Obama vs. McCain education plans

[Al6200]

Obama's Plan:

-Weaken the power of No Child Left Behind.

-Quadruple funding for pre-school programs for low income children.

-Encourage schools to hire Math/Science teachers with Math/Science degrees (today most math/science teachers having teaching degrees with a concentration in Math/Science)

-Saturday school and extra advising for failing middle school students

-Double Federal funding for after school programs

-Pay for the education of teachers who work for at least 4 years at underperforming and low income schools

-Merit pay for teachers who act as mentors to new teachers

-Government will give everyone who goes to college a $4000 per year tax credit.

-Get rid of the application for financial aid and include it in the parent's tax returns.

McCain's Plan:

-Strengthen No Child Left Behind

-Support voucher schools and home-schooling

(If Obama's plan seems way more detailed then McCain's, that's because it is)
------------------------

What amuses to me to no end about these politicians is that neither one is actually interested in changing the basic principle of No Child Left Behind, only strengthening or weakening it. Having gone through Middle School and High School under No Child Left Behind, I can firmly say that it is fundamentally a good idea, and needs to be strengthened.

The problem is that the tests are too easy and there is incentive for students to perform beyond a certain score. For example, in my High School, all kids were taught to take the HSAs, but no one really gave a crap because only a few kids failed every year. If the Federal Gov gave students a stipend or an enhanced diploma for getting certain scores, then maybe kids would start to care.

The other serious problem with today's education system is what I call "The culture of underachievement". I can't remember a time where a teacher or adviser told me to study more or work harder, but I can remember plenty of times where I was told that it was better to not overextend yourself or work too hard. There's also a culture that students should get straight As whether they work for it or not.

Quite frankly, the curricula in today's schools is too easy and shallow.

Oh, and finally I think that children's SATs or IQ (if available) should be correlated with performance on HSAs and advanced High School tests. Teacher's who students overperform what their IQ predicts should get extra merit pay.

So who here supports Obama's plan? McCain's?

[Drakim]

At 7/30/08 03:47 PM, Al6200 wrote: Obama's Plan:

-Weaken the power of No Child Left Behind.

-Quadruple funding for pre-school programs for low income children.

-Encourage schools to hire Math/Science teachers with Math/Science degrees (today most math/science teachers having teaching degrees with a concentration in Math/Science)

-Saturday school and extra advising for failing middle school students

-Double Federal funding for after school programs

-Pay for the education of teachers who work for at least 4 years at underperforming and low income schools

-Merit pay for teachers who act as mentors to new teachers

-Government will give everyone who goes to college a $4000 per year tax credit.

-Get rid of the application for financial aid and include it in the parent's tax returns.

McCain's Plan:

-Strengthen No Child Left Behind

-Support voucher schools and home-schooling

(If Obama's plan seems way more detailed then McCain's, that's because it is)
------------------------

What amuses to me to no end about these politicians is that neither one is actually interested in changing the basic principle of No Child Left Behind, only strengthening or weakening it. Having gone through Middle School and High School under No Child Left Behind, I can firmly say that it is fundamentally a good idea, and needs to be strengthened.

The problem is that the tests are too easy and there is incentive for students to perform beyond a certain score. For example, in my High School, all kids were taught to take the HSAs, but no one really gave a crap because only a few kids failed every year. If the Federal Gov gave students a stipend or an enhanced diploma for getting certain scores, then maybe kids would start to care.

The other serious problem with today's education system is what I call "The culture of underachievement". I can't remember a time where a teacher or adviser told me to study more or work harder, but I can remember plenty of times where I was told that it was better to not overextend yourself or work too hard. There's also a culture that students should get straight As whether they work for it or not.

Quite frankly, the curricula in today's schools is too easy and shallow.

Oh, and finally I think that children's SATs or IQ (if available) should be correlated with performance on HSAs and advanced High School tests. Teacher's who students overperform what their IQ predicts should get extra merit pay.

So who here supports Obama's plan? McCain's?

I support Obamas, mostly because I'm not a fan of homeschooling and I don't think No Child Left Behind is a good idea. Although it's a positive to employ measures to ensure that children don't quietly fall behind, I'm not a fan of tests. Repeated tests are even worse. Obama also puts more empasis on educating the poor of society, which could help hinder poverty.

This is because I feel that it forces children to study to complete tests instead of actually studying to gain knowledge. Even though understanding a subject is a nice way to ace a test, just memorizing everything for the test works too, and from my experience, that is what those students who are left behind tends to do. It's simply a much easier and faster option.

