Cutting Summer Break NOOOOOOO

[Lizzy]

I don't find Intercot's stand on these issue's a joke. I have been around this site for many years and know that the minute this thread turns ugly it too will be shut down.


With that, I do want to say that while I don't agree with some of this idea for our children, I don't agree with our government inforcing it and so on I do appreciate the fact that, even while his daughter's get to attend a top rated private school, That Obama does have it is his mind that our educational system is failing as it is. I do appreciate that he sees a need to fix things, even if I don't agree with his solution at this time.

[vicster]

With that, I do want to say that while I don't agree with some of this idea for our children, I don't agree with our government inforcing

Who does everyone think is enforcing our education system right now? THE GOVERNMENT! Who's idea was it to have the summers off? THE GOVERNMENT! Whose idea was NCLB? THE GOVERNMENT! Yet no one wants the government involved in education?

I think the kids can do with a shorter summer break. Most kids are bored within 2 weeks of summer break and since when does a little more education hurt?

[Ian]

Who does everyone think is enforcing our education system right now? THE GOVERNMENT! Who's idea was it to have the summers off? THE GOVERNMENT! Whose idea was NCLB? THE GOVERNMENT! Yet no one wants the government involved in education?

Yes. That's the entire point. And they've completely and totally ... to borrow a phrase from ESPN ... "jacked it up".

They've had their chance. They've failed. Time to move on and try something new.

And I'd like to thank our most recent new contributors to this thread for taking what was a productive, respectful, adult conversation and sending it down the path the majority of dialogue takes in this country today ... childish name calling, pointless rhetoric, and a complete and total refusal to listen to opinions different from your own.You know ... things like calling other people's viewpoints "rantings."

If you don't have anything productive to contribute to this discussion, then I'd suggest you move along.

[Mousefever]

Ian,

Since you have been the strongest voice against the current state of our education system, I'd be really interested in your comprehensive view of how it should be run. I'm hearing from you that you think schools should be run from either a state system, or even better, a private enterprise system. What would that look like? It would be disingenuous of me to suppose you have everything about such a system worked out, but I'm interested to hear some of the basics.

I'm asking you this, Ian, for a couple of reasons. I am interested to hear what you have to say. And I think it takes much less intellectual effort to look at everything that's wrong with our system, than to come up with real solutions. I would love this conversation to continue with a focus on what we can agree on, what we can build consensus around. I think what you and others are saying has merit, and is important in our discussion. It's only through civil discourse and consensus that we can move forward.

Wayne, I don't think that anyone here is asserting that this isn't a bi-partisan problem. While the focus has been on Obama's ideas for education, I don't think that anyone can assert that our education system has been deteriorating under any one administration. Obviously, prior to Obama's short tenure, there has been eight years of a Republican president. Bush faced these same problems and came up with "No Child Left Behind", a program that hasn't universally succeeded either. Maybe Ian is right and we need to scrap the whole system and start over!

Please keep the constructive ideas coming!

Amy

[Ian]

Hey Amy ... Great post. Thanks for bringing us back in focus.

I will do exactly what you suggested and provide some concrete examples ... But tomorrow.

I'm headed out for the night, but I'm excited by the challenge!

[meldan98]

I just wanted to add one thing about "fluff" classes, where would Disney be if we didn't have classes. Let's, there would be no musicians, no movies, no rides, no imagination and no magic. "Fluff" isn't fluff. It is an important part of education.

For example, I didn't like math as a kid and didn't understand a lot of it. However, during the holidays, we were handed sheet music to learn some carols for our school holiday production and the teacher explained whole notes, half notes and quarter notes. Guess what, I figured out fractions. Who would have thought a kid could learn math while learning music.

Just teaching the kids the 3R's won't do our kids, our states, or our nation any good.

We shouldn't leave it up to the federal government to solve this, nor should we leave it to the states. We need to stand up and start locally to get this issue solved. A grass roots effort is what is going to get our kids the education that they deserve and the education that they have a right to. If your neighbor doesn't stand up for their kid, then you need to stand up for them too.

And I will agree with the teachers out there, you don't get paid enough to put up with the stuff you have to deal with. However, the person who sits behind the desk at the school district office that gets paid $300k+ to make really poor decisions needs to find a new job or get paid a whole lot less.

[Ian]

Okay, so ... the most common solution I've heard discussed in terms of privatizing the school system involves what's most often referred to as the voucher system.

Most of you probably know that the Federal Government currently spends around $60 billion on education annually. In addition, states spend around an additional $500 billion every year. And then you have to factor in the difficult to pin down expenses that individuals incur by sending their kids to private schools. At the end of the day, the U.S. as a whole probably spends close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars every year on education.

These numbers are pretty easily verifiable, so if you don't believe them just go to www.ed.gov and you can find them there.

Anyway ... the voucher system involves the government taking the money they already spend on education and distributing it out to parents in the form of an education voucher. These vouchers can then be exchanged at a for-profit educational institute of your choice for a year of schooling for your child or children.

