Studies show Republicans privatizing of public schools a costly failure

[Ariux]

That chart shows Charter schools are a success. They've saved the city millions of dollars while increasing the academic performance of students across the district.

 

[Flopper]

Charter schools are mostly just a variant of the same socialized educational system because they still depend on societies to pay them.

The fact that the schools themselves aren't controlled by the government isn't really a big deal because the government still controls their finances.

He who has the gold still rules the schools, kiddies.

.

And that is exactly why private schools can never replace public schools. For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds. Private schools have said no to the charter school movement because they want autonomy.

The only answer to improving education is to improve our public schools, not destroying.

 

[Truthmatters]

Privatizonation of Medicare and the prison systmes have also been failures so far.
In that they cost taxpayers more than the traditional way of doing things.

Gee who would have thought adding PROFIT to the equation would increase cost?

Only people with functioning brains

 

[eflatminor]

For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.

Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.

There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.

 

[Flopper]

For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.

Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.

There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.

Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.

 

[eflatminor]

For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.

Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.

There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.

Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.

The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?

Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.

Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!

 

[Flopper]

Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.

There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.

Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.

The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?

Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.

Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.

 

[ShackledNation]

This data is absolutely meaningless. First of all, it only looks at schools in New York city. That hardly is a testament to charter vs. public schools across the nation. Second, even the compiler of the data admits it is questionable. He says so himself in his research:

Though I was opposed to the release of this data because of how poorly it measures teacher quality, I was hopeful that when I got my hands on all this data, I would find it useful.

This suggests that if the data seemed to show charter schools were better, the researcher would have dismissed it as inaccurate, yet he was surprised to find out he could use it too help his case. There seems to be some dishonesty involved here.

Furthermore, the data only analzyes one year of schooling. Judging an entire system based on one single year is absurd.

The study even controls for demographics, assuming some kids will learn better than others. This is a questionable method, if not discriminatory.

So before us we have a study that:
1. Looks only at one city
2. Looks only at one year of education
3. Is based on data even the researcher calls "questionable."

It may be that public schools are better than charter schools. That is a debate worth having. But drawing any meaningful conclusion from the study provided is unacceptable, irrational, and potentially dishonest.

 

[Staidhup]

Charter schools work, regardless of what the teachers union claim. So to this rant BULL SHIT! If it were true, the President would not be sending his children to a private school would he? Why is it that people that can afford to pay for private school send their children to private school if both were equal? Why is it that teachers union's fight the concept of charter schools? Let the people decide and right on how they wish their children to be educated!

 

[dblack]

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school.

Yeah... what's the use in redistributing wealth if there aren't strings attached? The whole point is control.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Privatizonation of Medicare and the prison systmes have also been failures so far.
In that they cost taxpayers more than the traditional way of doing things.

Gee who would have thought adding PROFIT to the equation would increase cost?

Only people with functioning brains

Gee, who would have thought acting like you are adding profit to the equation when you aren't would increase costs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.

The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?

Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.

Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.

I am pointing out the obvious here, but that is exactly what the government does in the name of public education. The only requirement for a school getting tax money from all the various agencies out there that hand out checks is that they set themselves up as a government agency. When was the last time the feds asked a local school district if their teachers were qualified before they wrote a check, or if their administrators had any experience in actually running a school district? Yet, for some reason, when conservatives point out how absurd that is people line up to say they hate education.

 

[eflatminor]

Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.

The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?

Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.

Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.

I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.

 

[blimpo]

Charter schools work, regardless of what the teachers union claim. So to this rant BULL SHIT! If it were true, the President would not be sending his children to a private school would he? Why is it that people that can afford to pay for private school send their children to private school if both were equal? Why is it that teachers union's fight the concept of charter schools? Let the people decide and right on how they wish their children to be educated!

Because charter schools are not providing careers in teaching which will hurt classroom teaching performance in the long run. I envision schools staffed by Kelly Services with any warm bodies they can find.

The pay is sub par, benefits, if they exist at all stink, and your job is dependent on kids' test scores. Teacher turnover is a factor and turnover will increase.

How many will go into teaching when they find the security of their job hinges on the work ethic of 13 year old kids?

I guess many on here would think it was "cool" to see your charter school teacher working the drive-up at Burger King or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart on the second shift.