Although, I don't know any good replacement for classical tests, you can't just cut out tests completely and leave a big gap. I'd say having no more tests than necessary would be optimal, and instead try alternative ways of checking up on the students, such as projects that require knowledge in the subject.

But it's not really one of my best topics. Most of my opinions are blatantly unchallenged and not so deeply reflected upon.

[CIX]

Obama's $4000 tax credit is for people who do 100 hours of community service. So people are being paid $40 an hour just to do community service. <sarcasm>That certainly won't raise the tuition prices.</sarcasm>

Government schools are just a failure. They should be privatized through a homestead act that gives schools to the best company that has a better graduation rate and scores.

[Ravariel]

At 7/30/08 03:47 PM, Al6200 wrote: Obama's Plan:

-Weaken the power of No Child Left Behind.

Excellent.

-Quadruple funding for pre-school programs for low income children.

Actually, I had to look this up, as I remember hearing that studies had shown little to no benefit to pre-K education... but I was wrong. Several studies done by reputable institutions like the Pew Charitable Trusts and the NEA have shown a lowered crimerate and better performance in K-12. So bully for this idea.

-Encourage schools to hire Math/Science teachers with Math/Science degrees (today most math/science teachers having teaching degrees with a concentration in Math/Science)

VERY good idea. The level of math and science available and necessary for college and even just the job market, is increasing... having teachers that can actually answer complex questions with their own knowledge instead of having to turn to the Textbook is an excellent thing for the kids.

-Saturday school and extra advising for failing middle school students

...could work.

-Double Federal funding for after school programs

...could work.

-Pay for the education of teachers who work for at least 4 years at underperforming and low income schools

Awesomest idea EVER. Seriously. What better way to get more teachers, and better teachers into underperforming schools than this? Granted something like 60% of teachers quit after their first year (it's a brutal job) and this could exacerbate that, but the positive effect on kids in underprivilaged schools could be immense.

-Merit pay for teachers who act as mentors to new teachers

Could help with the turnover problem, for sure.

-Government will give everyone who goes to college a $4000 per year tax credit.

During school only or forever?

-Get rid of the application for financial aid and include it in the parent's tax returns.

Not sure what this would do at all...

McCain's Plan:

-Strengthen No Child Left Behind

Teaching to tests does nothing to actually add knowledge to children. We need to teach them how to think and problem solve, not just retain disparate facts.

-Support voucher schools and home-schooling

No and Yes, respectively. Vouchers help some kids, yes... what they also do is turn low-quality schools into shitholes. To benefit some while you GREATLY disadvantage others is no solution. If we can raise the bar all around, that is better... to simply broaden the gap between the good and bad schools is pointless. Also, rural communities find ZERO benefit from vouchers.

Homeschooling is an amazing idea, and should be done, if not for the entirety of a child's life, at least for some of it. National test scores naturally IMPROVE over the summer months when kids are at home, learning what they want to learn, how they learn best, and at the pace that they find the best. My own 4 years of homeschooling was the best thing my parents ever did for my education.

Having gone through Middle School and High School under No Child Left Behind, I can firmly say that it is fundamentally a good idea, and needs to be strengthened.

How so? I realize that a way to gauge the performance of kids, to determine if they're ready to proceed is difficult without testing... but how does teaching to a test better prepare a child for real-life problems, and higher learning which often requires a large amount of personal problem-solving and less sheer information retention?

Quite frankly, the curricula in today's schools is too easy and shallow.

Absolutely agreed. So how do we make it more difficult/deep without leaving kids who naturally learn slower/differently in the dust?

Oh, and finally I think that children's SATs or IQ (if available) should be correlated with performance on HSAs and advanced High School tests. Teacher's who students overperform what their IQ predicts should get extra merit pay.

IQ is a poor indicator of scholastic ability. I probably had the highest IQs in my class (only 33 were in my graduating class, so that's not quite as conceited as it might seem), but was lazy as hell in school, because everything was so easy. Ended up graduating 3rd even though I could have thought rings around the #1 and (less so) #2 spots.

IQ tests are also famously biased and unreliable, so introducing them to a nationwide school system would be unwise.

So who here supports Obama's plan? McCain's?

Obama's will have a much greater positive effect all around... McCain seems to think the last 8 years were positive for schools, otherwise he would want to introduce more changes.

