Last week the Davis School Board continued preparations for a renewal of their parcel taxes that are set to expire at the end of 2012. These parcel taxes, passed by the voters in 2007 and 2008 in Measure Q and Measure W, provide the district with 320 dollars per parcel. That is in addition to the two-year emergency parcel tax, Measure A, that was very narrowly passed by the voters in May.
The problem that we face, as we explained a few weeks ago, is that the state budget – despite everything that the Governor said – was really passed with a hope and prayer. He did not have a lot of choice in the matter, but only hope that the economy would improve and eliminate the need for further cuts.
What makes this budget different from all other budgets is that it actually contained within it the antidote to its own shortcomings. If revenue does not come, and we need to understand that is really not in question at this point, cuts will automatically be triggered and we know what these cuts are.
So, an overly-rosy budget under these conditions merely forestalls the inevitable. That makes it very different from the Schwarzenegger-era budgets which were passed with voodoo and witchcraft, and forced the legislature to come back in four to six months to cut some more.
The bad news is that we now know exactly what the district loses if the “trigger cuts” kick in – and the trigger cuts hammer education and hammer it hard. The district loses $2 million in the middle of the term.
Moreover, last year we talked about the fact that the state was ending deferrals of their payments. That is now done. Currently, according to numbers put forth by Bruce Colby, about 38 percent of the money the district gets from the state has been deferred into the future. The state is currently about four months behind in sending district money that they would normally expect to receive.
It means there will be another cash flow crisis and it means more borrowing by the district to meet payrolls, which means they have to pay it back with a small amount of interest.
So, here’s the bottom line for Davis residents. In the spring, they will be asked to renew Measures Q and W. If it is a straight renewal it will be a $320 parcel tax. If they attempt to bridge that $2 million, that price tag could rise
I have said this before each parcel tax, and each parcel tax has ended up passing, the district has to start looking at other ways to do this. At some point the voters are going to say, “No Mas.”
And it may be sooner than later. Measure A barely passed. I mean barely. I mean 67.2% to 32.8% when they need roughly 66.67%. How close is that? It means if 116 people flip their vote, it does not pass.
We can run down the litany of things that went wrong, from the firing of a popular basketball coach to the bad publicity following the mailing a senior letter to the one-sided League of Women Voters event.
The fact is, the supporters of Measure A ran a poor campaign, the type of campaign they have always run, and they still won. So it stands to reason with a more professionalized campaign that anticipates opposition next time, they would have a better chance.
On the other hand, there are other factors working against them, including the water rate hike if it gets implemented. That will take money away that might have been used to pay for the parcel tax.
The fact that the economy is not improving, like everyone expected and hoped, will also play a role.
Times are tough. People are having to hold onto their money more tightly due to uncertainty in the markets and the future.
The school district has fought very hard to preserve core programs, to keep Davis schools great, to keep programs that other school districts have long ago cut – music, art, counselors, seven periods, etc.
I have a personal stake in all of this. Our nephew, who is living with us, is a student at Patwin Elementary. He is a special needs kid. He needs these programs. One of the county-based counselors that works with him and other students at Patwin is just blown away by not only the resources Davis schools still have but the commitment by the school to help these kids.
This is huge for his future. He does not get to be eight years old again or go into second grade. If these programs get cut, there is a good chance he might not make it. He might end up on the other end of the system, despite our best efforts. In the long run, that will cost the taxpayers far more.
Across the state, districts have had to make these painful cuts, and you know it is literally going to kill or permanently impact the lives of not only troubled or at-risk kids, but everyone whom their lives intersect with and impact.
By the same token, just as I have argued that the era of business as usual is over for the city, the school district has to look at it in the same light.
Unfortunately, we do not have more fat to cut here or anywhere else. We have to cut bone now. We have to cut vital organs. And that is going to hurt.
The question is, who will that hurt the most and the answer is the kids that can least afford to be hurt.
They are the ones who will have their programs cut first, and they are the ones who will lack the advocates marching on the school district and flooding the community chambers with signs, waiting patiently to speak out.
That is our future. This Great Recession and the state’s refusal to find ways to raise revenue are going to ruin the lives of thousands of children who will never get the chance to succeed.
At the local level, the combination of past parcel taxes, increasing animosity and the water rates will likely do the same.
The future is bleak. There is no end to this in sight. Jobless rates are up in the state and projections have them holding at current levels until at least the end of 2013 and probably longer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sorry to be so blunt everyone, but its a Depression.
Not a double dip, not a ‘recession’, but a full blown disaster.
Its time to wake up and stop paying the administration of the school system such astronomical incomes !
Were a nation of deniers and can-kickers.. bankruptcy is the new reality.
I understand your concern… you have called for a 10% reduction in city employees’ total compensation (if the total comp exceeds 100k/year), in order to make it more likely that the parcel tax measures pass… are you prepared to ask the same of all DJUSD administrators, teachers, etc.? You say that you are a caretaker for a special needs child… are you (or the ‘natural’ parents) willing to make a special contribution to whatever incremental cost (if any) to educate that child that is greater than the cost for the “standard” child? Do you understand that there are city employees making over 100k in total comp who have special needs children? Will you, as a renter pay for the increase in parcel tax, if any … or will your landlord absorb it? Did your rent go up with the most recent ’emergency’ parcel tax? I think you need to be a little more “transparent”, David.
[i]Its time to wake up and stop paying the administration of the school system such astronomical incomes![/i]
What do you define as astronomical?
[quote]I think most observers expected the economy to have turned around by now. [/quote]
Most observers thought the economy was going to turn around quickly? I don’t think many citizens thought so! Many commenters on this blog didn’t.
[quote]The problem that we face, as we explained a few weeks ago, is that the state budget – despite everything that the Governor said – was really passed with a hope and prayer. He did not have a lot of choice in the matter, but only hope that the economy would improve and eliminate the need for further cuts.[/quote]
The Governor used the same old smoke and mirrors he promised he wasn’t going to do, w an added dose of “leverage” – the threat to cut education drastically if the revenue projections didn’t materialize. I would argue he knew quite well they were not likely to materialize – that he was just kicking the can down the road for a bit to minimize squawking and as political cover at what he knew he had to do. And trust me, it will be another round of “blame the Republicans” when the cuts kick in. The economy is grim, and the states are bearing the brunt of the bad economy. The only ones to blame here are the rogue banks, and the federal regulators who failed/are still failing to oversee those rogue banks. The same old bad mortgage practices are still going on. Arggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! A pox on both houses for not putting a stop to it…
Also, Measure A was a bit different – it asked for money above and beyond the existing parcel taxes, at a time when everyone was having it rough and taking pay cuts/furlough days, etc. Extending the existing school taxes is probably more defensible. However if the school district decides to up the ante and increase the extensions above what they are now, they could have a problem getting the extensions w increases passed. Probably a poll taken beforehand would be useful to gauge the mood of the community…
Given the “take-backs” demanded/given by local, county & state workers, I going to vote against ANY schools parcel tax increase, and [b]may[/b] vote against a renewal, unless teachers, administrators, etc. join in to the ‘race to the bottom’…
For those of you whose plan would be to vote against a parcel tax increase and/ or extension, are you willing to volunteer in the schools to help
Mitigate the damage this will inevitably do the the education of the current students who have done nothing to create this mess ?
