4 Day School Week in Some Parts of the Country

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Cyrinne
How do we hold me accountable for doing my job?

I dunno. I don't think the President has a clue either. When asked, he consistently answers, "One thing I know, is we know more now because we're testing."

It makes its own sort of sense to me to have a national standard so we have some ability to make comparisons, but I'm in no position to suggest a way to transform that information into useful policy. The most obvious first step to me would be to see some information on dollars per child vs test outcomes, then go and see what's being done where the best test outcomes are scored, then the worst, and someplace maybe where we seem to be spending less but getting on towards the upper 50% of test results. Heck, I don't even know what is or isn't being done.

Looking over what I can find about NCLB, one thing that is troubling to me is that actually these sorts of things have nothing to do with the program. It seems that basically, if you don't meet rising standards year by year you just get your federal funding cut, which not coincidentally meshes well with the conservative belief that the Feds didn't belong in the school funding business to begin with. Still, with some alteration it could serve the purpose intended.

That's the problem though with control through federal taxation and then punitive witholding. It's nothing more than a workaround for the fact that there really isn't a defined roll for the federal government in education, legally speaking.

So, overall, a real conversation killer, that. *cough*

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Have we gotten to the point in our fucked up society where we just ASSUME both parents work away from the home and need public school to serve as surrogate parent and day-care?

Unbelieveable.

One of the parents is home teaching the kid. Is that such an impossible thing to comprehend these days? *boggle*

In some neighborhoods, parents work together to split up the topics depending on how the parents were educated.

Furthermore, the teacher's salary is such a puny portion of the average per child cost of public education, that it really isn't statistically relevant if they have factored in some kind of "potential income" the parent could have earned. Think about it. 30+ kids per teacher, teacher is making $25,000 per year, that's about $833 per kid. With a per kid cost of almost $6,000, paying the teacher is not where the money is going.

The point of the statistics is simple: home schooling results in better performance for a fraction of the cost, with a fraction of the time spent. That is why home schooling provides such a brutal indictment of our failed public education system.

That doesn't mean everyone should home school. But it does mean that throwing more money at the public school system, or making kids spend more time at school, or giving them more homework, are definitely NOT the answer.

That's more or less my whole point. A small portion of public education is in the wages. If a person gives up work to home school, they are giving up an amount of income that even on the conservative estimate would be far in excess of the total cost of educating a child in public school. This is more or less the whole point of having public schools to begin with. It frees up parents to work while a specialist supposedly does a better job teaching their kids in the amount of time the average parent could actually afford to spend.

Originally posted by Aristotle
That is one of the sloppiest and poorly researched articles I have ever read on the issue. Talk about some gross abuse of anecdotal evidence.

Only the most elitisit snobs on the planet would make the conclusion this article seems to think is widespread. If this article were even partially true, you wouldn't have every independent (private) school association vehemenly in favor of vouchers. You wouldn't have the parents of kids in those schools as some of the most vocal proponents.

In fact, that article was so looney, I almost suspect it might be an exampe of political reverse psychology: "Make people think snobs don't want vouchers, and maybe they'll wise up and see that vouchers actually benefit the lower and middle classes more than the upper classes!"

Perhaps because you seem to be looking at it entirely from the point of view of private school vouchers. The article is addressing the point that some voucher initiatives are about moving children from poor performing public schools to better performing public schools, not private schools at all.

Public School Vouchers as Part of the Voucher Debate

Second sentence first paragraph. Just in case people thought I was making it up. Vouchers are not just about moving kids to private schools.

How do people feel about vouchers?

Polls

Look at 30-32.

31 specifically addresses the possibility of sending the child to a public school on voucher.

And try to bear in mind, I do not oppose vouchers. It just seems the future of the concept is not as rosy as all that.

[Lokrian]

Interestingly, I just learned that the poll result spills over on its head if you ask if people want students to be able to go to private schools "using public funds" vs the Gallup poll use of the phrase "at public expense."

Just another of those things about polls that you have to be careful about. I don't know what to make of this little hiccup myself.

There are articles to be found that support the idea though that it is the suburbs that are mostly opposed, including breakdowns of the defeat of voucher measures in California and Michegan, and so forth. Not finding the polls that the first article from the earlier post seems to cite though, as far as the breakdown of who supports vouchers and who opposes them.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
If a person gives up work to home school, they are giving up an amount of income that even on the conservative estimate would be far in excess of the total cost of educating a child in public school. This is more or less the whole point of having public schools to begin with. It frees up parents to work while a specialist supposedly does a better job teaching their kids in the amount of time the average parent could actually afford to spend.

Honestly, if this is your attitude to raising children, please never have any.

The point of public schools is not to "free up parents to work." That's utterly repulsive.

The ideal situation is at least one parent (mom or dad) home to take care of the kids whenever they need it.