[adrshepard]

At 7/30/08 04:51 PM, CIX wrote: Obama's $4000 tax credit is for people who do 100 hours of community service. So people are being paid $40 an hour just to do community service. <sarcasm>That certainly won't raise the tuition prices.</sarcasm>

Government schools are just a failure. They should be privatized through a homestead act that gives schools to the best company that has a better graduation rate and scores.

Wouldn't that simply encourage "companies" to focus only on set criteria rather than actual educational benefit? I would think if there was a silver bullet set of tests and curriculum it would have been recognized by now.

Incidentally, school does not make you smart, just better able to get a job. I know this because I went to an above-average college and still met a lot of stupid people. Real wisdom (presumably, as I see it) comes from experience and the proper attitude.

The real problem comes from the parents and the students themselves. Perhaps not every adult instills the same sense of urgency for academics, or spends as much time strengthening the fundamentals at an early age, or maybe they literally don't have the time. And so when the kid becomes mature, there's really no reason for him to change his behavior since he's grown up on it.

[Christopherr]

At 7/30/08 04:51 PM, CIX wrote: Obama's $4000 tax credit is for people who do 100 hours of community service. So people are being paid $40 an hour just to do community service.

If a student needs or wants money, he can get a fucking job like anyone else who needs or wants money. The government should not have to pay ridiculously high wages, higher than the hourly wages most of them will get with their college degree, just because someone is a student.

[hrb5711]

First off let me say Education is one of the few points I think Obama actually has some good ideas with. The problem with it is the $$$$$. He wants to put all this extra money into these programs and schools, which I agree with, the problem is I don't think we are economically stable enough to handle this. I think Obama's plan are to idealistic. While I think they are all valid programs and ideas that should happen, when the time is right, I am more worried about the time-frame in which he intends to implement them.

So I guess my opinion is Good ideas, bad timing.

[CIX]

At 7/30/08 10:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: Wouldn't that simply encourage "companies" to focus only on set criteria rather than actual educational benefit? I would think if there was a silver bullet set of tests and curriculum it would have been recognized by now.

Yup and now you know why government schools are worse than private schools. They focus on trying to get more graduates and higher scores for more government funding. I just think that homesteading would appeal to neoconservatives and neoliberals.

Private schools are cheaper, better quality, and they don't have to deal with teacher unions.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 7/30/08 11:41 PM, CIX wrote: Private schools are cheaper, better quality, and they don't have to deal with teacher unions.

Private schools may be cheaper over all, but not for the individual. They also tend to be very selective, and even with vouchers and whatever being introduced to the system to let people who couldn't otherwise afford it in, the number of palces availiable would still be restricted as Private schools tend not to be as large as Government run ones meaning less pupils can get in, and due to the fact its private, emphasis would be put on studetns who can pay normally.

They could of course build new facilities but that costs cash and means the price for tutition goes up.

The quality of the teaching has nothing to do with it being private, just simply that its better funded. if you can increase funding to government run schools you'd see an increase in their quality as well. getting companies to invest in schools would be alright if done correctly. Just maker sure its not how the British Government is doing it with the City Academies program which lets the company dictate the curriculum to the point where its posible for them to influence the outcome of the schools performance in certain areas by saying ' We're paying for this, we want you to focus on this subject', thus not giving the kids a roudned education.

If you can get companies investing in other ways...I dunno by say giving them tax breaks or whatever, then that would be better in my book.
Homeschooling is alright. I had to be homeschooled for a bit due screwing up my leg and not being able to walk on it. Having it as a part of a sumer or holiday routine would be fine, but it was hell doing it during term time. I had a proffessional tutor who had been doing the job for years, she was really ncie and a good teacher but the fact that I was just on my own 99% of the time was shit.

Maybe its different in the US, but in the UK the school is the focal point for the local community. If you're not at the school, there's a real chance the kid gets ostracised from the community.

But yeah...onto the main topic at hand:

Obama's plan in my mind is better simply because it's weakening no child left behind and it actually looks like he actually has a plan as opposed to Mcain who just has a rought sketch of what he'd like to do.

Teaching to tests is one of the worst ways to educate people. The teachers at my secondary school complained about having to teach useless tests like SAT's ( bear in mind I'm british and SAT's are different to the US version) which gvie the kids nothing. It restricts the curriculum, wastes time and it wastes money.

[SmilezRoyale]

I think they're both wrong... i always felt test centered education was rather silly... And i feel that obama's plan is a bit too [as someone said before] Idealistic, and would require large sums of money that really don't exist... Atleast not when you tack them onto the entire obama Budget.

