What about this?

[Unkotare]

Since many of our public K-12 schools have proven to be failures no matter how much money is dumped into them, and since many of our private K-12 schools are so excellent that thousands upon thousands of students from around the world - yes even in great numbers from those very countries that some like to hold up as exemplars of educational excellence - compete for a chance to enroll, why not (unless or until we scrap the idea of 'public' education altogether) work with our strengths?

Take a list of the top 50 private schools in any heavily populated area and provide them an incentive to take in the most promising students from the most poorly-performing public schools in that area. These schools could offer a test - something like the SSAT for example - and provide the top 3 (or 5 or whatever) scorers from each school with a completely free education at these excellent private schools. This would represent a value of some $30,000/yr in some cases. The top performers would earn a very great opportunity, and those who didn't make the cut (and their families) would hopefully be greatly motivated to work hard to earn that same kind of opportunity the next time the test was offered. The private schools, for their part, would be offered a very significant tax benefit for every X number of students so enrolled. Any students in this program who did not maintain a certain GPA, or who acted inappropriately - even just once - could be summarily and permanently expelled; no appeals, no questions asked. A spot opens up for the next kid in line according to test results.

Most of the better private schools already offer financial aid for deserving but economically struggling students, but this would encourage and add incentive to pro-actively seek out those languishing in shitty schools and offer them a great chance at something of great value. Who would seize that opportunity and what they would do with it would be up to the individual student in question (with their hopefully motivated [and hopefully existent] family).

I already see many problems with this idea myself, but I thought I'd let you have fun shooting holes in it as a break from the "Your political party is destroying America!!!!!!" threads.

 

[DGS49]

Ahem.

Expensive private schools, because of their prohibitive cost, primarily benefit the offspring of high achievers. They are not randomly selected from the population at large. For this reason ALONE, one would expect their academic performance to be superior to the "average." Good genes, if you will.

Add to that, most highly-achieving parents will not accept mediocrity in their kids, and will supplement the school's teaching efforts with tutors, coaches, targeted academic "camps," and so on, as well as some assistance by the parents themselves.

Poor kids that are plopped into those schools - no matter how creatively - are not going to have these advantages.

Being a product of an exemplary parochial school system, and having seen the differences with public schools, it helps a whole bunch when you can (1) expel troublemakers, (2) enforce classroom discipline, and (3) separate students according to ability level. And if you can avoid "mainstreaming" those with learning problems, it is a big help to everybody else.

Finally, don't ever, ever, ever, EVER allow a labor union to represent the teachers.

Those measures would solve a lot of educational problems in our public schools.

 

[Unkotare]

So, you don't think there are any potential "high achievers" among the poor? All kids who are forced to attend shitty public schools are inherently stupid? Is that your view?

 

[Esmeralda]

Since many of our public K-12 schools have proven to be failures no matter how much money is dumped into them, and since many of our private K-12 schools are so excellent that thousands upon thousands of students from around the world - yes even in great numbers from those very countries that some like to hold up as exemplars of educational excellence - compete for a chance to enroll, why not (unless or until we scrap the idea of 'public' education altogether) work with our strengths?

Take a list of the top 50 private schools in any heavily populated area and provide them an incentive to take in the most promising students from the most poorly-performing public schools in that area. These schools could offer a test - something like the SSAT for example - and provide the top 3 (or 5 or whatever) scorers from each school with a completely free education at these excellent private schools. This would represent a value of some $30,000/yr in some cases. The top performers would earn a very great opportunity, and those who didn't make the cut (and their families) would hopefully be greatly motivated to work hard to earn that same kind of opportunity the next time the test was offered. The private schools, for their part, would be offered a very significant tax benefit for every X number of students so enrolled. Any students in this program who did not maintain a certain GPA, or who acted inappropriately - even just once - could be summarily and permanently expelled; no appeals, no questions asked. A spot opens up for the next kid in line according to test results.