There would be no restrictions on where you could send your child, so parents in inner cities would no longer be forced to send their children to the sub-standard public schools they attend today. They could go pretty much anywhere they wanted to.

The system would still be regulated by the Department of Education, to some degree, but individual schools would have wide lattitude to teach children through whatever methods they chose. As with all free markets, if the methods worked they'd draw more students (or "customers", if you prefer). If they methods didn't work, the school would ultimately fail and parents would opt to send their children elsewhere.

If you think about it, we already have a pretty similar system in this country with pre-schools, right? And it's worked pretty well thus far.

The benefit here is that you essentially remove any potential financial barriers that currently exist between parents and finding a good education for their kids. I mean sure ... the uber-rich would still be sending their kids to snooty, fabulously expensive prep schools, but that happens now. What would change is that the lower and lower middle class families who have no choices now, would have a choice.

And of course, since the primary motivator for these institutions to attract students is achieving top results, the current "zero accountability" system would largely disappear.

Now look ... obviously that's just a rough frame of an idea and there's probably holes in it that would need to be plugged. It's definitely not perfect, but neither is our current system ... far from it, actually. Again, this isn't any kind of political statement. I'm just a concerned parent looking for ways to improve the educational system his young children are just entering.

I don't need anyone to tell me that our educational system has been slowly but surely degrading over the last 50 years, as all the while we keep spending more and more and more trying to "fix" it. And it isn't working. And I see no signs that it's going to work. As someone else has pointed out, we've had just about an even number of Democrats and Republicans in office over the last 50 or 60 years and none of them has done anything to correct this problem.

This wasn't intended to be any kind of slam on President Obama. I'm just looking for new, creative ways to fix a very, very broken system that is failing our children ... the future of our nation ... in very, very fundamental ways. You don't have to agree with my ideas. But I would ask you to at least read them with an open mind and consider them. What can it hurt??

[Hammer]

First, Ian, great post. There is a lot of it which I do not agree with, but it is still a good post.

Flaws I find with voucher systems-

1) Transportation- Some form of government (federal or state) will need to provide a way for the inner-city kid to get to the suburban school as many who live there do not drive. A kid from Camden wouuld definitely have an issue getting to Haddonfield HS without it.

2) What I see happening is many of the schools would raise their prices to the amount of the voucher in addition to what they already charge, basically keeping out the inner-city voucher children.

I am getting ready to leave Beach Club Villas, but I'll come back later with a few more counterpoints.

[Ian]

1) Transportation- Some form of government (federal or state) will need to provide a way for the inner-city kid to get to the suburban school as many who live there do not drive. A kid from Camden wouuld definitely have an issue getting to Haddonfield HS without it.

I agree. This is a partial, but certainly not insurmountable, issue. Honestly, though, I don't see it as any serious impediment. There are any number of ways to get around it, not the least of which would be the institutions themselves offering some mode of transportation to their schools.

Think about it ... there would be a large financial incentive to do that.

2) What I see happening is many of the schools would raise their prices to the amount of the voucher in addition to what they already charge, basically keeping out the inner-city voucher children.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Since everyone would have the same vouchers, how would raising the tuition price up to the amount of the voucher keep anyone out?

I may just be misunderstanding what you're saying, though.

[Kenny1113]

Voucher system was proposed several years ago in FL, and ,if I remember correctly, voted down because it was unconstitutional.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, like I said it was several years ago. I was very dissappointed to see this did not go through.

[thrillme]

Personally I think this whole discussion is FABULOUS for both adults and kids alike. In school our kids study government and they too should have a voice in this.

Yes we as parents should be able to decide what WE feel is best but...I'm proud of the kids that have posted here with their voices. My DS is 13 and we listen to talk radio on the way home and have discussions about how WE feel about it. You can't and should hide politics from children. They are immersed in it more than ever before.

I really believe there are a LOT of tweaks that can happen in the school system as opposed to forcing the kids to stay LONGER and more days (remember this is NOT year round school he's talking about it's LONGER hours and MORE days).

[diz_girl]

I know that vouchers were mentioned to be used towards for-profit schools, but what about religious-based schools? I'm not saying that vouchers should or shouldn't be used there. I don't want to open up a can of worms bringing up religion (an Intercot no-no), but vouchers used towards religious-based schools can be construed as government funding of religious schools. This brings us to the sticky point that school vouchers being used for religious-based schools (of which I am a product) might violate the Establishment clause of the Constitution. In essence, it would give tax dollars to a religious institution, and can be interpreted as supporting the establishment of that particular religion. So this question is from a constitutional perspective, not a religious perspective.

A tax credit for tuition may circumvent this rule, but that wouldn't help the poorest of children who need better schools, whose parents don't even meet the minimum tax bracket.

But as a pp mentioned earlier, many of the problems with our educational system might go away with more parental involvement.

[Ian]

Voucher system was proposed several years ago in FL, and ,if I remember correctly, voted down because it was unconstitutional.