Enough federal involvement in schools, period. They have no clue what's best for schools nationwide because not all schools are exactly the same. Freedom of individual states to do as they please gives them the ability to create systems that work best for them, and the benefits of a competitive education system are good enough that they don't require taxpayer dollars or vouchers; realistically they DO bring far more to a state than any of those could hope to achieve.

[Al6200]

At 7/30/08 04:51 PM, CIX wrote: Obama's $4000 tax credit is for people who do 100 hours of community service. So people are being paid $40 an hour just to do community service. <sarcasm>That certainly won't raise the tuition prices.</sarcasm>

The money would come from taxes, and do you have a source saying that it's for 100 hours of community service? There would be no increase in tuition. I know that my college pays about $1000 a year for doing 100 hours of work for the school, but 100 hours is non-trivial.

[Christopherr]

At 7/31/08 11:19 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 7/30/08 04:51 PM, CIX wrote: Obama's $4000 tax credit is for people who do 100 hours of community service. So people are being paid $40 an hour just to do community service. <sarcasm>That certainly won't raise the tuition prices.</sarcasm>

The money would come from taxes, and do you have a source saying that it's for 100 hours of community service? There would be no increase in tuition. I know that my college pays about $1000 a year for doing 100 hours of work for the school, but 100 hours is non-trivial.

Well, going on the premise that a penny saved is a penny earned, a $4000 tax credit is the same as a wage... Probably more, because I doubt you'd have to pay taxes on your tax credit.

"For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service."
-AARP Bulletin

If that's not good enough... Here's him actually saying it.

[Al6200]

Hmmm. Thanks for the link Christopher. Anywho, I think the $4000 tax credit is a good idea, but I think that it should be conditional on an analysis of what the student is actually going to be doing. For example, it's dumb for the government to pay $30,000 for someone to study French poetry if on average people who have similar SATs/Grades/plans/etc to that kid don't end up paying an additional 30000 * e^(.05 * T) in taxes.

Actuaries do those sorts of the calculations all the time, so I don't think it would be infeasible for the government to determine eligibility.

[Al6200]

At 7/31/08 07:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

Disagree with merit pay.

I teach at a low performing inncer city school. My students come to me at least 2 years BELOW grade level. We test (standardized) twice, once at the beginning, once at the end. This is to see if the students are making progress [and that I am doing my job] which I have no problem with.

Firstly, kudos for teaching to lower income children. Secondly, I agree that merit pay must be relative to the preparation and mental faculties of the students when they enter the class.

My students always make substantial progress and I am a good teacher.

What do you teach?

The fact that a teacher at an easier setting should get a pay increase because her students perform higher than mine on a test is ridiculous because I am working just as hard.

Agreed, and Obama's plan has them earning considerably more (if you consider the money they'll save on college, and any interest they could earn on that money).

One thing I will agree with you on is that we need to raise our standards. You get from children what you expect out of them. If you allow poor behavior, you get more poor behvior. If you expect good behavior, you get more of that.

Exactly. I've never been a teacher, only a student - but I've always found that I do best when I plan to accept nothing less than perfection.

[adrshepard]

At 7/31/08 07:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I teach at a low performing inncer city school. My students come to me at least 2 years BELOW grade level. We test (standardized) twice, once at the beginning, once at the end. This is to see if the students are making progress [and that I am doing my job] which I have no problem with.

As a teacher then, you could probably vouch for the fact that state education programs are just as annoying and inefficient, right? I know in PA, from my mother who teaches special ed, every two or so years some genuises get the idea to radically change testing standards and methodology in bizarre ways.
One example was state math tests. Given a certain number of arithmetic problems with a short time limit, the students would be scored not on their answers but on the number of correct digits! As if that weren't enough, the number of questions answered was factored in as well so that the more "advanced" students would answer more questions. My bro and I are college graduates, took the test, and it said we should be entering 7th grade.

[Al6200]

So when it graded the kids on the number of digits, was that significant figures?

I never really got significant figures until my senior year of high school.

[freddorfman]

At 7/30/08 03:47 PM, Al6200 wrote: Teacher's who students overperform what their IQ predicts should get extra merit pay.

i disagree just IQ does not determine how good they are they should get merit based on
charchter as well

[Al6200]

At 8/1/08 03:27 PM, freddorfman wrote:

i disagree just IQ does not determine how good they are they should get merit based on
charchter as well

No, what I mean is that if a student who gets a 2030 on the SAT before taking the class, on the national average gets a 3/5 on the AP exam, and a certain teacher gets a class with an SAT average of 1900 to average 4/5 on the AP exam, then the teacher should get paid extra.