[quote]Sorry to be so blunt everyone, but its a Depression.[/quote]
There isn’t really a formal definition of “depression.”
Believe it or not the term was originally coined because it sounded better than “crisis,” but now the word obviously has other connotations. Economist Robert Barro defines a depression as a fall in real GDP of 10% from peak to trough. We will probably avoid this, but only because of heavy intervention by the Fed and a moderate stimulus package. However it feels like a depression for many and for State and local governments it certainly is one. So I think justoutsidetown’s (El Macero?) point is well taken.
However, its also worth noting that entitlements to the elderly (Social Security, Medicare) are not depressed. Military spending is also very high. But somehow schools do not have the same priority level despite the fact that nearly all politicians in both parties pay lip service to education.
THe future in Davis will have to be more fund raising–taxpayers are probably not going to pony up much more. I also have a stake in this since I have a child in one of Davis’ public schools.
My recollection from school budget presentations is that special needs (special ed) is state-mandated funding and would not be cut. It is not discretionary for the school district. Perhaps Bruce or someone in the district can let me know for sure.
@medwoman… YES… and I believe I can teach trigonometry, geometry, and show how that knowledge is extremely useful in the workplace, ending up in higher salary in careers… and I strongly believe that I could do so much better than ANY existing teacher in the Davis district… however, I’d need a “waiver” because the teacher’s unions have required an “education” degree to get a teaching certificate. This, despite my credentials (pun intended) as a teacher & mentor for over 20 years. Are you prepared to ‘come to the plate’ medwoman, or do you just want others to pay for what you expect?
[i]You say that you are a caretaker for a special needs child… are you (or the ‘natural’ parents) willing to make a special contribution to whatever incremental cost (if any) to educate that child that is greater than the cost for the “standard” child?[/i]
Special Ed is what is known as a “categorical.” The money each district receives for its special ed students is not tied to ADA funding. So if ADA funding falls, Special Ed is not affected. I am not saying that the funding has not fallen for Special Ed. (I don’t know.) But it is the case that from federal and state programs, the DJUSD receives much more money to fund the education of special needs children than it does all others.
[i]”Believe it or not the term was originally coined because it sounded better than “crisis,” but now the word obviously has other connotations.”[/i]
Here is an explanation of how the word depression came into its current usage ([url]http://hnn.us/articles/61931.html[/url]) for a really bad recesssion: [quote] … Herbert Hoover deliberately chose to use the word “depression” when discussing the economic situation of the time. Although similar economic downturns in American history had been referred to as panics or crises, Manchester explained that Hoover believed that the word depression sounded less alarming.
… (Hoover) was not the first president to use the word “depression.” Preceding presidents had long used the word depression in reference to a slumping economy. Particularly noteworthy are instances in which presidents used the word “depression” during periods of economic turmoil that were later remembered as “panics.”
James Monroe, for example, during the Panic of 1819, referred to the onslaught of bank failures and a depreciating currency as “the depression.” In 1874, during the Panic of 1873, Ulysses S. Grant expressed his concern over “the depression in the industries and prosperity of our people.” Rutherford B. Hayes similarly remarked during his inaugural address in 1877, that “the depression in all our varied commercial and manufacturing interests throughout the country… still continues.” [/quote]
hpierce
You do not need a waiver to volunteer your services. I know because I have 15 years experience volunteering in the Davis public schools.
I volunteered in the areas of reading and composition because the parents, not the teachers, would not let me instruct in my own field, human sexual health and reproduction. my children are now in college, but I will be volunteering again if further cutbacks occur.
I consider this degree of volunteering being “at the plate”. Perhaps you do not.
[i]”Will you, as a renter pay for the increase in parcel tax, if any … or will your landlord absorb it? Did your rent go up with the most recent ’emergency’ parcel tax? I think you need to be a little more “transparent”, David. “[/i]
HP, one thing I like about you is that, while you clearly have a strong point of view, you are unfailingly fair and polite. At least every time you address me, you are, even when you think I am a numbskull.
However, I think your comment today against David is really unfair in this respect: it comes across as a personal attack. Your argument seems to be about how he will personally be affected by a parcel tax or how his child will be affected. I presume he does not know who you are, where you live, what your job is, how many kids you have, etc. So he has no way to come back at you.
If you think he is being inconsistent, that seems fair to attack. But to question his position on a public policy issue due to his family status strikes me as out of bounds and not up to your normal standard of making an argument based on your extensive knowledge. (I should note that in arguing with you, you have taught me many things and I appreciate your correcting my errors.)
Vang: ” Probably not. More likely is that the economy will continue to sputter along with very low but positive economic growth for the next few years.”
I doubt that. What is going to happen and indicators are showing is we are not out of any recession. it is going to get worse.
Vang: ” The fact that the economy is not improving, like everyone expected and hoped, will also play a role.”
Speak for yourself. I hoped but I sure as hell did not “expect” a turn around. It was wishful thinking on Obama’s part to save his political butt.
“The school district has fought very hard to preserve core programs,”
bull. The district fought very hard to build a new stadium. THat was at the top of their priorities list.
Vang: “That is our future. This Great Recession and the state’s refusal to find ways to raise revenue are going to ruin the lives of thousands of children who will never get the chance to succeed.”
how is the state supposed to raise revenue? Increase taxes? Increase spending with money that does not exist?
91 O: [i]how is the state supposed to raise revenue? Increase taxes? Increase spending with money that does not exist?[/i]
Brown ran on a plan of balancing the budget through cuts and extending taxes (if the voters approved it). The legislature (and Republicans, specifically) didn’t give him the option to extend taxes, so we are dealing with the consequences of an all-cuts budget. Taxes expired on June 30. I’m looking forward to seeing the Laffer curve work its magic; at least that’s what the conservatives are telling us.
[i]”The legislature (and Republicans, specifically) didn’t give him the option to extend taxes, so we are dealing with the consequences of an all-cuts budget. Taxes expired on June 30.”[/i]
WDF: didn’t Jerry Brown have the option of going around the GOP legislators? That is, did he not choose to go directly to the voters with ballot initiatives (for which he could have gathered the signatures, as Arnold did one year when the legislature was against him)?
