teachers want to teach and do a good jobs generally but are prevented from doing so by admin/policies that set them up to fail
I would be in favor of this but I think the politics is too complicated for it to actually happen. Charters have already shown practical success
charters in many cases have also been absolute disasters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I
What makes you think charter schools are less corrupt other than their lack of accountability?
I don’t. I think if schools are going to be corrupt we might as well have them compete.
Then why did you make it part of your argument?
Because the public schools being corrupt is a necessary part of “if the schools are corrupt they might as well compete”. The common argument against charters is corruption, but if the public schools are too then that doesn’t really matter to me.
> Charter schools create duplicate systems with duplicate costs, reduce funds available for traditional school students in sending schools, and are a waste of taxpayer resources.
I went to a private school. Obviously slightly different from the Charter system, but only in administration of funds (depending on the state). This statement is categorically untrue. The private school that I went to was not analogous in learning or structure to the public school system. Coaching for college admissions essentially took place since first grade and gradually ramped up. Additionally, the school taught to different learning styles instead of just one. Where these schools fail is socially because often kids are geographically spread farther apart. As a result I was alienated at times both at school and out of school depending on where I needed to put my time. When I transferred to public school I was bored out of my mind for years due to how far ahead I was from 8th grade. It took until around junior year before I began learning new-ish material.
To call them a "waste" of tax dollars ignores the fundamental problems with the public school system and why the separation occurs in the first place. Those fundamental problems are thorny issues though; you'll end up creating very different teaching methods, levels of classes, etc for a wider group of kids that will continue to grow as an area grows more dense. This was more sustainable at my private school because class sizes were smaller. I also don't think blaming teachers is really the right way to go here; most of them are underpaid and mistreated.
I went to a private school. Obviously slightly different from the Charter system, but only in administration of funds (depending on the state). This statement is categorically untrue. The private school that I went to was not analogous in learning or structure to the public school system. Coaching for college admissions essentially took place since first grade and gradually ramped up. Additionally, the school taught to different learning styles instead of just one. Where these schools fail is socially because often kids are geographically spread farther apart. As a result I was alienated at times both at school and out of school depending on where I needed to put my time. When I transferred to public school I was bored out of my mind for years due to how far ahead I was from 8th grade. It took until around junior year before I began learning new-ish material.
To call them a "waste" of tax dollars ignores the fundamental problems with the public school system and why the separation occurs in the first place. Those fundamental problems are thorny issues though; you'll end up creating very different teaching methods, levels of classes, etc for a wider group of kids that will continue to grow as an area grows more dense. This was more sustainable at my private school because class sizes were smaller. I also don't think blaming teachers is really the right way to go here; most of them are underpaid and mistreated.
Presumably the equilibrium state is that we will have fewer public schools and more charter schools, rather than a bunch of half-occupied public schools.
Yes and: Privatization greatly impairs transparency and accountability. Because private entities fall outside of public disclosure laws like FOIA. With depressingly predictable results.
Is competition in other industries bad and wasteful too, since it creates duplicate systems with duplicate costs too? Should we replace it with a single monopoly per industry?
We've already taken a wrong turn if we're treating education as an "industry" and not a public service.
Take a survey of public school board budgets if you want to see a waste taxpayer resources. There is already all the duplication of effort and wasteful initiatives you could ask for.
> Charter schools are the saving grace to the public schools hijacked by the teachers union and bloated administrations.
Where I live, charter schools are a joke. They're old office buildings converted into "schools". This is super unsafe and honestly quite sad to see in most cases because these office buildings are on busy streets with no playgrounds (what they do have is basically a concrete slab in the back with nearly no play equipment).
News flash: if you want education to "work", we need to pay teachers more. Subsidizing private companies (charter schools) through vouchers is just a leach on resources we could give to our existing schools and teachers instead. There are millions of teachers out there, some with master's degrees, who make much less than a new grad junior dev who goes to work, edits some CSS, and browses Reddit the rest of the day. We simply don't value education in the US enough, and charter schools are a non-solution proposed by those who would rather run away from the problems than face them head-on.
Where I live, charter schools are a joke. They're old office buildings converted into "schools". This is super unsafe and honestly quite sad to see in most cases because these office buildings are on busy streets with no playgrounds (what they do have is basically a concrete slab in the back with nearly no play equipment).