And when I said IQ I wasn't thinking hard enough. It would make more sense to base merit pay off of outperforming their general preparation and reasoning skills. Thankfully sophomores already take a test for that : ) (the PSATs).

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/30/08 03:47 PM, Al6200 wrote:

-Weaken the power of No Child Left Behind.

Good.

-Quadruple funding for pre-school programs for low income children.

Bad.

-Encourage schools to hire Math/Science teachers with Math/Science degrees (today most math/science teachers having teaching degrees with a concentration in Math/Science)

Doesn't matter. The problem isn't teacher inexperience.

-Saturday school and extra advising for failing middle school students

Good.

-Double Federal funding for after school programs

BAD.

-Pay for the education of teachers who work for at least 4 years at underperforming and low income schools

Bad.

-Merit pay for teachers who act as mentors to new teachers

Bad.

-Government will give everyone who goes to college a $4000 per year tax credit.

Bad; keep giving them student loans. \

-Get rid of the application for financial aid and include it in the parent's tax returns.

Huh?

McCain's Plan:

-Strengthen No Child Left Behind

More like fix it and make it work; good.

-Support voucher schools and home-schooling

EXTREMELY good.

(If Obama's plan seems way more detailed then McCain's, that's because it is)
------------------------

If you're friend has a stab wound and is bleeding to death, and the only thing you need to do to save his life is remove the knife, then go with the guy with the simple idea.

What amuses to me to no end about these politicians is that neither one is actually interested in changing the basic principle of No Child Left Behind, only strengthening or weakening it. Having gone through Middle School and High School under No Child Left Behind, I can firmly say that it is fundamentally a good idea, and needs to be strengthened.

From what I've experienced (I've been is special ed/special day classes for children with emotional disturbances since my Freshmen year) it's a complete mess.

The problem is that the tests are too easy and there is incentive for students to perform beyond a certain score. For example, in my High School, all kids were taught to take the HSAs, but no one really gave a crap because only a few kids failed every year. If the Federal Gov gave students a stipend or an enhanced diploma for getting certain scores, then maybe kids would start to care.

Yeah. The California High School Exit Exam is like that. It's not supposed to be challanging, it's supposed to be a mandatory test before you can leave that proves you learned the most basic of HS knowledge; basically, to make sure no kids graduate that don't know how to read, like in the Southern States. The issue is that the HIGH SCHOOL exit exam is written at an 8th grade level; I think it should test all the knowledge a Freshmen would have learned by the very end of the school year.

The other serious problem with today's education system is what I call "The culture of underachievement". I can't remember a time where a teacher or adviser told me to study more or work harder, but I can remember plenty of times where I was told that it was better to not overextend yourself or work too hard. There's also a culture that students should get straight As whether they work for it or not.

Yeah, plus socialism.

Quite frankly, the curricula in today's schools is too easy and shallow.

It isn't easy, it's just horribly administered.

So who here supports Obama's plan? McCain's?

McCains, since capitalism will single handedly solve the education problem.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/31/08 04:00 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Private schools may be cheaper over all, but not for the individual.

Actually, they are usually the same price, or cheaper.

We just don't realize that because we're paying thousands upon thousands of dollars per person; the average kid gets 11,000 a year spent on him. 11,000 bucks can get into some NICE ass Private Schools.

They also tend to be very selective, and even with vouchers and whatever being introduced to the system to let people who couldn't otherwise afford it in, the number of palces availiable would still be restricted as Private schools tend not to be as large as Government run ones meaning less pupils can get in, and due to the fact its private, emphasis would be put on studetns who can pay normally.

The number would WILDLY increase to accommodate.

Remember, if someone in the Free Market wants to buy it, someone in the Free Market WILL be around to sell it to them.

And why would they care if the person COULD pay normally? Everyone WILL pay with vouchers, regardless of their money situation.

They could of course build new facilities but that costs cash and means the price for tutition goes up.

Or stay the same and watch new schools open.

The quality of the teaching has nothing to do with it being private, just simply that its better funded.

Actually, I'd rank the quality the same. The better teachers go to public schools because of a great pay and great benefits, but the teachers at private schools tend to be motivated better. Teachers in both private and public schools seem to be more invested in their jobs and caring for their customers then most other business people.

Either way, aside from the plain 'ol bad teachers, this generation of children is actually in REALLY good hands.

if you can increase funding to government run schools you'd see an increase in their quality as well.