Most of the better private schools already offer financial aid for deserving but economically struggling students, but this would encourage and add incentive to pro-actively seek out those languishing in shitty schools and offer them a great chance at something of great value. Who would seize that opportunity and what they would do with it would be up to the individual student in question (with their hopefully motivated [and hopefully existent] family).

I already see many problems with this idea myself, but I thought I'd let you have fun shooting holes in it as a break from the "Your political party is destroying America!!!!!!" threads.

One of the main reasons private schools do better than public schools is because of small class size. There may be only 12 to 15 students per class, max. 20, as opposed to 30-35 in public schools. Also parents are more involved. There are unpromising students in private schools in just a high a number as in private schools, but they often do better simply because of the small classes and the proximity to more students with promise and parents who are involved. It is usually the parents of the 'good' kids in both public and private schools who are involved and which results in better results for those kids.

The money put into public education should be to have smaller schools, smaller populations in schools, smaller classes, and more teachers per student. Training parents to care, however, is another matter. How you can do that is the unanswerable question. I think the US needs a complete paradigm shift away from how it currently thinks of the purpose and value of education and educators.

 

[Esmeralda]

Ahem.

Expensive private schools, because of their prohibitive cost, primarily benefit the offspring of high achievers. They are not randomly selected from the population at large. For this reason ALONE, one would expect their academic performance to be superior to the "average." Good genes, if you will.

Add to that, most highly-achieving parents will not accept mediocrity in their kids, and will supplement the school's teaching efforts with tutors, coaches, targeted academic "camps," and so on, as well as some assistance by the parents themselves.

Poor kids that are plopped into those schools - no matter how creatively - are not going to have these advantages.

Being a product of an exemplary parochial school system, and having seen the differences with public schools, it helps a whole bunch when you can (1) expel troublemakers, (2) enforce classroom discipline, and (3) separate students according to ability level. And if you can avoid "mainstreaming" those with learning problems, it is a big help to everybody else.

Finally, don't ever, ever, ever, EVER allow a labor union to represent the teachers.

Those measures would solve a lot of educational problems in our public schools.

Correct in some instances, incorrect in others.

Parents who are high achievers often have offspring who are not. Also, being rich does not mean being academically inclined and does not mean the parents achieved their own wealth through the achievement of university degrees or being highly intelligent. As well, one of the problems kids have in doing well in school is dysfunctional families. Rich families tend to have as much dysfunction as middle, working and lower class families do. As well, there are often some very, very intelligent and capable kids in families that have no wealth at all.

Yes, rich families can hire tutors. Sometimes that's a good thing; sometimes it means the tutor doing the work instead of the student.

Private schools may not select from the population at large, but they take just about anyone who can pay their fees, despite academic ability or potential, behavior problems, etc.

In opposition to that, there are kids from middle to lower class families who will be very high achieves despite the family having no wealth, despite every obvious obstacle they may face: in essence, being rich does not mean 'good genes' and being not wealthy does not mean 'bad genes.'

It is true that being able to avoid mainstreaming is helpful. Putting kids of all levels and potential in the same classroom tends to bring the level down, dumb things down if you will, and isn't helpful to the gifted.

The bottom line is smaller schools, smaller classes, parents who are involved in their child's education, and more teachers within the overall population of students.

Unions are NOT the problem. In every country where education is at its highest, there are teacher unions. Poor results are not the fault of teacher unions. Someone as well educated as you say you are should know that. Teachers are human beings and deserve as much respect and motivation as any other worker. To try to make martyrs out of them, to beat them down with low wages and poor working conditions, is not in the best interest of the students.
.

 

[Unkotare]

One of the main reasons private schools do better than public schools is because of small class size. .

"One of the main reasons"? I don't think so.

 

[Unkotare]

Private schools may not select from the population at large, but they take just about anyone who can pay their fees, despite academic ability or potential, behavior problems, etc.
.

That is NOT correct.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

When Democrats finally admit that Teachers Unions are a major-major source of our nations education problems - then, and only then, is there any chance of improvement in public schools.
But that is almost guaranteed never to happen. Democrats are more loyal to union philosophies than education. And that is not going to change in any of our lifetimes.