I don’t mean to absolve the Republican officials who blocked Brown in the Legislature. But it does seem like Brown’s tactic was flawed from the start. He ought to have known that the Republicans would do everything they could to thwart the tax extensions. And thus, knowing that route was blocked from Day 1, don’t you think he should have pursued and end around with referendums?
@ medwoman… thank you for your service… I had no idea that you have been “at the plate”… when I retire, I plan to do a lot more for the schools (actually, the students).
hpierce
You had no way of knowing. Maybe I’ll see tou there in a few years. I’ll be the one who can’t solve even the most rudimentary mathematics problem ; ) Good thing there is room for everyone’s skills.
@ medwoman, I know elementary science teachers that would use you in a second during family life section of the 5th and 6th grade science lessons.
@ hpierce, I use retired math profs in my classroom for years…They help with the remediation of students plus I let them do problem solving and advance math with those students who are ready for calculus and other advance math that long ago I have forgotten. So to say that you can do it better than any teacher….I’m sure you could but also being a good teacher is knowing when to get someone in there to help the students…..
[quote]At least every time you address me, you are, even when you think I am a numbskull. [/quote]No… if I have ever come across as doubting you intelligence, my bad… I have often questioned your and/or David’s facts… I respect David as well…
@ David: it was not meant personally… I do rail against inconsistencies in logic… I support societal care for those who have special needs… maybe you’d be surprised what level of charitable giving that public employees do… particularly those who make $100 k or more per year… but they are regularly demonized, particularly on this blog… I have a co-worker who has a child who is dealing with “special” issues… my co-worker does not expect that the general public should bear the cost of the additional support for that condition. Let’s be civil.
@ A Classroom Teacher… maybe we should take this “off-line”… I have taught every thing I have ever learned and valued… I have 2 professional licenses (but not a teaching credential)… I love the technical aspects of my vocation…
Hpierce: I am not sure what you think my double standard is. I’ve always been very upfront as to the fact that education has been my priority, that existed before I had kids.
I don’t have anything against people who make over $100,000, I simply do not think we can afford to pay people that much for some of the jobs that we do.
I also think the schools have had to cut costs by far more than the city and most teachers earn considerably less than municipal employees.
Rifkin:” didn’t Jerry Brown have the option of going around the GOP legislators? That is, did he not choose to go directly to the voters with ballot initiatives (for which he could have gathered the signatures, as Arnold did one year when the legislature was against him)? “
But Arnold lost everything he put on the ballot in a special election except for himself. Jerry Brown astutely knew not to try to raise taxes in a special election and instead allowed the GOP to alienate most of the state with their intransigence on taxes softening up the state for changes in 2012.
@ A Classroom Teacher
It may be that things have changed over the past few years while my children were in high school. The last time I offered to help with this unit was about five t six years ago. At that time, the answer was what it had been all along. The teachers said that they would welcome the help, but that the parents were not receptive to having a gynecologist present this information. While it is true that I don’t know how they formed this opinion, I think it has some support from the experience I had with my daughter’s Girl Scout troop where some of the parents were comfortable with me teaching first aide, but not a unit on reproductive health and withdrew their daughters. I remain open to this possibility.
[i]” Jerry Brown astutely knew not to try to raise taxes in a special election …”[/i]
Fair enough. I think the intention, though, was not to raise taxes per se, but to retain the increases Arnold secured his last year in office. But, as you imply, a ballot move would have been portrayed as “raising taxes.”
[i]”… and instead allowed the GOP to alienate most of the state with their intransigence on taxes softening up the state for changes in 2012.”[/i]
The GOP is dying on the vine in CA. But I think half of the equation is the large demographic change in our state. The other half, in my view, is not intransigence so much as it is that the CA GOP follows the same game plan as the Republican parties do in states like Kansas or Utah or Alabama or South Carolina. The difference is that those states have half or nearly half their populations made up of social conservatives. We don’t. We never have (in my lifetime). So the Republican Party of California needs to change its platform, at least on some issues which play nationally but fail here.
My hope is that the new primary voting system will help moderates in both parties gain some power.
[i]”Most observers thought the economy was going to turn around quickly? I don’t think many citizens thought so!”[/i]
I’m not so sure of this Elaine. Obama came out saying that he would boost the economy with a trillion in stimulus so the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%. Most of the people blogging here voted for him and still support him.
The fact is that the Obama administration and Congress have screwed up the economy at a time when we needed to reassure businesses to invest. The government is now desperate and out of options. The Democrat’s last gasp with their head below water is claiming the extension of unemployment benefits as economic stimulus for job creation. LOL.
[i]”However, it’s also worth noting that entitlements to the elderly (Social Security, Medicare) are not depressed. Military spending is also very high”[/i]
Here is a graph of our defense spending including the war-related spending increases:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/wars.jpg[/img]
As a percent of GDP, defense spending has decreased since after the Vietnam war.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/DefenseSpendPercGDP.jpg[/img]
As a percentage of outlays, defense spending has fallen to point of almost being inconsequential in the deficit reduction challenge:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/Defense1.jpg[/img]
It is entitlement spending that has exploded and threatens to bankrupt us:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/Entitlements.jpg[/img]
With respect to education funding, it is clear that we have reached a crucible. Left-leaning folk tend to see the problem as simply a need to extract more money from taxpayers. This view misses the bigger root cause picture: that education and all other government services are being wiped out by entitlement spending. Public education spending is in fact competing with entitlement spending, and entitlement spending is inflated mostly because of run-away healthcare costs and too-generous social services to those we define as poor and elderly. Education is losing this competition. So is the middle class.
We cannot solve a problem if we are not first knowledgeable and honest about that root cause.
Rich: [i]” So the Republican Party of California needs to change its platform, at least on some issues which play nationally but fail here.”[/i]
At the national level, we know entitlements are killing us. The main culprits are Medicare and Medicaid. House Republicans are going after them with reform ideas even though doing so risks their re-election prospects. Democrats do nothing and will, of course, use the GOP actions as opportunistic campaign weapons to enflame seniors. I think it will not work this time.
Like most states, California’s elections will be decided by moderates and independents and not liberals and conservatives. California’s center leans more left than all other states. Much of that is just sun-baked ignorance. The GOP strategy is to be patient for the required learning moments to happen… not to give up on conservative principles.
JEFF: [i]”Most of the people blogging here voted for him and still support him. The fact is that the Obama administration and Congress have screwed up the economy at a time when we needed to reassure businesses to invest.”[/i]
Here is a bit of what I wrote in my Enterprise column in February, 2009, regarding the stimulus plan: [quote] President Obama is off on the wrong foot, only weeks into his presidency. Betting our future on the terribly misguided stimulus bill, which passed the House last week on a party-line vote, will doom him to four years of failure. [/quote] So far, I look prophetic. [quote] That gigantic package of pork is not change Americans should believe in. In fact, it’s not change at all. It’s more of the same mistakes we’ve been making for a long time.