Actually, we spend over twice as much as we need too, and real life examples show RADICAL increases in funding do NOTHING.

getting companies to invest in schools would be alright if done correctly. Just maker sure its not how the British Government is doing it with the City Academies program which lets the company dictate the curriculum to the point where its posible for them to influence the outcome of the schools performance in certain areas by saying ' We're paying for this, we want you to focus on this subject', thus not giving the kids a roudned education.

We don't need schools to have more money.

Maybe its different in the US, but in the UK the school is the focal point for the local community. If you're not at the school, there's a real chance the kid gets ostracised from the community.

Here if the kid doesn't go to school we all consider them idols, but it's obviously hard to make new friends or spend as much time with existing ones when you aren't around campus.

[therealsylvos]

At 7/30/08 10:45 PM, Ravariel wrote:

-Encourage schools to hire Math/Science teachers with Math/Science degrees (today most math/science teachers having teaching degrees with a concentration in Math/Science)

VERY good idea. The level of math and science available and necessary for college and even just the job market, is increasing... having teachers that can actually answer complex questions with their own knowledge instead of having to turn to the Textbook is an excellent thing for the kids.

Yes... however there is a downside.
This year I took a principles of investing course given by a guy who wasn't a professor, but a guy who was extremely successful on Wall street and even had a small stock brokerage house. He knew everything about the ins and outs of investing, but it was not a good course because he wasn't a teacher, he was an investor. He didn't teach with a sound unified curriculum, he got sidetracked very easily, he didn't do a good job of teaching from the bottom up, although he tried to.

I'm not so sure its such a great idea to encourage schools to hire people who aren't teachers.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/1/08 05:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

I'm not so sure its such a great idea to encourage schools to hire people who aren't teachers.

Also the fact that teachers aren't just taught a narrow curriculum, they are taught how to TEACH. you could be the smartest man on earth but not have an idea on how to properly give information.

[Al6200]

At 8/1/08 04:55 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/31/08 04:00 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Private schools may be cheaper over all, but not for the individual.

Actually, they are usually the same price, or cheaper.

We just don't realize that because we're paying thousands upon thousands of dollars per person; the average kid gets 11,000 a year spent on him. 11,000 bucks can get into some NICE ass Private Schools.

Really? Most nice private schools cost 50k a year (because the school often has an endowment the student usually pays less though), and a good private High School like Exeter costs 30k a year.

http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/147_166 .aspx

The only reason why private schools would cost less then public schools (aside from federal funding) is that they can only choose to admit students who don't have problems, so no money needs to be spent on one-on-ones for the mentally or emotionally handicapped (some kids have a single adult that helps them around the entire day, that's a HUGE amount of money).

Of course, it's not like that's a waste of money. If those kids didn't get that kind of help many would end up becoming criminals and costing the state much more money in the long run.

The number would WILDLY increase to accommodate.

Well, yeah.

Remember, if someone in the Free Market wants to buy it, someone in the Free Market WILL be around to sell it to them.

Would public schools be privatized?

And why would they care if the person COULD pay normally? Everyone WILL pay with vouchers, regardless of their money situation.

One interesting thing that a lot of people don't seem to think about with Voucher schools is the admissions process. Would it be illegal for voucher schools to be selective? If they did have admissions, what would happen to mentally retarded kids? How would they integrate? Also, how do you judge the merits of a middle schooler? I mean, at that age has the kid really separated their interests from what their parents push them towards?

Or stay the same and watch new schools open.

I have a strong feeling that most voucher schools would end up costing more than the voucher. But I think that's a good thing because it would create more diverse student populations.

Actually, I'd rank the quality the same. The better teachers go to public schools because of a great pay and great benefits, but the teachers at private schools tend to be motivated better. Teachers in both private and public schools seem to be more invested in their jobs and caring for their customers then most other business people.

True that.

Actually, we spend over twice as much as we need too, and real life examples show RADICAL increases in funding do NOTHING.

I guess it depends on where the funding goes. I mean, there's only so much you can do with a 6 year old, whether you have a bunch of awesome computers or not.

But I do think it would be neat if schools could have the financial resources to attract people with advanced degrees and real work experience to their staff. IMO that is the biggest benefit of voucher schools.

We don't need schools to have more money.

And I should point out that most private/voucher schools wouldn't be "companies" per se, they'd be private schools that operate on endowment. I.e, extra money goes into one big bank account rather than shareholders.

I think corporate-owned schools are a horrid idea for our High Schools, and not surprising most publically traded corporate colleges are not accredited (ITT tech, Devry, etc.). But there are a few gems out there like FullSail.