The current warped situation is an utter disgrace.

Raising kids is more important than work. If you don't believe that, don't have kids.

Obviously, people get in situations where they simply don't have options. Single parents have to work. Sometimes two parents both have to work. That doesn't mean that is the ideal situation. It sure as hell is not the reason for public education.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Honestly, if this is your attitude to raising children, please never have any.

The point of public schools is not to "free up parents to work." That's utterly repulsive.

The ideal situation is at least one parent (mom or dad) home to take care of the kids whenever they need it.

The current warped situation is an utter disgrace.

Raising kids is more important than work. If you don't believe that, don't have kids.

Obviously, people get in situations where they simply don't have options. Single parents have to work. Sometimes two parents both have to work. That doesn't mean that is the ideal situation. It sure as hell is not the reason for public education.

Original Schools

These were communal affairs where one person educated many. Many people put in efforts to make the school, but the bottom line is one teacher teaching all let the folks get back to work on their farms and businesses. The whole idea is to pool resources so that the education works out better than what would have been possible for the people at the time to do alone.

I am still having a hard time finding the right tone here, obviously. I never meant to imply there was anything wrong with home schooling, and to the best of my knowledge I did not imply anything of the sort. I rather specifically said it was to free them up for work AND give the child a better education than they could have provided given the time they had available to educate them themselves, assuming the parents even were all that literate to begin with.

The modern school is not that much different in its ultimate purpose.

In any case, the original subject was that you were saying that one on one education by ones parent is economically cheaper, and I am pointing out that there are almost no cases where that turns out to be true if you take the real cost of lost labor into acount.

Finally, I have said repeatedly that I support home schooling for those who can afford it.

[Aristotle]

We don't home school. That isn't the issue.

The problem with what you are saying is that you seem to think both parents SHOULD WORK, and you actually explicitly said the reason for public education is to "free up a parent to work."

That is just insane. That is NOT the purpose of public education.

Both parents working is a serious rot in our culture. There are a bunch of reasons for it, but it is NOT a good thing for children at all. Sometimes it has to happen, which is a shame, but having to do something out of necessity does not magically transform that into a good thing. The sooner we start understanding that as a culture, the better off we will be.

Finally, there is no labor cost to home schooling. At least one parent should already be home with the kids, if this world wasn't totally fucked up. Understand?

As for the cost issue, let me explain one more time:

1) People commonly say we should spend more money on education.

2) We already spend about $6,000 per kid. About $5,000 of that is not wages for the teacher.

3) Parents who home school spend about $500 per kid.

4) $500 is one tenth of $5,000.

Clearly, the problem with public education is not the money being spent.

Lokrian, you are doing your thing where you take multiple elements of an issue and you mix them up back and forth. Stop doing that please.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
The problem with what you are saying is that you seem to think both parents SHOULD WORK, and you actually explicitly said the reason for public education is to "free up a parent to work."

That is just insane. That is NOT the purpose of public education.

I don't believe it is to free up a parent to work. I believe it is to deal with the fact that historically, it was more efficient to teach a lot of people utiizing one teacher, and the reason it was more efficient is that it freed up the parents to work. Sure, the parents in a rural society were working at home, but it's hard to teach your kid to read and milk the cows, draw the water, mix the flour, bake the break, sew the clothes... Well. You get the idea.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Both parents working is a serious rot in our culture. There are a bunch of reasons for it, but it is NOT a good thing for children at all. Sometimes it has to happen, which is a shame, but having to do something out of necessity does not magically transform that into a good thing. The sooner we start understanding that as a culture, the better off we will be.

Stipulating as I believe you mean to that both parents working outside the home is a serious rot, I might agree with you. Problematically, it is getting to be more and more the necessity in our modern culture.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Finally, there is no labor cost to home schooling. At least one parent should already be home with the kids, if this world wasn't totally fucked up. Understand?

But the world IS totally fucked up. So what do you want me to say, do, or believe about a figure which you now explain in minute detail that I understood the minute I saw it the first time your showed it to me. It does not, to my mind, apply to much of anything that is relevant to today's culture.

I wish things were just like you say you think they ought to be. The only tiny thing we disagree about is the interpretation of one statistic you tossed up in a hord of things to support the idea of trying vouchers. I agree we should try vouchers.

How much agreement do you require?

Originally posted by Aristotle
Lokrian, you are doing your thing where you take multiple elements of an issue and you mix them up back and forth. Stop doing that please.

I can't stop doing this and even come close to expressing what is on my mind. Possibly yours is simply the wrong forum for me to try to talk politics in. I tend to look at all issues from multiple angles. I have never had that be a real problem before for anyone. Some people fail to see the connections I want to draw, and when they do they just tell me so. Ultimately, those kinds of things can just be things to agree to disagree about. If my ideas are as insane as they seem to come across to you, surely everyone will see it? Right?