Disciplining a kid might cause a parent to call and complain putting your job in jeopardy. Better turn your head. Assigning bad grades might draw complaints also.

Welcome to the world of the new charter school teacher.

I guess the up side is your kid might not have to have the same teacher for a whole year, might have 3 or 4 before it's over. Damned be consistancy. Variety is the spice of life....

 

[blimpo]

Most on here with solutions don't have a clue as to what goes on daily in a classroom.

Until the family returns as a nurturing supporting unit for these kids, you can blame unions, onions, teachers, and preachers; but nothing will change.

We have just finished our state standardized tests. Several kids in the classroom finished a 50 minute reading comprehension test in less than 8 minutes. They don't care.

I know of no teacher that is glad to see kids loaf when they are assigned work. I know of no teacher that is thrilled when students return in the morning with homework assignments ignored. I know of no teacher that is happy to see bad attitudes in a classroom toward learning.

By punishing teachers the wrong target is in the sights. If I were the parents of some of these kids I'd be ashamed to let them out the front door in the morning with their lack of self-discipline and spoiled brat attitudes.

We are blaming the schools and teachers for the lack of self-discipline shown by the kids. This is something where I thought we all had enough common sense to never do.

Spend a day in a classroom and your attitudes will change so fast your heads will swim. You will be stunned...

 

[Flopper]

Charter schools work, regardless of what the teachers union claim. So to this rant BULL SHIT! If it were true, the President would not be sending his children to a private school would he? Why is it that people that can afford to pay for private school send their children to private school if both were equal? Why is it that teachers union's fight the concept of charter schools? Let the people decide and right on how they wish their children to be educated!

It sounds like your're confusing charter schools and private schools. Private schools charge tuition and do not receive government support. Charter schools are part of the public education system. They receive government funding and are not allowed to charge tuition nor can they have a selective admission policy; they are open to all students. Although Charters must meet most of the requirements of public schools, they are allowed more autonomy.

Most educators are opposed to charter schools because they suck money out of the public school system. However, the real problem is that they create charters to appeal to parents and special interest groups. Because these parents have some memories of what schooling is -- and from a student's perspective, of course -- they feel they are qualified to evaluate the educational policy of the school. The test scores we are seeing from charter schools certainly don't indicate that they are the answer to our education problems.

 

[Flopper]

The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?

Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.

Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.

I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.

Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.

The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school. But is this really so? Given that private schools can pick and choose students, and thus enroll students whose socio-economic backgrounds and parent education levels are generally higher that those of public school students, it would not be surprising if they were to outperform public schools significantly. The surprise is they don't; private school students on average score only slightly better. When we dump mediocre to low performing students into private schools, test scores will not be any better than public schools.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Studies show Republicans privatizing of public schools a costly failure

We didn’t need any studies to tell us what we already know.

And that is exactly why private schools can never replace public schools. For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds. Private schools have said no to the charter school movement because they want autonomy.

The only answer to improving education is to improve our public schools, not destroying.

Correct.

 

[dblack]

The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school.

Really?

That's certainly not my motivation.

 

[eflatminor]

The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.

I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.

Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.

Vouchers would be at the state level. The feds should have no place in education.

The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school. But is this really so? Given that private schools can pick and choose students, and thus enroll students whose socio-economic backgrounds and parent education levels are generally higher that those of public school students, it would not be surprising if they were to outperform public schools significantly.

Here's the thing. In a free market, there are all kinds of niches that get filled. Where there's a demand, there will be a supplier. I'm suggesting that the hyper focus on performance through standardized testing would cease to dominate how we differentiate schools. Demand for schools that provide a diversity of educational opportunities would spring forth in place of our one size fits all approach. We desperately need innovation, creativity, and efficiency in the education market. Only competition can provide that.

When we dump mediocre to low performing students into private schools, test scores will not be any better than public schools.

When have such students been "dumped" into private schools...and I don't mean charters? Whether your assumption is true or not, the point is in a free market, those students would have the option of attending schools that specialize in meeting their needs. Or, maybe one of those low performing students happens to favor playing the piano. His attends the school that emphasizes the arts. Maybe another of the mediocre students decides college prep isn't for him so he attends a trade school, learns to become a killer chef...whatever! The point is, schools like that wouldn't bother comparing test scores, they'd sell their services like any other business. We need choice in education and the options that only a free market can provide.