News flash: if you want education to "work", we need to pay teachers more. Subsidizing private companies (charter schools) through vouchers is just a leach on resources we could give to our existing schools and teachers instead. There are millions of teachers out there, some with master's degrees, who make much less than a new grad junior dev who goes to work, edits some CSS, and browses Reddit the rest of the day. We simply don't value education in the US enough, and charter schools are a non-solution proposed by those who would rather run away from the problems than face them head-on.
I fail to see how even doubling teachers salary would resolve anything. I’d love to see a study where a school simply increased teacher salaries alone and that improved outcomes for students.
The issue is almost entirely cultural and socioeconomic. Fixing schools is basically fixing society. Intractable, which is why every school from Harvard to Oxford relies on glorified selection bias instead.
The issue is almost entirely cultural and socioeconomic. Fixing schools is basically fixing society. Intractable, which is why every school from Harvard to Oxford relies on glorified selection bias instead.
A lot of really good educators leave the field because the money is garbage. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Given the central role of education in our society, teachers should absolutely be paid more.
Given the central role of education in our society, teachers should absolutely be paid more.
I think it's more complex than this. The unions have effectively traded higher-pay for greater job security, so we have the worst of both worlds.
I generally find myself pro-organized labor, but when we start reducing in-group competitiveness for high pay, into low pay alternatives like seniority systems, job security becoming job permanence, or outright hostility to technology, that's when I start seeing the model break down.
I generally find myself pro-organized labor, but when we start reducing in-group competitiveness for high pay, into low pay alternatives like seniority systems, job security becoming job permanence, or outright hostility to technology, that's when I start seeing the model break down.
Quality of the education isn’t the main issue with schools though. Or to put it another way, do you think Baltimore Public schools issues would be resolved with simply better teachers and a more rigorous curriculum?
It's almost like there isn't one cause and YET we try to find the one silver bullet over and over and over again.
Some schools the issue is teacher quality. Some is curriculum and resources. Some is external factors like food insecurity, housing, or crime.
It's weird like that.
After decades in education, I can tell you that the same five ideas get rehashed every six to eight years. And we ignore that our education system is nothing but a reflection of society in the US.
If you have money and connections, everything is groovy. If you don't, it's not.
Some schools the issue is teacher quality. Some is curriculum and resources. Some is external factors like food insecurity, housing, or crime.
It's weird like that.
After decades in education, I can tell you that the same five ideas get rehashed every six to eight years. And we ignore that our education system is nothing but a reflection of society in the US.
If you have money and connections, everything is groovy. If you don't, it's not.
[deleted]
A more rigorous curriculum? Maybe no. But better teachers? Absolutely yes. There is more to teaching than lecturing in front of a blackboard.
> Given the central role of education in our society
The “central role of education in our society” seems a lot like a slogan that is, at best, aspirational, and at worst false-meritocracy cover for persistent structural inequality.
While educational performance and attainment seems to correlate a lot with success, differences in educational interventions and methods seem to do a lot less: those measures that seem to matter seem to themselves largely be a function of who you are and what your home environment is. Its not clear that education, particularly K-12, is doing a lot more than measuring structural advantage.
The “central role of education in our society” seems a lot like a slogan that is, at best, aspirational, and at worst false-meritocracy cover for persistent structural inequality.
While educational performance and attainment seems to correlate a lot with success, differences in educational interventions and methods seem to do a lot less: those measures that seem to matter seem to themselves largely be a function of who you are and what your home environment is. Its not clear that education, particularly K-12, is doing a lot more than measuring structural advantage.
Take Nevada as an example.
Entry Level Teacher salary in Nevada is $43,316 as of June 26, 2023, but the range typically falls between $36,172 and $52,827.
Imagine living on 36k per year before taxes. Imagine making that much, being not only in charge of controlling a minimum of 30 kids per year, but also being expected and required to educate those children all while spending (on average) 700$ per year of _your own money_ on classroom supplies. Yes, that's real. That's the new average amount teachers spend out of pocket on classroom supplies because education funding is so abysmal in the US.
Contrast that with an average starting salary of 86k as you suggest. That would be a materially huge jump and change in the financial support we give to teachers, along with an acknowledgment of how important their jobs are. As a web developer in my mid-20s, I make far more than any single person working in my high school. Of course, I took the tech route and that's highly valued in society, but I'm only here because of those teachers taking an interest in me in high school. To me, that just doesn't make any sense.
