If everyone had school vouchers...

[snafu]

Our DKs H/school is excellent. Teachers there often win awards for creating, developing, delivering innovative programs. A significant number of students are new Canadians whose families demand marks in the top 10 % of not only their school - but the whole district. Their kids win nearly all the school awards - academic, sports, business linked events/contests. I've noticed that kids who can't keep up tend to transfer to a school with lower ratings [open enrollment system].

Our Catholic School Board runs parallel with the public system, municipal tax based, not tuition based. There are several other religious affilliated schools that are tax based academically but tution based to pay for religious events, instructional staff and transportation.

Private HS has a hard time recruiting students in our city. They get kids whose parents need to board their kids, or have security issues, or social climbers and kids whose parents use 'who you know, not what you know' theme. The latest promo said they have a 1:15 teacher: student ratio.

[disneysteve]

The point of the poll posted, is if you as a parent were given vouchers, what choice would you make?

If a parent truely had a choice, which parent would not research the stats from neighboring schools and make the "better" choice for their child based on that research?

The poll is rhetorical in the sense that each and every school is uniquely different. The poll responses would therefore vary, according to the local characteristics of those schools.

This was already alluded to in DS's post. He sends his daughter to a public school in NJ; would he do the same if he lived in the OPs residence facing the their schools? Would he do the same yet again, if he had vouchers and could now legally choose the "better" school?

Very good point. We are all answering based on the schools that exist where we are. I happen to live where there are good schools. That isn't an accident, of course. We chose our house based largely on the school district.

If we were poor and lived in a neighborhood with crappy schools and had the opportunity to send our kid to better schools nearby, of course we would do that. Of coure, if we were poor and lived in a crappy neighborhood, we might not have the attitude that we currently have and might not care so much about the quality of her education (which is part of why those schools are crappy in the first place).

[FrugalFish]

We live in the best district in our area- which is saying next to nothing. DD is only 3, but we will try the public system with the idea that we can change things if it doesn't work out. I voted for a private school- based on local characteristics of education.

My DH has worked with a lot of young people who grew up in this area. I am horrified at the experiences they relate about high school. There's no way I could leave my daughter to suffer through that type of experience. Thinking the schools are better because we live on the "good" side of town is a misnomer as well- one guy corrected me that there are more drugs where the kids have more money (and their parents have commuted off for a 14-16 hour work day).

[zetta]

I'll argue til the day I die that where you go to school isn't nearly as critical as your willingness to learn. I'm a product of an urban public school system that had a pretty bad reputation. The teachers were good for those who wished to learn. I also learned how to deal with people of all types and how to deal with adversity. Private or "better" schools sometimes eliminate the need for people to handle difficult life situations which at some point most of us have to deal with. It's a myth that teachers in poor school districts don't care. It's the willingness of the student and the support of the parent(s) that makes the difference.

I agree that a student who is very internally motivated will succeed just about anywhere, and a student who is completely unmotivated may fail in even the best environment. But what happens to the average kids in the middle? They'll tend to float to the average of what is happening around them -- and this is likely to be better in a good school district than a bad one.

I attended a district that could be described as crushingly average. There was no violence, the school was well kept, the majority managed to graduate, but there was no push to get students (of any level) to reach their potential. I was a very bright kid and practically begged some of my teachers (a geometry/calculus teacher in particular) to give me more academic challenges, but I was told, "We teach to the average." I don't know if my kids will be average or bright, but I want more for them than that complacent attitude.

[Seeker]

We live in the best district in our area- which is saying next to nothing. DD is only 3, but we will try the public system with the idea that we can change things if it doesn't work out. I voted for a private school- based on local characteristics of education.

My DH has worked with a lot of young people who grew up in this area. I am horrified at the experiences they relate about high school. There's no way I could leave my daughter to suffer through that type of experience. Thinking the schools are better because we live on the "good" side of town is a misnomer as well- one guy corrected me that there are more drugs where the kids have more money (and their parents have commuted off for a 14-16 hour work day).

California ranks #46th nationally. Not to say that many schools are better; but unfortunately, some are worse. Both DH & I agreed many years ago before we married, that if we were to have children, we'd have to move to another state and get other jobs before any of our children became school aged.

I've seen too many High Schools surrounded by Police cars and know too much about things that have happened. A quite intelligent High School 12th grade male, stabbed, not too seriously, but he never went back to school to get his diploma.... and this was one of the so called "better" schools. He went on to self study and then finally college.

Teachers teach to the average... and hope that the intelligent shoot themselves beyond that average and hope that the slow ones do not also get frustrated.

Many teachers in public schools will work with the slow or the very intelligent; but it needs to be done on the side. When I went to HS, I was actually bussed to an elementary school to help third graders learn to read, write and spell English. They paid minimum wage for several of us to do this.

And I know of some elementary schools that back then, would actually set aside the quicker learners and move them to a smaller classroon with another teacher and encouraged to move ahead with the better tools available above their class standings. I do not know if this is still happening though.

[Seeker]

Very good point. We are all answering based on the schools that exist where we are. I happen to live where there are good schools. That isn't an accident, of course. We chose our house based largely on the school district.

If we were poor and lived in a neighborhood with crappy schools and had the opportunity to send our kid to better schools nearby, of course we would do that. Of coure, if we were poor and lived in a crappy neighborhood, we might not have the attitude that we currently have and might not care so much about the quality of her education (which is part of why those schools are crappy in the first place).

Yes, and NJ is ranked #6 nationally. If you guys didn't live in humidville in the Summer and thunderstorms the like of dropping 12 inches of rain in an hour, I might someday go back there.

Many "poor" parents are concerned with the quality of their children's education or lack thereof. Many many of them want their children's life to be better than their own struggles. Unfortunately, the school choice is not always available.