Americans borrow and consume too much and save and invest too little. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will worsen that reality without stimulating the economy. [/quote] One thing I missed: American savings rates have increased over the last few years, as the economy has performed as poorly as I thought it would. [quote] The delusion is that we need a big-spending bill at all. That Keynesian diagnosis for what ails us is entirely, patently and obviously wrong.
If massive government deficits were the answer to fixing our economy, then we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Even without HR1, the federal deficit this year is projected to be $1.19 trillion. The national debt has increased on average $3.31 billion per day for the past 18 months. Where has that stimulus gotten us?
GDP declined at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the last three months of 2008, our worst quarter in 26 years. Last week, the Labor Department reported that 4.78 million Americans are claiming unemployment, the most since records began in 1967. The official unemployment rate is 7.7 percent and rising fast. [/quote] 7.7 percent unemployment sure sounds good about now. [quote] President Obama needs to take a step back and think about what is broken in our economy and fix that.
There is nothing he can do in the short term to solve our indebtedness, but he should know it’s a mistake to increase our liabilities even more. Including the unfunded portion of Social Security and Medicare, government debt is greater than 400 percent of gross domestic product. History is replete with nations that drowned with lesser burdens. [/quote] Greece? Portugal? Spain? Italy?
[quote] What the president needs to focus on immediately is solving the credit crunch. If banks start lending again to the private sector, money (which is the lifeblood of our economy) will start circulating, businesses will invest, jobs will be created, consumers will spend and tax receipts to government at all levels will increase.
The heart of the credit crunch is the unresolved mortgage meltdown. There were 3.16 million foreclosure filings reported on U.S. properties during 2008. That’s an 81 percent increase from 2007 and a 225 percent increase from 2006. Foreclosure filings in December 2008 were up 41 percent from December 2007.
Even though fewer than 2 percent of all U.S. properties are now in foreclosure, the growing number of defaults has drained confidence from our economy, depressed demand for housing and commercial real estate and made bankers, after being overly lax in handing out high-risk loans during the bubble, wary of awarding credit to any new buyers. [/quote] I find myself in strong agreement with Rifkin. [quote] The solution to this is not hard to figure out: We need to dramatically increase demand for housing, especially for properties in foreclosure or on the precipice.
How can we do that? My suggestion is we eliminate all capital gains taxes for investors who purchase a foreclosed property in the next three years and award a federal tax credit to them equal to the amount they pay in property taxes for five years. [/quote] That remains the best solution to our economic quagmire. [quote] If someone then buys a foreclosed house for $150,000 and sells it five years later for $450,000, the $300,000 capital gain would be tax-free. For the time the investor owned the house, Washington would effectively pay his property tax.
In short order, wealthy investors would buy up all foreclosed properties in the U.S., banks would have those bad debts off their books, the prices of all housing would stop declining, tax receipts to local and state governments would go up and the credit crunch, which now has a brake on our economy, would be solved. [/quote] Perfect solution. [quote] That still does not fix our long-term addiction to debt. But it would do much more to stimulate our economy than the wrong-headed bill that came out of Congress last week. [/quote] I was right.
Rifkin: [quote]How can we do that? My suggestion is we eliminate all capital gains taxes for investors who purchase a foreclosed property in the next three years and award a federal tax credit to them equal to the amount they pay in property taxes for five years. [/quote]
I have come to agree with this strategy.
Somewhat related… did you know that HUD acquired residential properties cannot be initially sold to investors. They go to firt-time home buyers first… and only if there are zero qualified of these buyers can investors step to the plate. The problem here is that a first-time home buyer will generally be a highly leveraged borrower and a greater credit risk. Also, since the initial competition for bids excludes investors (including second home buyers), the bid prices are depressed. I have to ask the question since this is taxpayer money. Why should it matter? Let the bidding begin on ANY buyer that has the cash to purchase the property. Who cares that investors will buy up these properties. The goal is to recover from the loss, right? Or, is the goal to have another social program to provide poor people with under-market housing options?
Idea to address Davis’s education funding problem:
[url]http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17623486[/url]
However…
[quote]DENVER | A judge has blocked Colorado’s first school voucher program, calling the program to give parents in the state’s wealthiest county checks for tuition at religious schools a “substantial disservice to the public interest.”
Denver District Judge Michael Martinez sided with a group of parents, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They asked for an injunction blocking the Choice Scholarship Pilot Program in Douglas County.
The voucher opponents argued the program violated the separation of church and state because it would give taxpayer money to parents for use at approved private schools, including some religious schools.
The judge noted Friday that some of the schools authorized for vouchers required students to attend religious services. Martinez said the voucher program “violates both financial and religious provisions set forth in the Colorado constitution.”
School-choice advocates vowed to appeal. More than 200 students have already received voucher money from the county to use this fall. One of the private schools in the program starts Monday, and it wasn’t clear whether any of the checks had been cashed.
Douglas County officials argued that because the scholarship checks went to parents, who would then choose their children’s schools, the county wasn’t improperly sponsoring religion. Plaintiffs insisted the parent pass-through was a ploy to get around the Constitution.[/quote]
Hopefully this will be overturned on appeal. It is another example of activist judges taking the “separation of church and state” concept too far. Otherwise there is a reverse argument that public schools indocrinate a secular view that also violates the separation of church and state.
I think this is a great idea. Use vouchers to shrink the size of the public schools to increase per-student funding.
JB
Two major problems with this:
1)Will these private schools be obligated to take all comers, or will they be able to cherry pick their students?
2) How do you feel about the use of vouchers to fund a mosque with jihadist tendencies? How about a coven ? A cult ? Once you open the door to publicly funded religious instruction, who gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not ?
[i]”1)Will these private schools be obligated to take all comers, or will they be able to cherry pick their students?”[/i]
I really don’t understand your point. It took my son until his senior year to be accepted into the Davis High Jazz Band. He wasn’t tall enough or fast enough to be accepted on the Davis High basketball team. His GPA was not high enough to be accepted into UCD. Isn’t “cherry picking” an accepted practice in academia? If you are a kid with behavior problems, and there are no private schools that will take you, then you can stay at the public school… which BTW you are defending as the preferred choice… so I don’t understand your objection. Note too that this idea would leave the public schools with more dollars per student to better help educate the kids with behavior problems.
[i]” How do you feel about the use of vouchers to fund a mosque with jihadist tendencies? How about a coven ? A cult ? Once you open the door to publicly funded religious instruction, who gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not?”[/i]
I want a public-private partnership with a state regulator that performs regular operational and financial audits of the schools and still requires standardized testing for all students. Any mosque with jihadist tendencies should be destroyed and its leaders imprisoned for treason. Any assets of the mosque should be confiscated and liquidated… then the proceeds direct to education scholarships. A coven would be fine. So, would a cult as long as they did not break any laws, they passed audits and the students attending did well enough on standardized tests.