Entry Level Teacher salary in Nevada is $43,316 as of June 26, 2023, but the range typically falls between $36,172 and $52,827.
Imagine living on 36k per year before taxes. Imagine making that much, being not only in charge of controlling a minimum of 30 kids per year, but also being expected and required to educate those children all while spending (on average) 700$ per year of _your own money_ on classroom supplies. Yes, that's real. That's the new average amount teachers spend out of pocket on classroom supplies because education funding is so abysmal in the US.
Contrast that with an average starting salary of 86k as you suggest. That would be a materially huge jump and change in the financial support we give to teachers, along with an acknowledgment of how important their jobs are. As a web developer in my mid-20s, I make far more than any single person working in my high school. Of course, I took the tech route and that's highly valued in society, but I'm only here because of those teachers taking an interest in me in high school. To me, that just doesn't make any sense.
I broadly agree, but teachers and other public employees have pension plans that are funded mostly by the employer (public) and pay 50-80% of their annual salary for their lifetime after 30 years of service. So you can't compare those numbers directly.
The promise of future pensions can't be used to pay bills, though. The teacher still has to survive in the world using the dollars that show up on their paycheck today.
Good luck living on that pension after a decade or two of inflation.
I’m not saying teachers shouldn’t be paid more. I’m saying paying them more isn’t going to fix the problems.
The reason you make more is because your company presumably has revenue. Schools don’t so the entire value proposition is different.
The reason you make more is because your company presumably has revenue. Schools don’t so the entire value proposition is different.
> I’m saying paying them more isn’t going to fix the problems.
I fundamentally disagree. How can we expect teachers living paycheck to paycheck to educate kids well? They have no emergency fund. They're one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. They don't have retirement savings, and they have no idea when they'll be able to start saving for retirement. Being poor isn't just financial, that stress creeps into every aspect of your life including your job.
Also, I want to note one thing. It's not the dollar amount specifically I'm talking about. Sure, it would be a quick fix in my mind to pay teachers more. But really it comes down to how those dollars are being spent. In our country, too much money is being spent on student loans, housing, healthcare, food, and transportation. If the prices for all of those could come down, that would work too. It's about getting teachers out living paycheck to paycheck.
> The reason you make more is because your company presumably has revenue.
Public schools are a service our government provides for us because there's an understanding that education is important. So important that we actually require children to be educated, which is obviously a good thing. If you ask what's the revenue source, it's called taxes. If we don't have enough money to pay teachers livable wages, we either need to take money from somewhere else cough the military-industrial complex cough or increase taxes on the rich. And when I say rich, I mean the filthy rich. The people who pay almost no taxes currently and instead put the tax burden on the poor and disappearing middle-class families. The highest marginal tax rate reached nearly 94% in the 1940's. Right now, our highest marginal tax rate is just 37%. Essentially if you make 570 million per year in the US you pay no more money relatively speaking than someone making 570 thousand per year. If we taxed the rich more, we could easily pay for better education in the US.
I fundamentally disagree. How can we expect teachers living paycheck to paycheck to educate kids well? They have no emergency fund. They're one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. They don't have retirement savings, and they have no idea when they'll be able to start saving for retirement. Being poor isn't just financial, that stress creeps into every aspect of your life including your job.
Also, I want to note one thing. It's not the dollar amount specifically I'm talking about. Sure, it would be a quick fix in my mind to pay teachers more. But really it comes down to how those dollars are being spent. In our country, too much money is being spent on student loans, housing, healthcare, food, and transportation. If the prices for all of those could come down, that would work too. It's about getting teachers out living paycheck to paycheck.
> The reason you make more is because your company presumably has revenue.
Public schools are a service our government provides for us because there's an understanding that education is important. So important that we actually require children to be educated, which is obviously a good thing. If you ask what's the revenue source, it's called taxes. If we don't have enough money to pay teachers livable wages, we either need to take money from somewhere else cough the military-industrial complex cough or increase taxes on the rich. And when I say rich, I mean the filthy rich. The people who pay almost no taxes currently and instead put the tax burden on the poor and disappearing middle-class families. The highest marginal tax rate reached nearly 94% in the 1940's. Right now, our highest marginal tax rate is just 37%. Essentially if you make 570 million per year in the US you pay no more money relatively speaking than someone making 570 thousand per year. If we taxed the rich more, we could easily pay for better education in the US.