---------

On a final note, I think that the voucher should be a deposit into a personal education account, which one can draw out of for High School OR college expenses.

That would allow private high schools to offer scholarships for highly qualified students, which could create a balanced atmosphere similar to what exists in colleges today.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/1/08 04:55 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Actually, they are usually the same price, or cheaper.

We just don't realize that because we're paying thousands upon thousands of dollars per person; the average kid gets 11,000 a year spent on him. 11,000 bucks can get into some NICE ass Private Schools.

Yeah, but individual families may not have that 11,000 to fork out for it. I'm well aware that actually it works out more or less the same on price costs per student , but as the costs in a private school are paid by the parents solely that fact is irrelevant unless miraculously everyone can find that 11,000 per child to pay for it.

The number would WILDLY increase to accommodate.

Remember, if someone in the Free Market wants to buy it, someone in the Free Market WILL be around to sell it to them.

Only if they gain something from it though. what does the private school gain from accepting the students who otherwise couldn't afford it? A lot of them already do scholarships of sorts meaning that kids who were particualrly bright that they really wanted could get in anyway. There is no incentive to make them accept these extra kids.

And why would they care if the person COULD pay normally? Everyone WILL pay with vouchers, regardless of their money situation.

I was under the impression that vouchers would solely be for kids who'se parents couldn't afford it but ok, I'll work with this. Ignoring the fact that giving Government aid to people to who don't need it is a retarded idea in the first place...

If everyone is getting these vouchers, and therefore everyone can get into the really good schools you're still left with a situation where people get left in worse of schools cause the demand for places will outstrip the availiability, especially when suddenly everyone has the capability to get into them. The only way that kids from the disadvantaged background which are supposed to be helped from this sytem is if the schools in question are actually really charitable. Private schools are businesses they aren't going to be *that* charitable.

Also, I think you'd find that a voucher system for everyone would be hard to implement. By introducing vouchers private schools are then accepting large sums of government money meaning the government can legally step in and say ' I want you to do it like this', which it will do to be honest. In a sector that is used to being able to more or less do its own thing that wont go over too well especially as it limits the potential for the schools to turn a profit as they can then no longer charge what they like or charge to cover new costs as the government would jsut turn around and say 'no I'm not gonna pay this'.

Actually, I'd rank the quality the same. The better teachers go to public schools because of a great pay and great benefits, but the teachers at private schools tend to be motivated better. Teachers in both private and public schools seem to be more invested in their jobs and caring for their customers then most other business people.

If the quality of teaching is the same then why do inner city schools do worse than other ones? Using your logic they should all be working at the same level with only minor differences. I agree the teachers may all be of similar quality and motivation and the like, but if there is little difference in that respect what casues the dispersity in the results? Unless you're going to suggest that inner city kids are genetically dumber than suburban kids or whatever that only really leaves funding, either the amount or the manner in which it is spent.

Actually, we spend over twice as much as we need too, and real life examples show RADICAL increases in funding do NOTHING.

Who said anything about radical increases? My secondary school I went to failed its OFSTED inspection ( meaning it was one of the worst schools in the city, and I think possibly the country as well at the time). One of the things the UK government does when a school fails its inspection is it increases its funding, not massively, but enough to gvie it breathing room and to work out stuff properly. The school no longer has to choose between new gym equipment or English textbooks but can get both. This continues until the school is at a state where it is able to deliver satisfactory results set to the governments standrads.

You don't need to throw endless money at the problem. Just deliver it as and when it is needed. Is it a slightly bureaucratic response? Yeah it is, but it damn well works as I can attest to first hand. All you need to do is increase the rate of inspections at schools by a small amount and then give them more funding whislt they are deemed a failing school. Once they gt out of the failing school bracket teachers and admin at the school tend to do their damned best to stay out of it and the kids, in general, can do better so they don't have to go back into it.

[Al6200]

At 8/2/08 05:51 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Yeah, but individual families may not have that 11,000 to fork out for it. I'm well aware that actually it works out more or less the same on price costs per student , but as the costs in a private school are paid by the parents solely that fact is irrelevant unless miraculously everyone can find that 11,000 per child to pay for it.

You already pay for your kids education, albeit you pay over your entire life and either pay more or less than 11,000 overall.

Only if they gain something from it though. what does the private school gain from accepting the students who otherwise couldn't afford it? A lot of them already do scholarships of sorts meaning that kids who were particualrly bright that they really wanted could get in anyway. There is no incentive to make them accept these extra kids.