My folks did try to get us children into nearby "Catholic" schools.... but they were filled up and had unrealistic waiting lists. We all had to make do with public education.

You are also correct that some parents do not care about the quality of education ; they use the schools as essentially a day-care center. Many of these parents have their own problems... and that's part of the children's problem too. Real life intrudes on the children's lives with these type of parents too.

Unfortunately because California is a huge mixture of cultures and attitudes and both the rich and the poor exist here, this state will always be way behind the curve in education. Even in the rich areas, teachers contend with drugged students, smoking, a severe attitude issue, etc.

There's something everywhere.

[disneysteve]

California is a huge mixture of cultures and attitudes and both the rich and the poor exist here

Both the richest per capita town and the poorest per capita town in the US are in NJ, less than 60 miles apart. We may not be as big as California but we are just as diverse.

[Goldy1]

WE live in a great school district which is better rated than any nearby so I would stay put. However, by the time my baby gets to school who knows what could change?

[snafu]

There are huge changes taking place in the education system in Washington, DC, which has a history of placing dead last in every and all American educational ranking systems. Chancellor Rhee has agreement of the powerful teacher's union to return the hiring/firing of school staff to principals instead of defaulting to seniority. She refuses to allow adult issues cause kids to be denied the education they deserve.

Students who exceed 80% per quarter are eligible for [banked] money awards. That is something every kid understands and it is a powerful motivator. Will it work? Nearly every initiative in DCPS has failed in the past. Change is difficult and there are dozens of competing agendas.

[FrugalFish]

California ranks #46th nationally.

Wow, are we that high up the list? I thought the last I heard we were closer to 49. Throw in that CA spends more per student on public education than any other state, and it's just sad- even at #46.

I often think about moving out of CA as DD gets closer to school age. Then I wonder where we would go, and also have the guilt of leaving our parents behind as they are getting older.

[AsiaTraveler]

And I know of some elementary schools that back then, would actually set aside the quicker learners and move them to a smaller classroon with another teacher and encouraged to move ahead with the better tools available above their class standings. I do not know if this is still happening though.

I know that the elementary school I attended in NJ did away with "graded classrooms" for reading and math when I was in high school. As someone who had highly benefited from being able to be tracked with peers who were at my level, I actually said something about it to the principal. Alas, all the "latest research" indicated that kids do better on average in a mixed classroom because the more advanced can help the less advanced. However, I believe that, while, on average, more kids do better, the highest level students are actually held back in that arrangement.

[disneysteve]

I know that the elementary school I attended in NJ did away with "graded classrooms" for reading and math when I was in high school. As someone who had highly benefited from being able to be tracked with peers who were at my level, I actually said something about it to the principal. Alas, all the "latest research" indicated that kids do better on average in a mixed classroom because the more advanced can help the less advanced. However, I believe that, while, on average, more kids do better, the highest level students are actually held back in that arrangement.

I'm a product of the AT (academically talented)/MG (mentally gifted) program in the Philadelphia public schools in the 70s and 80s. It was an excellent program. At that time, the schools had special programs in place to handle the more advanced students. It started in elementary school and continued on through high school with MG English and MG Math classes.

Now, everybody is mainstreamed. no more slow class for kids needing some extra attention, average class and advanced class for the kids that zipped through the regular material. Now everyone is lumped together. It probably benefits nobody. The slow kids get lost because they aren't getting the special attention. The advanced kids get bored because they aren't being challenged. The average kids get distracted by the slow kids and the advanced kids.

[GREENBACK]

Now, everybody is mainstreamed. no more slow class for kids needing some extra attention, average class and advanced class for the kids that zipped through the regular material. Now everyone is lumped together. It probably benefits nobody. The slow kids get lost because they aren't getting the special attention. The advanced kids get bored because they aren't being challenged. The average kids get distracted by the slow kids and the advanced kids.

This modern philosophy that everyone is the same is highly flawed. Kids aren't the same and shouldn't be lumped together. The whole idea that nobody fails and that we shouldn't keep score in children's sports programs, and nobody loses anymore is stupid and, by the way, the kids do keep score whether the adults do or not. We should guide children along based on their individual talents

[disneysteve]

This modern philosophy that everyone is the same is highly flawed. Kids aren't the same and shouldn't be lumped together. The whole idea that nobody fails and that we shouldn't keep score in children's sports programs, and nobody loses anymore is stupid and, by the way, the kids do keep score whether the adults do or not. We should guide children along based on their individual talents

Yes. I'm afraid we are raising a generation of kids who don't know failure. They also don't know success. They are being raised to strive for mediocrity. Every kid who plays gets a trophy. Everyone who goes out for the school play gets a part. Anybody who wants to sing in choir can, regardless of their ability.

When these kids get out in the real world where people are judged on performance, they will have major culture shock.

[Well Spent]

I'll argue til the day I die that where you go to school isn't nearly as critical as your willingness to learn. I'm a product of an urban public school system that had a pretty bad reputation. The teachers were good for those who wished to learn. I also learned how to deal with people of all types and how to deal with adversity. Private or "better" schools sometimes eliminate the need for people to handle difficult life situations which at some point most of us have to deal with. It's a myth that teachers in poor school districts don't care. It's the willingness of the student and the support of the parent(s) that makes the difference.

I agree. This is where nurturing families come in. More money doesn't = better. Kids who are read to at home as toddlers, taken to library, given their own library card, and have their own study cubicle at home, along with an encouraging, interested parent, will succeed in Manhattan or Mattapan.

Kids in wealthy towns are often too sheltered and don't learn how to get along in the world. Being naive at 12 or 18 can be downright dangerous.