I think the solution people are proposing is paying teachers more AND removing all the fat from the administration side in order to help fund some of it. This will not be enough since the education system has been through decades of being gutted in favor of stealing the public's money in favor of private interests. I am including the whole welfare system the U.S has in its "defense" budget that seems to be invisible to both parties who will otherwise fight tooth an nail for every other bone and scrap that comes in sight.
The U.S should be aiming for something like Finland for its education system. Their secret sauce is not what they teach at all. Teachers are well paid and its a very desirable job therefore its very competitive.
Contrast that to the U.S where its just above the poverty line and therefore most people do not want to do it.
The U.S should be aiming for something like Finland for its education system. Their secret sauce is not what they teach at all. Teachers are well paid and its a very desirable job therefore its very competitive.
Contrast that to the U.S where its just above the poverty line and therefore most people do not want to do it.
> Imagine living on 36k per year before taxes.
Is that supposed to be hard? I've spent less than that almost every year I've been working, and I live somewhere a lot more expensive than Nevada.
Is that supposed to be hard? I've spent less than that almost every year I've been working, and I live somewhere a lot more expensive than Nevada.
The poverty line is about 15k for a single person in the US. For a family of 3, that line is about 25k. The poverty line is also widely criticized for being too low, so yes. It's hard. If you're not a single person willing to live in a shared apartment, it's exceptionally hard to see any future with that amount of income.
I have a dev friend who makes over 200k working for Apple and lives in our friend's garage paying just 200 a month for rent. His case has nothing to do with the average living expenses of average teachers in the US. He's an outlier, as I suspect you are.
I have a dev friend who makes over 200k working for Apple and lives in our friend's garage paying just 200 a month for rent. His case has nothing to do with the average living expenses of average teachers in the US. He's an outlier, as I suspect you are.
> The poverty line is about 15k for a single person in the US. For a family of 3, that line is about 25k.
Then 36k should be enough to support two dependents without any other income, as it’s almost 150% of poverty. And I suspect most teachers are not supporting two dependents on their incomes alone, so your comment makes me feel stronger about my previous statement.
As for me being an outlier, maybe? I don’t live in a basement. I live in a regular apartment with one roommate. I have a car (2014 sedan) and buy regular groceries, go on vacations, do things with friends, live a pretty regular life. The main way I’m probably an outlier is not buying a new car, and keeping my car for probably 10 years.
I take objection to you saying “if you are not … willing to live in a shared apartment” as if that’s some grand imposition. To me it sounds like you might be the outlier? Normal people, even couples live in shared apartments all the time.
I want to note that I didn’t claim that teachers aren’t underpaid (I haven't researched or thought about it enough to make a decision). Just that 36k isn’t some impossible amount to live on, which it’s not in most places.
Then 36k should be enough to support two dependents without any other income, as it’s almost 150% of poverty. And I suspect most teachers are not supporting two dependents on their incomes alone, so your comment makes me feel stronger about my previous statement.
As for me being an outlier, maybe? I don’t live in a basement. I live in a regular apartment with one roommate. I have a car (2014 sedan) and buy regular groceries, go on vacations, do things with friends, live a pretty regular life. The main way I’m probably an outlier is not buying a new car, and keeping my car for probably 10 years.
I take objection to you saying “if you are not … willing to live in a shared apartment” as if that’s some grand imposition. To me it sounds like you might be the outlier? Normal people, even couples live in shared apartments all the time.
I want to note that I didn’t claim that teachers aren’t underpaid (I haven't researched or thought about it enough to make a decision). Just that 36k isn’t some impossible amount to live on, which it’s not in most places.
36k before taxes
- 2.2k (FICA)
- 4k (Health Insurance)
- 4.3k (Income Tax)
- 1k (3% matching Simple IRA)
but ignoring 3.8k into HSA and 6k going to Roth IRA because we are probably too poor to do that
=
whopping 24.5k
If you spend less than that I'd love to know what is in the care packages your mom sends you each week.
- 2.2k (FICA)
- 4k (Health Insurance)
- 4.3k (Income Tax)
- 1k (3% matching Simple IRA)
but ignoring 3.8k into HSA and 6k going to Roth IRA because we are probably too poor to do that
=
whopping 24.5k
If you spend less than that I'd love to know what is in the care packages your mom sends you each week.
You're right that I forgot to factor in taxes. I agree that 24.5k is not enough if you have dependents. I think it's doable as a single person. You would need to go into debt if you needed to buy a car or something that year, but also, this is the entry level salary for new hires. You can expect your salary to go up, probably on a predefined schedule.