New schools would open up that would operate on vouchers.

I was under the impression that vouchers would solely be for kids who'se parents couldn't afford it but ok, I'll work with this. Ignoring the fact that giving Government aid to people to who don't need it is a retarded idea in the first place...

No, everyone gets a voucher...

It's just like the current education system where the government pays all K-12 tuition, except the parents can choose to have the money go to a private school instead.

If everyone is getting these vouchers, and therefore everyone can get into the really good schools you're still left with a situation where people get left in worse of schools cause the demand for places will outstrip the availiability, especially when suddenly everyone has the capability to get into them. The only way that kids from the disadvantaged background which are supposed to be helped from this sytem is if the schools in question are actually really charitable. Private schools are businesses they aren't going to be *that* charitable.

Private schools actually aren't businesses. In general they'll admit the most qualified applicants.

Also, I think you'd find that a voucher system for everyone would be hard to implement. By introducing vouchers private schools are then accepting large sums of government money meaning the government can legally step in and say ' I want you to do it like this', which it will do to be honest. In a sector that is used to being able to more or less do its own thing that wont go over too well especially as it limits the potential for the schools to turn a profit as they can then no longer charge what they like or charge to cover new costs as the government would jsut turn around and say 'no I'm not gonna pay this'.

The general philosophy behind voucher schools is that the schools compete, so that the government doesn't need to mandate standards.

If the quality of teaching is the same then why do inner city schools do worse than other ones? Using your logic they should all be working at the same level with only minor differences. I agree the teachers may all be of similar quality and motivation and the like, but if there is little difference in that respect what casues the dispersity in the results? Unless you're going to suggest that inner city kids are genetically dumber than suburban kids or whatever that only really leaves funding, either the amount or the manner in which it is spent.

Private schools spend more money on their students, generally teach them more, and only select a small sample of students. That probably explains any performance disparity.

Who said anything about radical increases? My secondary school I went to failed its OFSTED inspection ( meaning it was one of the worst schools in the city, and I think possibly the country as well at the time). One of the things the UK government does when a school fails its inspection is it increases its funding, not massively, but enough to gvie it breathing room and to work out stuff properly. The school no longer has to choose between new gym equipment or English textbooks but can get both. This continues until the school is at a state where it is able to deliver satisfactory results set to the governments standrads.

Well yes...

You don't need to throw endless money at the problem. Just deliver it as and when it is needed. Is it a slightly bureaucratic response? Yeah it is, but it damn well works as I can attest to first hand. All you need to do is increase the rate of inspections at schools by a small amount and then give them more funding whislt they are deemed a failing school. Once they gt out of the failing school bracket teachers and admin at the school tend to do their damned best to stay out of it and the kids, in general, can do better so they don't have to go back into it.

Right, but there are problems at schools that have more than sufficient funding.

[WolvenBear]

At 8/2/08 12:32 AM, Al6200 wrote: Really? Most nice private schools cost 50k a year (because the school often has an endowment the student usually pays less though), and a good private High School like Exeter costs 30k a year.

Exeter is also a boarding school. If you take out rent and food, and other stuff, evenExeter is cheaper than that.

The only reason why private schools would cost less then public schools (aside from federal funding) is that they can only choose to admit students who don't have problems, so no money needs to be spent on one-on-ones for the mentally or emotionally handicapped (some kids have a single adult that helps them around the entire day, that's a HUGE amount of money).

You're not going to find a single normal private school that doesn't help it's less able students.
The "private schools discriminate: meme is based off the fac that you have to have passing grades to get in...

[Al6200]

At 8/4/08 04:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/2/08 12:32 AM, Al6200 wrote: Really? Most nice private schools cost 50k a year (because the school often has an endowment the student usually pays less though), and a good private High School like Exeter costs 30k a year.

Exeter is also a boarding school. If you take out rent and food, and other stuff, evenExeter is cheaper than that.

30k is just tuition.

http://www.exeter.edu/admissions/147_166 .aspx

Every private school I applied to cost 40-50k if one includes room and board.

You're not going to find a single normal private school that doesn't help it's less able students.

In my experience (from applying to schools), the lower tier private schools will offer a lot of merit aid for their top applicants, and the higher tier private schools mostly offer need based aid.

The "private schools discriminate: meme is based off the fac that you have to have passing grades to get in...

If we moved to a pure voucher system we'd probably start to see very selective high schools. How would mentally handicapped kids who need lots of attention end up interacting with normal kids then?