As a fiscally conservative person, I think US needs to solve a couple of big items to get the economy and jobs going:
1. Taxes – we need to raise revenue by devising a newer simpler tax code, that has many more American’s paying taxes, and the very wealthy folks paying an increased amount of taxes. Tax revenue needs to be increase to pay for the wars, which theoretically protect our freedom and way of life.
2. Spending – there is no way to resolve our deficit issue without addressing the entitlements. There can be no question that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have to revamped to deal with the fact that people are living much longer than expected at the onset of those programs and that the population demographics are changing. Both SS and Medicare depend on a larger group of younger folks paying into a system to take care of a relatively smaller group of older folks. The demographics are changing to be more of an inverted triangle, with a smaller base of folks supporting a larger group.
3. Other Govt Spending. The public pensions in many states and cities are out of control, and can’t be sustained. They have to be reworked to be sustainable, while providing for adequate services for citizens.
4. Education – JB has argued forcibly that education spending is out of control, and he may be right. But, the solution cannot be that we don’t educate our children to the highest standards in the world. If we choose the “low” education path, that is the beginning of a fairly quick end for our way of life.
Putting these things in place will allow business and investors to have confidence in the long run viability and stability of the US. Jobs and prosperity will ensue.
JB:”I’m not so sure of this Elaine. Obama came out saying that he would boost the economy with a trillion in stimulus so the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%. Most of the people blogging here voted for him and still support him.”
Of course recent data explain that the contraction in GDP that began under Bush was much deeper than previously understood accounting for why unemployment is higher than anticipated in 2009.
Mr. Toad:
See, this is exactly what I am talking about. You match Obama for looking back for excuses instead of fixing the problems. The point was/is that Obama rode in on his “hope and change” promises. He has failed miserably… in three years he and his policies have failed to improve anything about the economy.
Obama’s last excuse about the economy is that “we have run into a bit of bad luck”.
Adam Smith:
1. I am in complete agreement with a simplified tax code. I am also in agreement with you that more Americans should pay income tax. Lastly, I am for raising taxes on production/wealth temporarily, as long as the money is used to pay down the deficit. Then we need to lower taxes on production/wealth. The Laffer Curve is real… high tax rates inhibit economic activity that creates jobs and wealth that can be taxed. We are competing globally to attract industry to our country. Our smaller domestic companies are competing globally too. We need to raise tax revenue through economic expansion not increased taxation.
2. Absolutely.
3. Absolutely.
4. This is close. It is not that I think education spending is out of control. The model is outdated and inefficient and the quality is highly inadequate and much lower than could be achieved with other models. I want a drastically improved education system. I would spend more on the current system if I thought it would lead to these types of improvements, but it has been proven that public schools do not perform better at higher costs per student. In addition, unless and until we reduce the cost of entitlements and public employee pension and healthcare costs, we cannot afford to fund education the way we have previously. Something needs to give. Giving vouchers to allow more parents to send their kids to private schools… thereby allowing Davis to close some schools and reduce expenses… leading to lower costs and higher per-student funding… seems like a win-win from a fiscal and child/student benefit perspective.
JB: [i]See, this is exactly what I am talking about. You match Obama for looking back for excuses instead of fixing the problems. The point was/is that Obama rode in on his “hope and change” promises. He has failed miserably… in three years he and his policies have failed to improve anything about the economy.[/i]
Worst economic downturn of our lifetimes (for most of us). That’s what happens when you have a free-for-all banking system. In capitalism, someone has to exercise some self-control somewhere along the way. “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.” Edmund Burke
What would GW Bush have done in a hypothetical third term? What did McCain and Sara Palin have to offer?
JB: [i]I really don’t understand your point. It took my son until his senior year to be accepted into the Davis High Jazz Band. He wasn’t tall enough or fast enough to be accepted on the Davis High basketball team. His GPA was not high enough to be accepted into UCD. Isn’t “cherry picking” an accepted practice in academia?[/i]
Not in K-12 public schools at this point. I think you advocate a program that ultimately privatizes the profits and socializes the losses.
I don’t understand what point you’re making with your son’s example, but it looks like you’re damning him with faint praise. There are about 20 students in the DHS Jazz Band, and about 160 students, roughly, in the over all HS band program. Do the math; he was one of the top students in one of the best high school music programs in northern California. And he didn’t get into UCD? I think if you understood what UCD offered, how many students apply, and how they decide who gets in, that there is a lot of luck involved, and that there are better deals for most to be had elsewhere. UC’s are probably a better deal for their graduate programs than they are for undergraduate education.
In school, as in life, success usually depends on a certain amount of focus, persistence, self-control, and determination rather than God-given intelligence. The fact that he could get into the DHS Jazz Band tells me that he likely has those traits.
The fact that he graduated from high school and was considering colleges puts him in a category well beyond what is currently challenging the K-12 system. The fact that you comment that he didn’t get into UCD seems equivalent to criticizing someone for not coming in first in a marathon or an Ironman triathlon. Usually most folks celebrate actually crossing the finish line, not what place they came in. There are a lot of parents who would envy what your son has accomplished.
wdf1:
First, you have to expect GOP Presidential candidates to begin to ask this question of the voters: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” This was the same question Reagan asked during his TV debate with Carter.
Reagan ushered in a new era in economic policy — immediately cutting tax rates, slashing regulation and consistently lecturing that individual Americans were better suited to make economic decisions than bureaucrats in Washington were. He told us to pull up our bootstraps, to stop whining and to get to work to save ourselves.
Conversely, Obama ushered in a new era of fantastic government spending and increased regulation. He consistently delivers a message of individual victim-logy and of corporate irresponsibility. He blames everyone but himself for the lack of recovery. He sends the message that government bureaucrats are better suited to make ALL decisions. Obama tells us we are all victims in need of saving by his big government ideas.
Reagan was a true inspirational leader connecting with the blue flame of positivity and optimism that resulted economic certainty and inspired a nation to get back to work. He taught us to love our country as is, and to love our fellow Americans but to distrust our government.
Obama connects with the red flame of despair and pessimism and inspires an era of uncertainty and instability. He causes more people wait for someone to bail them out. He teaches us to dislike our country as is, and to distrust our fellow Americans but love our government.
The damage done to people and families from sustained unemployment is horrendous. Neither Bush nor McCain would have spent their first months in office attempting to pass a healthcare bill while the economy was in a freefall. They would not have devoted any valuable pulpit time demonizing business and blaming past administrations. They would not have ramped up regulation. They would have cut tax rates on businesses and business owners instead of threatening to raise them. They would have instilled business-friendly climate with trust in government that led to greater capital investment… instead of the current Obama-led business-hostile climate that causes business to mistrust government and horde their capital.