The part about my mother was unnecessary.
The part about my mother was unnecessary.
[deleted]
Spending more does exactly nothing.
https://www.schooldigger.com/
It is almost universal that the worst performing schools have the highest spend per student, while the best schools have the lowest spend.
https://www.schooldigger.com/
It is almost universal that the worst performing schools have the highest spend per student, while the best schools have the lowest spend.
The rating methodology on this website is exclusively test score based[1]. When I compare nearby schools, the school rating is almost perfectly inversely correlated with the % of Free/Discounted Lunch Recipients. The reduced lunch % is also pretty correlated with $/pupil, making the $/pupil inversely correlated with the lowest test scores, as you said.
But, that's like saying hospitals don't work because the highest expenditures are on the sickest people. This isn't measuring whether more money helps schools perform better, it's showing that we spend more money on schools with lower test scores.
[1] https://www.schooldigger.com/aboutrankingmethodology.aspx
But, that's like saying hospitals don't work because the highest expenditures are on the sickest people. This isn't measuring whether more money helps schools perform better, it's showing that we spend more money on schools with lower test scores.
[1] https://www.schooldigger.com/aboutrankingmethodology.aspx
Pay is only one part of what motivates teachers. I've seen more teachers leave because they don't feel empowered than I have because of pay.
I wonder if lack of empowerment is partially caused by unnecessary layers in administration. Admins are there "support" teachers but that probably also takes away some of the job aspects that feel "empowering."
Definitely part of it. Public schools, like many businesses and institutions, are full of administrative positions with inflated salaries who do some vaguely defined job.
> Charter schools are the saving grace to the public schools hijacked by the teachers union and bloated administrations.
I''d break this into two statements with "public schools" being part of both:
1. Charter schools are the saving grace to the public schools because they are not mandated to serve every student and can therefore siphon off failing or behaviorally challenged students back to the public system. Find me a charter system serving special needs and at-risk students better than the public system at the scale of a public system, and I'll change my mind.
2. Public schools have been hijacked by the teachers union and bloated administrations because their funding structures are controlled by politics and culture wars instead of targeted research and practice on what specific kids need. I'm not a fan of teachers unions or bureaucracy, but who else takes the heat for teachers who are under-resourced, under-paid, and over-worked?
> Fix K-12 schools (no, more money on bloated administrations is not the answer), and the need for affirmative action goes away.
100% agree on the affirmative action part, but to fix K-12 schools you need new or other institutions to pick up slack on supporting students. The reason that "Deputy Assistant Senior Manager of Cognitive and Emotional Development" exist is because the law is pretty clear about how a school district is responsible for a student with XYZ cognitive and emotional developmental challenges. To get rid of that administrator, you also need to transfer (operationally and legislatively) ownership of that responsibility.
I''d break this into two statements with "public schools" being part of both:
1. Charter schools are the saving grace to the public schools because they are not mandated to serve every student and can therefore siphon off failing or behaviorally challenged students back to the public system. Find me a charter system serving special needs and at-risk students better than the public system at the scale of a public system, and I'll change my mind.
2. Public schools have been hijacked by the teachers union and bloated administrations because their funding structures are controlled by politics and culture wars instead of targeted research and practice on what specific kids need. I'm not a fan of teachers unions or bureaucracy, but who else takes the heat for teachers who are under-resourced, under-paid, and over-worked?
> Fix K-12 schools (no, more money on bloated administrations is not the answer), and the need for affirmative action goes away.
100% agree on the affirmative action part, but to fix K-12 schools you need new or other institutions to pick up slack on supporting students. The reason that "Deputy Assistant Senior Manager of Cognitive and Emotional Development" exist is because the law is pretty clear about how a school district is responsible for a student with XYZ cognitive and emotional developmental challenges. To get rid of that administrator, you also need to transfer (operationally and legislatively) ownership of that responsibility.
The articles you cite don't mention teachers' unions at all, and they don't point to "the worse job they’re doing teaching" as the reason for renorming standardized tests. I agree with you on the need for reform (though I have a hunch we would disagree on the specifics), but I don't think your argument adds up.
In some cases outcomes might just be bad in major cities. It may be counter intuitive, but in many ways cities have felt the brunt of economic and racial injustices.