You are correct, although to be clear they ruled that it violated the Florida Constitution and not the U.S. Constitution.

It was also a different situation to a degree, because the voucher system was somehow being set up in addition to the existing public schools system in Florida.

So basically the Court ruled that because, " ... it set up an "alternative system" not accountable to the state, the diversion of money reduced public funds for a public education but also used public funds to provide an alternative education in private schools that are not subject to the 'uniformity' requirements for public schools," the ruling stated."

So it was more an issue with the way this particular voucher was structured that caused the Court to strike it down than it was any kind of inherent legal issue with a voucher system.

[Scar]

ETA: Never mind, Ian is faster (and more resourceful) than I.

Voucher system was proposed several years ago in FL, and ,if I remember correctly, voted down because it was unconstitutional.

Something doesn't sound quite right here. Was it voted down in the state legislature because the lawmakers felt it would not stand in the court, or was it passed and overturned by the State Supreme Court? And if so, on what basis was it deemed unconstitutional? And which constitution, US or FL.

[Ian]

I know that vouchers were mentioned to be used towards for-profit schools, but what about religious-based schools?

As long as the vouchers could be used at any religious schools (i.e. mosques, Hebrew schools, Catholic school, etc.) I see no issue with that in regards to the First Amendment.

As long as the Federal Government isn't endorsing one religion over another or discriminating somehow in terms of the distribution of funds, I think it would be fine.

[Lizzy]

2) What I see happening is many of the schools would raise their prices to the amount of the voucher in addition to what they already charge, basically keeping out the inner-city voucher children.

Ian, what I think Christine was trying to point out is that the schools would make their prices so that they could discriminate from certain students being able to attend, even with a voucher. Sure everyone would have the same voucher, but the schools would raise their prices above the amount the voucher would represent, essentially keeping out the "poorer" class

What I hope would happen would the inner city schools would start to compete with other schools so that they would gain more students, and by gaining more students gaining more money for their school.

[MNNHFLTX]

ETA: Never mind, Ian is faster (and more resourceful) than I. Something doesn't sound quite right here. Was it voted down in the state legislature because the lawmakers felt it would not stand in the court, or was it passed and overturned by the State Supreme Court? And if so, on what basis was it deemed unconstitutional? And which constitution, US or FL.

It was originally passed by Florida legislature, but eventually was eliminated after repeatedly being struck down by the state courts (the last one being the Florida Supreme Court). It was declared unconstitutional under Florida law since most of the people initially used the vouchers to attend religious schools and because it violated the tenet of the Florida Constitution requiring a uniform system of free public schools. In other words, the schools receiving funds in the form of vouchers were not required to adhere to the same standards as the state's public schools, nor were they accountable to any oversight from the state government.

Another point--vouchers were only given to students who were attending a school with a "failing" grade. Taking funds away from these schools (most of them low-income and in urban locales) was seen as potentially causing their demise, since there was no way for schools to improve their programs without the funds to do so.

[Scar]

Ian, what I think Christine was trying to point out is that the schools would make their prices so that they could discriminate from certain students being able to attend, even with a voucher. Sure everyone would have the same voucher, but the schools would raise their prices above the amount the voucher would represent, essentially keeping out the "poorer" class

But why would they. If there were two competing supermarkets, one isn't going to charge unreasonably higher prices just to "keep a certain class out". They'd be shooting themselves in the foot because everyone would shop at the cheaper store.

[Lizzy]

While I don't agree that this is right or fair or even completly founded but


For the same reason Obama doesn't send his girls to a high end private school. He could send his daughters to any school in the country he wanted to, but did he choose to send them to a school with inner city students or did he send them to a school with students who also come from a wealthy background? There are certain classes of people in this country that want to keep their kids within a certain class. They discriminate against people with less household income.

Again, I do not agree with this thinking, but it is a harsh reality in this country.

[Ian]

Ian, what I think Christine was trying to point out is that the schools would make their prices so that they could discriminate from certain students being able to attend, even with a voucher. Sure everyone would have the same voucher, but the schools would raise their prices above the amount the voucher would represent, essentially keeping out the "poorer" class.

No, I'm not saying this right, I guess. If you're a school in the voucher system, you accept a voucher. Period. They're all redeemable from the government for the exact same amount.

If you don't agree to allow students to attend your school in exchange for a voucher, you're considered a private school where parents have to pay full, out-of-pocket tuition.

But why would they. If there were two competing supermarkets, one isn't going to charge unreasonably higher prices just to "keep a certain class out". They'd be shooting themselves in the foot because everyone would shop at the cheaper store.

Well yeah ... that, too. Schools would be incented to accept as many students as they could handle and still maintain quality results.

Now where you could run into an issue is if schools tried to keep out poorer performing students in order to try and keep their test scores up. You'd have to have some kind of equal opportunity policy they needed to operate under that required them to accept a broad range of students in order to qualify as a voucher school.