More aggravating to me is the missed opportunities. Today the world is in economic chaos and copious opportunity exists for the countries first to fix their problems. The credit-rating downgrade was a vote of no-confidence that we can fix our problems. Obama gets a grade of F-
JB: [i]The Laffer Curve is real… high tax rates inhibit economic activity that creates jobs and wealth that can be taxed.[/i]
Then if we reduce taxes to zero, economic activity flies off the chart, we have no government and a free-for-all economy. The Laffer Curve is an ideal construct that assumes all humans will have appropriate behavior, which is not the case.
When past administrations (Reagan, GW Bush) have worked with the Laffer curve, it has only increased the national debt. Clinton should have been an economic failure, but he looks pretty good compared to his successor.
[i]”I don’t understand what point you’re making with your son’s example”[/i]
I was responding to the absurdity of medwoman’s challenge that vouchers would lead to private schools “cherry-picking” high-performing students. My point was/is that cherry-picking goes on all the time in academia. Recognizing performance and limiting selection based on performance is an already accepted practice in public schools.
[i]”I think you advocate a program that ultimately privatizes the profits and socializes the losses.”[/i]
You need to explain this thinking.
My thinking is that I advocate a program that is a win-win for everyone and everything except the public education system adult jobs program.
[i]”When past administrations (Reagan, GW Bush) have worked with the Laffer curve, it has only increased the national debt.”[/i]
The Laffer Curve does not account for out of control government spending. It is simply a model that proves increased taxation impedes economic activity enough to cause an overall reduction in tax revenue.
Remember the Bush #1 yacht tax?
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html[/url]
JB: [i]You need to explain this thinking.
My thinking is that I advocate a program that is a win-win for everyone and everything except the public education system adult jobs program.[/i]
K-12 public education gets criticized most for what it doesn’t do for the bottom fraction of students. These are typically students who don’t come from families who know how to or will support their kids’ education and upbringing so as to prepare them for a productive future. The answers I hear — vouchers, charter schools, private schools, throw technology at them — end up being a net benefit to the more privileged fraction without significantly moving the performance numbers for the bottom fraction.
It is society’s interest that all students be well educated at the K-12 school — meaning graduate and be prepared for college or trade school. That means you have to bring quality education to them. Your models talk about “leveraging competition” and all. If you make a competition of it, there will always be losers. As I said with my analogy above, K-12 education is a marathon. We’re interested that the students finish, not what place they come in.
Your usual criticism is that spending more money isn’t the answer. Of course not. The framing is about making good investments with the money you have. But you know what? The more money you have, the more good investments you can make.
wdf1:
The bottom fractions of the students have lower-level needs that must be satisfied before they can focus on academic performance. This then demands a different educational approach that will require more resources. More importantly, K-12 education requires a much more sophisticated business operation to net out services customized to the individual needs of the customer. Public education as a model is always motivated toward the labor path of least resistance. It optimizes for fairness and equality and not for specific needs of students. The needs of the students are too diverse and the service model of public schools too unsophisticated for continued success in a modern economy. Public education as designed is at least preventing us from realizing greater success, and at worst it is killing our country.
Where you and medwoman get stuck with your arguments is that they lead to you having to admit that private schools would do a better job. Since not all would have access (which I point out is the case today as not all have access to specific offerings in the public schools), you are defending the “captive customer” model to enforce mediocrity on all so that the needier are not left further behind. This is the mindset of socialists and it is a destructive one in my opinion.
The public education mission should be much greater than it is today: it should be to maximize the potential of all students to be successful launching to their next step in achieving economic success/prosperity. Your point “K-12 education is a marathon” is telling because it confirms that you set the mission bar much lower.
I would prefer that the public schools focus on a smaller mission so that it can at least do that well, and leverage the creative power of free enterprise and entrepreneurial energy to realize much better outcomes. If we provided vouchers valued at 75% of the per-student expense, the schools would realize a net 25% increase in revenue that could then be spent to satisfy the special needs of kids unwilling or unable to attend a private school alternative. If the public schools fail at this smaller mission, then the increased per student funding will help improve the options for charter schools to take over.
JB: [i]Your point “K-12 education is a marathon” is telling because it confirms that you set the mission bar much lower.[/i]
Then I have to assume that you’ve never run a marathon. Have you? Could you?
I have. It’s something to take personal pride in, because few people have the self-control and attitude to do it. It means delaying gratification. That is a trait that is seriously lacking today. I defined the mission bar for you: “graduate and be prepared for college or trade school.”
This is how you define it: “it should be to maximize the potential of all students to be successful launching to their next step in achieving economic success/prosperity”.
It’s all soft and fuzzy, sort of the way you like to characterize Obama’s “Hopey/changey thingy”. How will you measure your goal? Problem is that your goal can’t be measured. Mine can. If even 90% of students graduated from high school and went to college or trade school, you would see an unbelievably qualified job market.
JB: [i]Remember the Bush #1 yacht tax?[/i]
The GHW Bush/Clinton economic package as a whole brought us as close to a balanced budget as we’ve had in recent decades, and it did not stifle economic growth.
wdf1: I have not run a marathon because of four knee surgeries from my days as a high-jumper, long-jumper and triple-jumper. I will put up my history of goal commitment and delayed gratification any day. I will admit though that before wearable radios and music players, long-distance running was a bit boring. Even today (I run 4 miles twice a week since that is all my knee can take) if I am left to only my thoughts I will get some entrepreneurial idea and my motivation shifts to wanting to work on it and not be running. My passion was basketball since it occupied more of my body and mind as a challenge. However, with no cartilage left in my twice microfractured, ACL-rebuilt left knee, that sport is long out of the question.
I don’t think your and my goals are any more or less fuzzy. I could come up with plenty of specific measures for mine. They would need to evaluate post-education economic measures. Graduation rates are frankly meaningless if the students cannot make a successful life. I just think your goals are more limited and miss the opportunity for achieving greater things.
All of this gets off topic though. The issue is school funding and quality. Do I understand that you believe overall public education is adequate and not in need of reform? In addition to that question, do you think we can and should spend more money on public K-12 education? If so, what would that money buy us?
And lastly… what probability do you assign to the possibility of increasing school funding? And related… what do you think the probability is that we will maintain the levels of public school funding we have previously enjoyed?
My thinking here is that we will not be able to maintain previous funding levels, let alone increase funding. So then, what is the best thing to do? Put our head in the sand?
Jeff: [i]Since not all would have access (which I point out is the case today as not all have access to specific offerings in the public schools), you are defending the “captive customer” model[/i]
Apples and oranges. Private schools can choose whom they admit, period, on any basis whatsoever. They can choose to stop admitting when they are full. Public schools can do neither of those things.