Are major cities more likely to contain people in abject poverty, who perceive their situation as hopeless, sometimes correctly? Many people struggle with learning, due to conditions at home, and without money there's no get out of jail free cards. Kids need people with money to advocate for them, or they can be abandoned by society, told they will never amount to nothing (very much like Biggy Smalls did), and their talents overlooked.
For people living in these conditions college may be achievable, but there's a very narrow window, with a ton of risk involved. To summarize, perhaps we're simply spending more, to combat bigger problems (often ineffectively); versus the quality of education being as poor as you claim.
Are major cities more likely to contain people in abject poverty, who perceive their situation as hopeless, sometimes correctly? Many people struggle with learning, due to conditions at home, and without money there's no get out of jail free cards. Kids need people with money to advocate for them, or they can be abandoned by society, told they will never amount to nothing (very much like Biggy Smalls did), and their talents overlooked.
For people living in these conditions college may be achievable, but there's a very narrow window, with a ton of risk involved. To summarize, perhaps we're simply spending more, to combat bigger problems (often ineffectively); versus the quality of education being as poor as you claim.
The need for affirmative action exists regardless of what you do to K-12 schools as long as college admissions count standardized test schools and extracurricular activities.
If there's a baseline level of good education and whatnot, it stands to reason that there would be roughly proportionate demographics among the applicants. Get rid of legacies, and that seems perfectly fair to me.
>Recently, these unions succeeded to lowering testing standards for graduation in blue states to mask the worse job they’re doing teaching our kids
The link provided shows that, in fact, the union opposed the change. This claim is a bald faced lie, and lies should be downvoted on HN.
The link provided shows that, in fact, the union opposed the change. This claim is a bald faced lie, and lies should be downvoted on HN.
what union opposed the change? The Alliance group mentioned is not a Union of teachers. https://www.aqeny.org/
Unions aren't mentioned at all in the article. Your claim is also a bald faced lie. More so than the OP. This article supports OP's claim https://nypost.com/2023/03/16/nys-education-leaders-again-pr..., I can trivially find other articles from other sources where the New York teachers union has made it clear they dont find how they are evaluated by test scores acceptable. That may even be a reasonable position to have. There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it.
Unions aren't mentioned at all in the article. Your claim is also a bald faced lie. More so than the OP. This article supports OP's claim https://nypost.com/2023/03/16/nys-education-leaders-again-pr..., I can trivially find other articles from other sources where the New York teachers union has made it clear they dont find how they are evaluated by test scores acceptable. That may even be a reasonable position to have. There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it.
Nothing has been presented that suggests that the teachers' union wanted this to happen. That "article", an editorial from a right-leaning source, doesn't support the claim that "the New York teachers union has made it clear they dont find how they are evaluated by test scores acceptable". In fact, it doesn't include any statements from any unions at all, direct or indirect.
If one actually reads it, it's just a recapitulation of the root-level link. "SED", the organization the editorial rails against, isn't a teacher's union, you know -- it's the State Education Department. ctrl+f for "union" in that piece, and beyond a reference to the Times Union article, the only involvement of a teachers' union is at the end, where the editorial's author claims that the union is the only beneficiary of these shenanigans, and implies that they had a dastardly hand in anointing the Assembly Speaker.
>There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it
Ah, but you didn't provide data, but instead a slanted editorial without the proof you trumpeted. If there were other articles from other sources that you could trivially find, why didn't you use them? Why use this and misrepresent what it said?
And, fine, you got me, there doesn't appear to be any direct link between the AQE and a teachers' union -- where I come from, the teachers' union donates to grassroots lobbyists like that, the better to improve education funding for children, because teachers are actually there to teach kids, not get fat from subsidy and shirk their responsibility. I reflexively assumed it was the same here. TBH, I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye on this because I can't conceive of a scenario where teachers would rather just turn down the standards rather than lift up their charges. What's happening sounds like an admin thing -- and indeed, both the root-level link and your editorial suggests that it's the admin, the SED, doing this. I hate to say it so bluntly, but I think your own biases are clouding your judgement as to what's happening here and why. Blaming teachers is a red herring, as teachers generally do not have control over, nor approve of, what school boards wind up mandating in the name of "cost-cutting" or "modernization".
If one actually reads it, it's just a recapitulation of the root-level link. "SED", the organization the editorial rails against, isn't a teacher's union, you know -- it's the State Education Department. ctrl+f for "union" in that piece, and beyond a reference to the Times Union article, the only involvement of a teachers' union is at the end, where the editorial's author claims that the union is the only beneficiary of these shenanigans, and implies that they had a dastardly hand in anointing the Assembly Speaker.