I am truly, truly sorry this is not working out to be tolerable for you to have me here. I am actually making a concerted effort, believe it or not! It's... dissapointing. To say the least.

[Cyrinne]

Originally posted by Aristotle
I am sure that's what they tell you, but that's just the company line.

Not quite. The NEA used to have on their website points of praise for school systems that gave out salary increases for Board Certified teachers, and worked at least in this area to help teachers pay for certification classes as well. The National Board judges teacher performance based on hours of videotapes, lesson plans, observation and reflection, as well as the data he or she brings back from the classroom. It's costly and time consuming which is why it is voluntary. But from what I've seen of NBC teachers, it is an extremely valuable measure. Last year I knew five who attempted to get certification. One did. I like to think I'm a good teacher, but I'm honestly not sure if I could manage it.

I don't defend a lot of what the NEA does. I am a member of the MCEA because it is often that teachers and administrators are not on the same side, and I need someone to help me fight for my planning time and my cost of living increases. But when classic conservative/liberal and good/evil lines are drawn against the organization, I just think it needs to be looked at through a bigger lens.

As far as NCLB is concerned, yes it doesn't require that every kid pass the test. It looks at results overall. But time and time again the results are lacking in the same poor areas. The point I was making that Dalaena asked about, is that it is easy for an entire class to meet standard in an upper middle class school. It is much more challenging in a poorer school. And that is not because rich parents are more involved, necessarily. Some are, but some aren't. For every stable upper middle class home where one parent stays home or works part time to care for the child, there is an unstable one where mom and dad are both lawyers who spoil and ignore him.

NCLB requires school improvement plans, but they don't ultimately use them to judge success or failure. You meet standard or you don't, period after your 'chances' are up. And when schools end up taken over by the state and the companies the state sends in, the teachers usually leave to be replaced by who knows who. So it either leaves the students who couldn't use their vouchers or get into the other local public schools in an even worse place, or you end up with an empty useless building and a waste of money.

So it just boils down to a wealth of issues that are working in tandem with one another to create the challenges that schools today are facing. My point with this, and with all of my posts really is that none of this is easy. Education is a touchy issue because people have very strong opinions on it. Many people are parents and everyone has been a student so we are all very connected to this topic. But no one party's talking points have come forth with the right answer yet.

I firmly wish that the federal goverment would back the heck off for a while. That way different states and local goverments could try their thing, and perhaps somewhere among the lot of us, someone would figure out something that worked well. They could contact the rest of us and we could give it a whirl.

[Gadiantor]

Originally posted by Aristotle
That doesn't mean everyone should home school. But it does mean that throwing more money at the public school system, or making kids spend more time at school, or giving them more homework, are definitely NOT the answer.

I don't see how you draw the conclusion about money from the comparison of cost of home schooling to public schooling. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

The apple will be home schooling. It is cheaper and gets better results. That is obvious, but the reason isn't because less money is spent. I think the reason it is better is because there is a lower student to teacher ratio. This allows the teach to tailor the education style to the student(s) and the teacher can give very focused attention and get results. This is all done with little to no overhead, so the costs are very low. It is an awesome way to educate your kids!

The orange is the public school system. It is more expensive and requires heavy parental involvement to get good results. There will typically be 20-30 students per teacher, and there is the overhead of administration, transportation, food, and electricity to add on top of the teacher salary.

Just because the apple is cheaper and better doesn't mean that spending more money to grow better oranges is wrong. I do, however, agree that throwing money at a problem will not make it go away. I have no doubt that tons of money is wasted on administration and inefficiency in public schools. We could definitely get more bang for the buck out of public schools, but that is an independent issue from how much it costs to home school.

My wife considered home schooling our children, but we decided to send them to public school. In our opinion we are still responsible for the education of our children, the public school system is just a tool for us to use. Mostly because we’re fortunate to have a very good elementary school despite most of the kids coming from low income families.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Cyrinne
Not quite. The NEA used to have on their website

*chuckle* Cyrinne, of course they have the bullshit company line on their web site. That doesn't change what they actually DO politically.

Of course their web site focusses on simple things like praise for giving teachers wage increases.

Originally posted by Cyrinne
But when classic conservative/liberal and good/evil lines are drawn against the organization, I just think it needs to be looked at through a bigger lens.

The NEA is a blatant and obvious leftist political organization. They consistently and repeatedly use their money to support liberal political issues outside the scope of education. If that doesn't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what they are, nothing could.

Originally posted by Cyrinne
As far as NCLB is concerned, yes it doesn't require that every kid pass the test. It looks at results overall. But time and time again the results are lacking in the same poor areas.

GOOD! Then those kids get the option to go to a different school other than the failing one they would otherwise be stuck with. That's the whole point of NCLB. When a kid is in a school with a failing grade, the school board cannot continue to force the kid to go to that school.