[i]This is the mindset of socialists and it is a destructive one in my opinion. [/i]
Seriously, Jeff, this is getting ridiculous. I don’t even think, at this point, that you have a working definition of [i]socialism.[/i]
Don: [i]”Private schools can choose whom they admit, period, on any basis whatsoever.”[/i]
If the school accepted vouchers it would be covered by Title VI, Title IX, Section 504 for receiving federal funds. The school would be subject to the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination by federal fund recipients. Private schools are also covered by Title III of the ADA
Your “full” argument is laughable Don. The private, for-profit sector does not generally turn down paying customers. Yet, have you ever had to deal with your child’s rejection for participation in some public school activity for any reason. What if your child wanted to play basketball but didn’t make the team? What options do you have to send your child to another school where he or she might be able to play? I just use this as an example. How many kids attending Davis High were not able to experience athletics, or music, or industrial arts, or other subjects that might have been life-changing crucibles for them?
It is quite agitating that you and others make up this fake picture of 100% acceptance and opportunity for all students. There is limited choice for most parents in the public school system. They are forced to fit their kids in a small box of public school conformity (except for those PC-correct groups where we have done copious work to make sure their unique behaviors are mainstreamed). You seem to think it is fine to force a religious kid belonging to a low income family to be spoon-fed secular crap every day, but worry over the damage caused by a Christian school “brainwashing” a low income child from some atheist family. Aside from the absurdity of this, today there is ZERO CHOICE to deal with either of these scenarios.
My point about socialism was that there is commonality at display related to the public-private school debate with those rejecting the benefits of free markets and free competition and prefer a state-run system. Their arguments are use-value centric instead of being production-value centric. It is interesting though since vouchers are a pure use-value approach. With the money given to the user and not the producer, you would think that advocates of public schools would support vouchers.
For example, if public schools are the better model than why would we worry about vouchers… since parents would just spend their voucher on the best choice? The only conclusion is that you and others that oppose vouchers because you suspect that the private sector would do a better job and the public schools would shrink. So, your motivation must be to protect the welfare of teachers over the welfare of students. You support a “captive customer” model that is a bit like slavery for those lacking the economic means to escape.
JB: [i]The only conclusion is that you and others that oppose vouchers because you suspect that the private sector would do a better job and the public schools would shrink.[/i]
In most cases, I don’t see why a private school would be interested in vouchers. It invites accountability that would be onerous — keeping track of the same kinds of statistics and tests that public schools have to keep, and make the information public, bring on penalties if AYP isn’t met, possibly require credentialed teachers. And if private schools were to accept money from the public teat, then it would only be fair to have the accountability to go with it. Once you account for students’ family income, private schools do not perform better than public schools.
[i]You support a “captive customer” model that is a bit like slavery for those lacking the economic means to escape.[/i]
I see the voucher/competition model as creating characteristics of urban “food deserts”, which means an unserved customer vs. a captive customer. That’s what the private sector will produce. A family would have to drive an inconvenient distance to find something to their liking. At least they have a public school that is likely close enough.
[i] With the money given to the user and not the producer, you would think that advocates of public schools would support vouchers.[/i]
Many families choose where to live because the schools are close enough and good enough. It follows the expectation of a neighborhood school model. For many, supporting your local public school is like supporting your neighborhood, God, mom, and apple pie. For many parents, it is a center of their social life, in which you make friends and acquaintences through your kids.
You have to present a scenario in which the quality of the neighborhood school is so bad, and the family moving is not an option. Changing schools is not like changing your brand of shampoo.
[i] Yet, have you ever had to deal with your child’s rejection for participation in some public school activity for any reason. What if your child wanted to play basketball but didn’t make the team? What options do you have to send your child to another school where he or she might be able to play? I just use this as an example. How many kids attending Davis High were not able to experience athletics, or music, or industrial arts, or other subjects that might have been life-changing crucibles for them?[/i]
I would note that these are activities that are most likely to get cut when money gets tight.
First there are city rec leagues, and I think the schools, in partnership with the city, have opened up some of their secondary gymn space for after school pick up games. I think it would be a great idea if schools offered recreational sports, but it requires contracted adult supervision, and I don’t think that would come as a high enough priority for thet district to fund in times like these.
The only reasons I can think of that a kid can’t take industrial arts is not enough students signed up for it to become a class, or a student’s class schedule won’t allow for it.
And there are non-audition music classes available at all sites.
[i]What options do you have to send your child to another school where he or she might be able to play?[/i]
Interdistrict and intradistrict transfers.
[i]spoon-fed secular crap[/i]
Charming. End of conversation, I’d say.
[i]”Interdistrict and intradistrict transfers”[/i]
Hmm… how does that coordinate with wdf’s point about school location being so important?
[i]”Charming. End of conversation”[/i]
I assume sarcasm and not a complement. I would have preferred some compelling argument from you explaining why you have no problem with low income and middle class religious families having no choice but to send their kids to public schools that teach secular concepts in conflict with their religion. Do you think atheists more worthy of brainwashing protections?
I think the conversation about school choice and reform is just getting warmed up.
JB
1) I do not see being excluded from a sport because you do not meet the physical requirements of the team as being the same as being the same as being excluded from all of the opportunities that a school has to offer.
2) A voucher system here in Davis which is small enough that virtually every child would have access to it might be feasible. How many of your voucher schools do you suppose are going to be lining up on Crenshaw in LA?
3) I find your point about the proposed downsizing of the public school system to be a little ironic since the benefit for the students left in the public schools, as you have stated it, would be increased per student spending. But on multiple occasions you have asserted that increased per student spending does not improve education. So, now how exactly will it do so just because voucher schools are in existence?
4)”The only conclusion is that you and others that oppose vouchers because you suspect the private schools would do a better job and the public schools would shrink”. I think if shows a singular lack of imagination to see this as “the only conclusion”. How about a few possible alternatives such as: We have directly experienced both public and private schools, both amongst the most highly ranked in the area and found them to be equal academically, with the public school offering more diversity in sports and much more freedom in areas of artistic expression.
If you have not had direct experience with the areas private schools, I would not be so quick to judge them as superior, but they are certainly much more costly. Or how about that some of us may simply disagree with you about using public funds to support religious education. Some of us perhaps genuinely believe that this crosses the separation of church and state and do not view “secular crap” as a religion.
Or perhaps some of us simply do not believe that everything in life can or should be reduced to a free market model. So there are a few different conclusions that could be drawn here if one would only choose to consider them from the point of view that others may be as honest and sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours.
Also to JB
I would like clarification of another point.
If you presumably praise Reagan for teaching us to love our country as it is and love each other but to distrust our government, then how can you make the case that Bush or McCain would have instilled a business friendly climate with trust in government…. So which are we supposed to do Jeff, trust or distrust our government?