>There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it
Ah, but you didn't provide data, but instead a slanted editorial without the proof you trumpeted. If there were other articles from other sources that you could trivially find, why didn't you use them? Why use this and misrepresent what it said?
And, fine, you got me, there doesn't appear to be any direct link between the AQE and a teachers' union -- where I come from, the teachers' union donates to grassroots lobbyists like that, the better to improve education funding for children, because teachers are actually there to teach kids, not get fat from subsidy and shirk their responsibility. I reflexively assumed it was the same here. TBH, I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye on this because I can't conceive of a scenario where teachers would rather just turn down the standards rather than lift up their charges. What's happening sounds like an admin thing -- and indeed, both the root-level link and your editorial suggests that it's the admin, the SED, doing this. I hate to say it so bluntly, but I think your own biases are clouding your judgement as to what's happening here and why. Blaming teachers is a red herring, as teachers generally do not have control over, nor approve of, what school boards wind up mandating in the name of "cost-cutting" or "modernization".
"Highest spend per pupil"
PSA a primary driver for this (along side other issues) is that in "major cities" the affluent pull out and stick their kids in private schools, creating a feedback loop of public school increasingly capturing all and predominantly the least- least-supported kids.
And teachers then teach in over-crowded classes with 3x the student-teacher ratio of the private schools, while also providing de facto baseline social services of many kinds. While horrifically underpaid.
Meanwhile the right wing is driving this feedback loop on multiple fronts, as it has been for decades—with the collapse of secular public education an open agenda for those decades.
PSA a primary driver for this (along side other issues) is that in "major cities" the affluent pull out and stick their kids in private schools, creating a feedback loop of public school increasingly capturing all and predominantly the least- least-supported kids.
And teachers then teach in over-crowded classes with 3x the student-teacher ratio of the private schools, while also providing de facto baseline social services of many kinds. While horrifically underpaid.
Meanwhile the right wing is driving this feedback loop on multiple fronts, as it has been for decades—with the collapse of secular public education an open agenda for those decades.
The solution to people fleeing public non-charter schools to go to better options is to provide opportunities for kids who remain in public schools to thrive.
As it stands, school districts are doing the opposite. Getting rid of educational tracking at least, or banning algebra in middle school because it's inequitable at worst (as in SFUSD). This isn't a matter of funding but ideology.
As it stands, school districts are doing the opposite. Getting rid of educational tracking at least, or banning algebra in middle school because it's inequitable at worst (as in SFUSD). This isn't a matter of funding but ideology.
Could you ELI5 this article for me? I am amazed by the high quality comments here but the article is not readable for me.
The quality of comments here is pathetic. These are some of the most misleading arguments I've ever seen. Every bit of evidence is some exception to the norm.
When most people equate emotion-based beliefs to logic, that's what happens. Of course everyone has their biases, but most conveniently ignore theirs.
I had 3 sons in my county's first charter school. We enrolled when it launched.
It was a mistake I regret. My kids were not baseline* and the educators were out of their depth. They took their obligations seriously and made good faith efforts but weren't able make the leap (during our 7 years).
We left for the county's public schools and they were a world better - by every measure. I am not overstating that an inch.
All that said, I still felt the charter was a good fit for normie students and I recommended it to some parents (but not all).
* One was high functioning autistic. Two coped poorly with the limited curriculum.
It was a mistake I regret. My kids were not baseline* and the educators were out of their depth. They took their obligations seriously and made good faith efforts but weren't able make the leap (during our 7 years).
We left for the county's public schools and they were a world better - by every measure. I am not overstating that an inch.
All that said, I still felt the charter was a good fit for normie students and I recommended it to some parents (but not all).
* One was high functioning autistic. Two coped poorly with the limited curriculum.
[deleted]
I went to public school as a kid and the disruptive kids were expelled. Not just kicked out of class - totally kicked out of school and told to find a new one! One reason I send my kids to private school is if you don’t want to learn they will kick you out. In public schools today you get a few bad kids and it ruins the whole class. This is a big reason why teachers are quitting en masse from public schools - they are behavioral consultants rather than teachers. The pay has always sucked - it’s the lack of ability to discipline bad kids that makes it miserable, and then parents blame you for everything when you just want to teach math and go home.