Well, I can certainly see how if I were a very rich business owner or a major share holder of a large corporation how I would have more trust in a government that designed it’s policies specifically for my benefit, but for the rest of us, I’m afraid it’s just trickle down. This is something that we will never agree upon because unlike you, I don’t believe that Ayn Rand got it right. And yes, I have read her, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We The Living, and I still don’t think she got it right.
medwoman:
I really don’t understand your question, but let me explain based on my assumption of our differences on this topic.
Conservatives tend to distrust political elites and the concentration of political power more than they distrust business elites and the concentration of wealth. I think conservatives tend to be wired as more practical and less idealistic as it relates to human behavior. Unlike elite liberals who believe their intellectual capacity makes them infallible, conservatives know they will sin and make mistakes despite their brain power. They know they too are corruptible with access to power. When achieved they will use it to take the path of least resistance because that is generally what all humans tend to do. History is on the side of conservatives for this view… concentration of government power has resulted in copious misery, suffering and death of millions of humans. However, you cannot say the same for the concentration of wealth.
American liberals use envious comparison to manufacture emotives over the plight of the poor in this wealthy country. The gap between wealthy and poor is not a real problem when 90 percent of those classified as poor have food, shelter and adequate access to education and opportunities to grow their individual prosperity. The real problems faced by American poor pale in comparison by several orders of magnitude to the plight of people oppressed by the weight of their government. The freedom to create wealth reverberates throughout our society brining more benefits to more people than would otherwise materialize with a heavy hand of government control.
Yes, we Americans are thankfully still far away from migrating toward a collectivist system of governance; but the slippery slide has begun under the most liberal Democrat party every formed combined with an explosion of growth in the moocher mentality and a media prone to sensationalize the things used by collectivists to grow their power.
George Bush quote: “I fully understand government’s role is limited in love. Government is not a loving organization, particularly around April 15th.”
Then he went and took the path of least resistance and spent like a drunken Kennedy liberal.
[i]” I do not see being excluded from a sport because you do not meet the physical requirements of the team as being the same as being the same as being excluded from all of the opportunities that a school has to offer.”[/i]
medwoman, in a situation where you have a voucher, you could attend another private school where you could participate in the activities that interested you. In a situation where you are a captive customer, you have to accept that the school will dictate what you can participation in based on their measurement criteria. I think this should be easy to understand. Today there is only one school choice unless you are wealthy.
[i]”How many of your voucher schools do you suppose are going to be lining up on Crenshaw in LA?[/i]
I don’t know but private schools that perform well can do so for the same or less than what the public schools spend. That has been proven. My guess is that most areas would attract private schools once vouchers are approved.
I get your other points and reasonable people will continue to disagree. I urge you and others to think more expansively. In business we identify a risk as also including the risk of missed opportunities. I think we are at the point where blind support of the public education model is a big risk for missed opportunity. If you let yourself, you can envision an exciting and much more valuable model for education. I see this as the next opportunity for America to innovate and take the global lead like we have for other things in the past. We create entire industries from scratch and then show the rest of the world how to exploit what we invent. Inventing requires us to shift paradigms and be creative and be bold. First we have to be honest about what is not working with the old system. I think we can build a fantastically better education mousetrap but for all those lacking vision standing in the way.
[i]” A family would have to drive an inconvenient distance to find something to their liking. At least they have a public school that is likely close enough.”[/i]
You have no factual basis for this argument. Davis has only one high school location. How is that more convenient for everyone? My experience is that parents will happily drive their kids to the best school. They would also relocate if that is what is required. The likelihood is that there would be more choice and hence greater convenience.
There have been several studies that full-time academies achieve much better outcomes. Selecting that option would lead to very little travel inconvenience.
About a school that used more online and home-study options?
Here is good read on the concept of “Personalized Learning” or “The School of One”. I would support public schools going this route. I would tax myself more to fund it. The reality though is that the public sector will take too long to change. What we need to do is unleash the power of free-thinking, unencumbered entrepreneurs to figure out the models for how should be done.
[url]http://www.edutopia.org/blog/personalized-learning-school-of-one[/url]
Here is another great resource explaining the personalized learning concept.
[url]http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/changing_systems/introduction/introduction.pdf[/url]
JB: [i]You have no factual basis for this argument. Davis has only one high school location. How is that more convenient for everyone? My experience is that parents will happily drive their kids to the best school. They would also relocate if that is what is required. The likelihood is that there would be more choice and hence greater convenience.[/i]
You are assuming that the underperforming students come from families just like yours. That perhaps all families have the means (a car/transportation available) to get their kid to an alternative school, that they have the time to do so (consider situations of single working parents, or both parents working, possibly well before or after school, that the school is not that far out of the way of home and work), that the parents are adequately informed of this alternative (you’d be surprised how little some parents know about their own school because of language barriers), and that the parent would be motivated to take advantage of this alternative.
Again, the marketplace alternative of school choice sounds nice and you would find that folks just like you would likely be the ones to take advantage of it (I probably would, too, if that were the system I was working under), and the people who don’t are the folks who are notably unlike you in many of the respects I describe. Again, I welcome you to read Diane Ravitch’s book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. And read it all the way to the end. Near the end, she describes instances, NYC in particular, in which “underperforming” schools were shut down and presumably better alternatives were presented. The results did not benefit the kids who were most at need, and whose underperformance was notably condemning the closed school.
You can find a microcosm mindset of this issue related to Montgomery Elementary in Davis. On test scores it is a highly performing school, and yet is in PI (“program improvement”) because ELL and low income students are not performing as high as they’re supposed to. Notably, those students have been making improvement, just not fast enough as federal regulations requires. Montgomery is performing better now than it was 5-6 years ago, and yet parents appear to be withdrawing their kids from Montgomery (NCLB allows this for a school in PI) notably because of the stigma. The kids who are left behind are the ones who are “underperforming”. Many of them come from families like I describe above. I know this because I have volunteered at that school with those very kids (ELL, low SES).
As with many ideas, it seems good on paper, but when you implement it, you realize that it’s not as simple as you originally thought.
wdf1, I have not read the book yet. It is still in queue. However, I think you are glossing over a key point I have made. At the same time you are failing to propose any improvements. All you are saying is that the situation is more difficult/complex than I make it out to be.
Did you read any of my links for “education personalization” and the high school “school of one”?
The bottom line is that well-off and well-educated parents will generally find a way to ensure their kids have the best education outcomes possible… no matter what the public school situation is. The problem is the low-income and low middle-class parents lacking the level of education required to supplement their kids crappy public school experience.
So, how would you improve this if not supporting my idea to provide vouchers at 75% of the cost per student, so the 25% savings would increase the public school per-student resources while shrinking the diversity and mission of the public school so it could better focus on improving outcomes for the remaining students?